ID: 16958.drn

Mr. Richard L. England
Director of Finance and Operations
Lick-Wilmerding High School
755 Ocean Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94112

Dear Mr. England:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a Ford dealership can remove two seats from a new passenger van, before first sale to the customer, so that the van would no longer be classified as a bus. The response is yes, but if the Ford dealership does so, it is responsible for certifying that the altered vehicle meets the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles.

Some background information may be helpful in understanding our regulations. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress amended this statute (then called the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) to direct NHTSA to issue FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold to transport children to or from school or school-related events. The Act requires that when a dealer sells or leases a new "bus" (a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a school, that bus must be a certified school bus.

If a dealer permanently reduces the seating capacity of a bus to fewer than 11, the modified vehicle would no longer be a "bus." Because the dealer would not be selling a bus, the requirement to sell a school bus would not apply. However, a dealer modifying a vehicle in this manner would have other responsibilities as an "alterer" under our regulations (49 CFR 567.7). The dealer would be changing the vehicle's classification from "bus" to "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) and would have to certify that the vehicle meets NHTSA's safety standards for MPVs. I am, for your information, enclosing a copy of an April 2, 1996 interpretation letter to Sgt. Stephan C. Turner of the Michigan State Police, that addresses two hypothetical situations where a dealer changes the number of seats in a passenger van.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture, sale and lease of new vehicles (including MPVs and school buses), this agency does not regulate used vehicles, or the use of vehicles. Therefore, how students are to be transported to and from school or school-related activities is determined by

State law. This is because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of motor vehicles. However, use of vehicles other than school buses could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might wish to consult with your school's attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus standards is the safest way to transport students. I encourage your school to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with the school bus standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:571.3#VSA
d.4/8/98

ID: 16959-1.pja

Mr. Kenneth Mannen
Hesse, Inc.
6700 Saint John Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64123

Dear Mr. Mannen:

This responds to your facsimile requesting an interpretation of whether the beverage delivery trailers your company manufactures are excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. As explained below, two of these trailer designs are excluded, but one design is not. An underride guard complying with our regulations would have to be supplied for that one design.

From the drawings you sent, it appears that all three types of beverage delivery trailers are segmented, with 40-52 inch wide doors on the sides that slide up and down, providing access to the stacked beverages. They differ mainly at the rear. Thank you for clarifying certain aspects of your trailer construction during a June 11, 1998 telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff. The different trailer designs are addressed separately, below.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are wheels-back vehicles, special purpose vehicles, and low chassis vehicles.

Single Axle Beverage Delivery Trailer

The single axle trailer has the rearmost surface of its rear wheel currently located 12 to 13 inches forward of the rear of the rearmost point on the trailer bumper. You believe that this design is excluded if you assure that the rear wheel is 12 inches or less forward of the bumper by reducing the depth of the rear bumper or by moving the axle back. However you ask if it is necessary to alter your design to comply. Because the distance between the front of the bumper assembly and the rear tire is only 5 inches, you reason that the bumper could move forward only that distance before contacting the rear wheel and stopping.

Wheels-back vehicles, excluded by S3 of FMVSS No. 224, are defined in S4 as a "trailer or semitrailer whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located such that the rearmost surface of [the tire] on that axle is not more than 305 mm forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle." One relevant issue is whether the rear wheels are permanently fixed. The axles on your trailer do appear to be fixed, because the beverage bay located a few inches in front of the trailer cannot be moved. Another question is whether the rear surface of the rear wheels is within 305 mm (12 inches) of the trailer rear extremity. In your drawing, the rear wheels are within 12 inches of the rear of the bumper, so we assume these are excluded as wheels-back vehicles. However, your letter mentions that some of your trailers have rear wheels more than 12 inches forward of the trailer rear extremity ("distance from the rear of the tire to the back of the bumper of between 12 & 13 inches"). These vehicles would not be excluded as wheels-back, and a compliant guard would have to be provided.

The fact that the bumper could move only 5 inches forward during a crash does not change this analysis. While it is true, in the event of a crash, your trailers have the bumper mounting assembly between the colliding vehicle and the rear tires, the language of the standard does not create an exception for this situation. The exclusions in Standard No. 224 are generally designed for trailers for which guards are either unnecessary or impractical. Most wheels-back vehicles do not have the full-width, low bumper-type assembly that you provide. As you observe in your letter, you could relocate the axle rearward slightly, or decrease slightly the depth of the bumper and these vehicles would then be considered wheels-back. Another option is to certify your existing bumper, which appears to meet the configuration requirements of Standard Nos. 223 and 224, as a compliant guard, after assuring yourself that it also meets the other requirements of those standards.

Tandem axle beverage delivery trailer

This trailer has a beverage storage bay behind the rear tandems. The rear bumper on this trailer is mounted to the back of the rear storage bay at a height of 15 to 17 inches above the ground. There is a horizontal structural member made of extruded aluminum 2.5 by 6.5 inches in thickness running longitudinally on each side of the trailer at the bottom of the rear storage bay. There is also a horizontal structural crossmember of the same stock that connects, across the back of the trailer, the rear of these longitudinal structural members. This transverse structural member is supported in the center by a cross member extending diagonally down and to the rear, between the main frame rails of the trailer and the rear bumper/bulkhead. It is also supported by gussets attached to the main frame rails. The bottom of this transverse structural member is also 15 to 17 inches above the ground. You believe that this design is excluded because it meets the definition of a low chassis vehicle.

Low chassis vehicles are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. The only part of your trailer that may meet these configuration requirements is the transverse structural member under the floor of the rear storage bay. Therefore, the question becomes whether this structural member is considered to be part of the "chassis" of the vehicle. Chassis is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure."

To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit.

To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. Moveable components may "lock" into the frame structure sufficiently that they are integral with other frame members-in this situation NHTSA may consider the combined components to be one frame unit. However, the agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load.

Applying these principles to the transverse structural member at the bottom of your rear storage bay, we conclude that it is part of the chassis. The member underlies the rear storage bay and supports the beverages in that bay, so it is considered load supporting. It is also frame structure. The member is similar in size, and presumably in strength, with the other frame members. The member conforms with and helps to define the outline of the trailer. It is connected to the other frame members at least as strongly as the other storage bays, and likely more strongly, considering the diagonal member and the gussets. Therefore, we conclude that the member is part of the chassis, and the trailer is a low chassis vehicle, excluded from the underride guard requirements.

Tandem axle convertible beverage delivery trailer

This trailer is similar to the tandem axle trailer, with one major difference being that the rear bay loads from the rear instead of from the side. Another difference is that the rear compartment also does not extend downward as far on this design as it does on the tandem axle trailer. The bottom of the rear compartment is at the level of the frame rails, a few feet above the ground, instead of extending down to the 15 to 17 inch level. There are vertical structural members made of 6 inch channel in the rear corners of the trailer, forming the rear outside edges of the rear compartment. These channel members, as well as two vertical supports of rectangular tubing located farther inboard, extend downward below the bottom of the rear compartment, to within 14 to 20 inches of the ground. All of these vertical structural members are connected at the bottom across the back of the trailer by a transverse horizontal member composed of 5 inch high by 2.5 inch deep extruded aluminum tubing. This tubing resembles the horizontal member of a conventional underride guard. You state that you are not sure if this design is excluded.

Applying the same analysis as we applied to the tandem axle trailer, we conclude that this trailer is not a low chassis vehicle. The only part of the vehicle that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.3 is the transverse horizontal member, so that would have to be considered to be part of the chassis for the vehicle to be excluded. This member hangs down from the rear of the trailer and forms no part of the rear compartment. Therefore, it fails the load supporting aspect of the definition. Consequently, it is not part of the chassis and the tandem convertible trailer is not excluded as a low chassis vehicle.

You asked if the addition of a "rail lift gate" to the rear of the convertible trailer would affect the compliance status of this trailer design. We assume you are asking this because you think the liftgate might result in the vehicle meeting the definition of an excluded "special purpose vehicle." A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ The liftgate meets the agency's definition of work performing equipment. However, it is our understanding that most rail-type liftgates stow high on the vehicle's rear end and move entirely rearward of the rear extremity. If this is the case, the liftgate would not occupy the area designated for the guard, at least not during transit. Therefore, even if equipped with a rail-type liftgate, the vehicle would not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. Because no other exclusions apply, this trailer would need to be equipped with a compliant rear underride guard.

We cannot provide a specific opinion on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that the transverse piece of rectangular tubing already appears to meet the configurational requirements for an underride guard. If it does not currently meet the strength and energy absorption requirements, you might be able to reinforce or otherwise modify the vertical supports sufficiently so that it would pass these requirements. If you can do this, the transverse horizontal member itself could be labeled and certified as a guard under Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards. Perhaps this solution would work for you. However, we emphasize that it is you, as the vehicle manufacturer, who is responsible for the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If you have difficulty meeting these requirements, the agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note that Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:224
d.8/24/98

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. An unnecessary reference to pipe equipment containing hazardous materials was eliminated. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: 17022.wkm

Mr. Craig L. Nearman
Quality Control Manager
Load King
Post Office Box 427
Rose & Elm Streets
Elk Point, SD 57025

Dear Mr. Nearman:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your fax to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the dolly and booster on a heavy-haul trailer would be required to be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems (copy attached). The answer is no.

You enclosed a picture and drawings of the equipment you were referring to depicting a large trailer carrying a large earth mover. The trailer was equipped with a dolly on the front end and a booster on the back end, both presumably to help support the load on the trailer. You stated that the trailer has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 164,920 pounds, the dolly a GVWR of 67,320 pounds and the booster a GVWR of 46,760 pounds. You stated that the trailer is excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121 because it exceeds 120,000 pounds. You were unsure, however, about the status of the dolly and the booster.

Standard No. 121 applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Among other things, however, it does not apply to "any load divider dolly" (see S3(g) of Standard No. 121). "Load divider dolly" is defined in S4 as:

[A] trailer composed of a trailer chassis and one or more axles, with no solid bed, body, or container attached, and which is designed exclusively to support a portion of the load on a trailer or truck excluded from all the requirements of this standard.

It is clear from the picture and the drawings that you sent that both the front end dolly and the rear end "booster" meet the definition of "load divider dolly" and are therefore excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121. Both are composed of a trailer chassis with no bed, body, or container attached; both have multiple axles; and both were designed exclusively to support the load on a trailer, assuming that the trailer itself is excluded from the requirements of the standard (see discussion on page 2). The wording of the definition does not restrict such support to only the front end. The support can be provided to any portion of the load, whether front or back.

A trailer is excluded from the standard if it has:

[A] GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds and whose body conforms to that described in the definition of heavy hauler trailer set forth in S4 (emphasis added).

"Heavy hauler trailer" is defined in S4 as:

[A] trailer which has one or more of the following characteristics, but which is not a container chassis trailer:

(1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or

(2) It s body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent "front end structure" as that term is used in 393.106 of [Title 49, CFR]. (NOTE: A copy of 49 CFR 393.106 is enclosed)

Since your trailer exceeds the 120,000 pound GVWR, it would be excluded from the provisions of Standard No. 121 if it also meets either of the characteristics of a heavy hauler trailer set forth above.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ref: #121
d.4\29\98

ID: 17026.drn

Mr. William Shima
Publicita
1090 W. Pender St., Suite 600
Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 2N7
CANADA

Dear Mr. Shima:

This responds to your January 22, 1998, request for confirmation that this agency's

February 7, 1984, interpretation that the Mercedes-Benz Unimog is not a motor vehicle has not changed. Without information about the Unimog as sold in 1998, I am unable to do so.

As you may be aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are promulgated. NHTSA's statute defines "motor vehicle" as follows:

Any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Whether the agency considers any vehicle to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. Certain types of vehicles are not considered "motor vehicles." These include vehicles which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. Vehicles which frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, are "motor vehicles," since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

The February 1984 interpretation letter was based on the then-existing Unimog, fourteen years ago. NHTSA has no information about the features of the 1998 Unimog, or whether the Unimog has significantly changed since 1984. Therefore, if you wish NHTSA to reexamine whether the Unimog is a motor vehicle, please provide us with information about the Unimog's features, as it is sold in 1998. We would need information about the configuration of the 1998 Unimog, and its top speed. As stated in our February 1984 interpretation letter, we would need to know whether the Unimogs are still marketed principally through farm machinery and heavy equipment dealers, and whether the vehicle would have affixed in the cab a label stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use.

Please note also that any opinion NHTSA provides on the Unimog affects new Unimogs sold in the United States only. Transport Canada would determine whether Unimogs sold in Canada are considered motor vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.2/27/98

ID: 17028.ztv

Mr. Gary Starr
Managing Director
ZAP Electric Bikes
117 Morris Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472

Dear Mr. Starr:

This is in reply to your letter of January 21, 1998, asking for an interpretation that "three devices are not motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for purposes of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration."

You have described these devices as follows:

"Device 1: ZAP Power System

The Zap power system is a kit that is sold to electrify a bicycle or tricycle. It is sold by ZAP alone and is not part of a transaction involving the sale of a bicycle or tricycle."

We have previously advised you that a bicycle with a power assist is a motor vehicle if the vehicle is capable of traveling without the input of muscular power. On the other hand, if a bicycle with power assist cannot travel without the input of muscular power, it will not be considered a motor vehicle.

The statute that defines "motor vehicle equipment" is 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30102(a)(7). This definition includes "(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured." If combining the ZAP power system and a bicycle creates a motor vehicle under our previous interpretations, then the ZAP power assist would appear to be "motor vehicle equipment" under the statutory definition. Moreover, in that case, the individual or entity that made the combination would be considered the manufacturer of the motor vehicle, and would be required to assure that the vehicle complied with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at that time, and issue a certification that the vehicle so complied. On the other hand, the ZAP power system would not be motor vehicle equipment if the bicycle cannot travel without the input of muscular power despite the presence of the power assist.

"Device 2: ZAP Bicycle

Bicycles manufactured by ZAP are similar to the bicycles manufactured by the Electric Transportation Company (ETC). These bicycles are bicycles with a power assist and must be pedaled to activate the motor and therefore the pedal assist system will not operate on its own in the absence of muscular effort."

Your letter is not clear as to whether the power assist system is sufficient to power the bicycle without any further input of muscular power once muscular power has started the power assist system. As we have advised, if the pedal assist system will not operate on its own in the absence of muscular effort (after it may have been started by muscular power), the bicycle on which it is installed will not be deemed to be a "motor vehicle" subject to the regulations of this agency. On the basis of the information you have provided, the ZAP Bicycle would not appear to be a "motor vehicle" since it cannot be driven exclusively by mechanical power.

"Device 3: Zappy

The Zappy is an electric powered device that is similar to the TWIP scooter in which it has a maximum speed of 14 mph, has an abnormal configuration, that is, it has no seat, and folds down flat to make it portable."

We agree that the Zappy appears similar to the TWIP, which was described as having a maximum top speed of about 9 miles per hour, and a driver's seat that folded down apparently to make the scooter more portable. On October 5, 1993, we advised the prospective importer of the TWIP, Bernhard Peer, that the TWIP met the criteria we use to exclude certain vehicles from regulation, For similar reasons, we do not consider the Zappy to be a "motor vehicle."

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.5/22/98

ID: 1703y

Ms. Theresa Rooney
Alpine Electronics of America, Inc.
l00 North Centre Avenue
Rockville Centre, NY ll570

Dear Ms. Rooney:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that it is your understanding that any car sound system which is factory installed must have light intensities that have two values, a higher one for day and a lower one for night; that these two light intensities do not have to be variable; and that any color may be used to illuminate the system. You asked for confirmation of this understanding. As discussed below, Standard No. l0l's requirements in this area are somewhat more flexible than suggested by your letter.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The requirements of Standard No. l0l that are relevant to car sound systems are set forth in section S5.3.5. That section states:

S5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (ll0.6 mm) rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated.

With respect to car sound systems, section S5.3.5's requirements can be summarized as follows. First, the requirements generally apply to any car sound system that is installed in a motor vehicle before its first sale to a consumer and that includes a source of illumination which is forward of the driver. Second, the section requires that any such source of illumination have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. No color requirements are specified for the source of illumination of a car sound system.

I would note that, at the option of the manufacturer, motor vehicles manufactured before September l, l989, may comply with the requirements of Standard No. l00 instead of the requirements of Standard No. l0l. This provision is of relevance for some, but not all, car sound systems, and only for vehicles manufactured before September l, l989. If you desire further information about this provision, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:101 d:3/7/89

ID: 17040.ztv

Mr. Pat Riebalkin
Production Manager
Gorlan Trailer Fairing Inc.
112-A
12827 76th Avenue
Surrey, B.C. V3W 2V3
Canada

Dear Mr. Riebalkin:

This is in response to your letter of December 23, 1997, to this Office requesting "an official letter identifying the national regulations regarding conspicuity marking or lighting for our aerodynamic freight trailer fairing." Your company markets and sells fairings to trailer dealerships, who in turn, install them at their facilities, using their employees. The fairing is suspended one inch below the bottom of the trailer bed. You report that when the fairing is in place, it does not cover conspicuity marking or marker lamps. However, when the fairing is raised, it obscures the marker lamps and some conspicuity tape.

You have asked four specific questions:

"1. Do we need to add lights or conspicuity tape to our fairing?"

The answer is no. Under the applicable law that this agency enforces, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, Gorlan would be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, but Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not apply to equipment such as trailer fairings. If the dealer attaches the fairing to the trailer before its first sale, the dealer must ensure that the trailer continues to comply with Standard No. 108 before he sells the trailer. If the dealer installs the fairing on a trailer in use, it must ensure that its modifications do not make inoperative the trailer's original lighting equipment when the installation is completed. In essence, this means that the vehicle must remain in compliance when the installation is completed. Compliance is judged with a motor vehicle in its normal operating configuration (e.g., doors and decklid closed). When the fairing is in its intended operating configuration, you have indicated that the trailer continues to conform to Standard No. 108. Therefore, no additional lamps or tapes appear required for conformance purposes.

Even if a trailer did not conform when the fairing is in use, the responsibility for bringing it into, or retaining, conformity with Standard No. 108 would lie with the trailer dealer who installs the fairing, and not with the fairing manufacturer.

"2. Can we add reflectors for aesthetics?"

A trailer dealer may sell a trailer equipped with a fairing carrying "reflectors for aesthetics" if the reflectors do not impair the effectiveness of equipment required by Standard No. 108. In addition to the red and white segments of conspicuity tape, Standard No. 108 requires amber side marker lamps and reflectors to the front (and in the center if the trailer is 30 feet or more in overall length) and red side marker lamps and reflectors to the rear. We believe that effectiveness of side lighting devices is best preserved if the reflectors which Gorlan is contemplating installing are amber from the trailer midpoint forward, and red to the rear of the midpoint. This will prevent confusion to observers approaching the trailer from the side.

As noted earlier, a dealer may not install a fairing on a trailer in use if it makes inoperative the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Because of the possibility of confusion (making the required reflectors and lamps "inoperative"), we believe that Gorlan's fairing reflectors should be amber from the midpoint forward, and red to the rear of the midpoint.

"3. Because this fairing will hang one inch below the trailer floor beams, will we need to replace any side marker lights that get removed? Should the light be then placed onto the trailer or the fairing? If an arrow lamp is removed can it be replaced with a DOT approved reflex side marker lamp?"

Yes, the trailer dealer will have to replace any side marker lamps that are removed in the course of installing the fairing, and the lamp should be installed on the trailer. Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that any side marker lamp or reflector required by the standard must "be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle . . . that is not designed to be removed except for repair. . . ." The fairing is an accessory, added to the completed trailer and presumably as easily removed as added. We therefore do not consider the fairing to be a part of the vehicle not designed to be removed except for repair.

We are not sure what an "arrow lamp" is, but if it is a lamp required by Standard No. 108, it may be replaced in the same location and orientation by one performing the same function that bears a DOT certification mark on it (which does not signify "DOT approval" but is a mark of the manufacturer certifying that the lamp meets Standard No. 108's performance requirements).

"4. How do the Federal Motor Carrier Standards govern in respect to this type of product?"

The Motor Carrier Standards of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) apply to trailers in commercial use in interstate commerce. One intent of FHWA's standards is to ensure that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards continue to be met when a vehicle subject to its jurisdiction is in use. Therefore, the FHWA would also permit the fairing under the same performance conditions as we do: although the fairing may obscure lamps and conspicuity marking when a trailer is not being operated, when the trailer is in use, it must continue to show the conspicuity tape and marker lamps and reflectors, and in the same locations, as required by the NHTSA standards.

If you have any questions, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/8/98

ID: 17056niv.df

Patrick M. Raher, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109

Dear Mr. Raher:

This responds to your letter on behalf of your client, Sachs Automotive of America (Sachs), concerning how NHTSA would test vehicles equipped with Sachs's "Nivomat" vehicle leveling system to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, "Side Impact Protection." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain that Sachs's Nivomat leveling system is-

a compact, fully enclosed suspension unit that takes the place of a conventional shock absorber and assures a level ride to manufacturer specifications, even when the vehicle is fully loaded. . . . [T]he Nivomat senses the vehicle's load condition and levels the vehicle to the manufacturer's specification shortly after the vehicle is loaded and driven for a short distance (at most, 3 miles). . . .

The Nivomat is activated by relative motion between the vehicle's body and axle. Thus, as you state, the vehicle has to be driven (or otherwise bounced to achieve the relative motion between body and axle) to activate the Nivomat, to level the vehicle and to maintain the level height. The Nivomat is designed to maintain the manufacturer's ride height specification for the duration of the trip. When the vehicle is stationary for 4 hours, it will begin to lose its leveled condition. The Nivomat would be activated again when the vehicle is driven for a distance not exceeding 3 miles.

With regard to Standard 214 compliance testing, you believe that NHTSA should test vehicles equipped with Nivomat at "optimal vehicle attitude," i.e., with the Nivomat activated. You state that while testing at optimal vehicle attitude may not be required by the standard, you believe that NHTSA should test at this attitude because that "would ensure that the test vehicle is most reflective of real world situations in conformance with established NHTSA policy."

In asking about Standard 214, you note that NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation which you believe supports your position that vehicles should be tested at the optimal vehicle attitude. In an October 2, 1990, letter to Mr. Kadoya of Mazda, NHTSA discussed the issue of how compliance is determined in situations where a standard does not specify a particular test condition. The letter addressed Mazda's questions about how NHTSA would test vehicles equipped with an active suspension system that adjusts vehicles to variable heights.⁽¹⁾ At issue were standards that do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during compliance tests. NHTSA stated on page two of the letter:

In cases where a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we believe there are several relevant factors to consider in interpreting the standard. First, in the absence of a specification of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. For example, where a standard does not specify suspension height, its requirements may need to be met at all heights to which the suspension can be adjusted. Before reaching such a conclusion, however, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes. Even if a standard is silent as to a particular test condition, the language of the standard or its purposes may indicate limitations on such test condition. Finally, in situations where a limitation on a particular test condition may appear to be appropriate, we also must consider whether the limitation is sufficiently clear, both with respect to justification and specificity, to be appropriate for interpretation. For example, in a situation where it may appear to be reasonable to limit a particular test condition but it is not obvious what particular limitation should be adopted, it would be inappropriate to select a particular limitation by interpretation. Instead, such a decision should be reached in rulemaking.

You believe that the purpose of Standard 214 is to protect occupants during side impact collisions, which occur during operation of the vehicle. You also believe that during vehicle operation, the Nivomat system levels the vehicle to the manufacturer's specified optimal operational height. You therefore conclude that vehicle equipped with the Nivomat should be tested with the Nivomat activated to reflect real world situations. You ask (1) whether NHTSA agrees with this position, and (2) for the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of Standard 214, whether your suggested means of maintaining the optimal vehicle attitude would be satisfactory to NHTSA.

Standard 214 specifies requirements for protection of occupants in side impact crashes. The standard requires each vehicle to protect its occupants in a full scale dynamic crash test. Even though the test vehicle is at rest, the test procedure simulates a crash of a vehicle which is traveling at 30 miles per hour (mph) into the side of the test vehicle traveling at 15 mph. There also is a static test that requires doors to resist a piston pressing a rigid steel cylinder inward against the door. While the standard specifies a number of test conditions for these tests, it does not specify vehicle operational height.⁽²⁾

The Mazda letter addressed frontal, side and other impacts, to the extent these are incorporated into Standards 204, 208, 212, 219 and 301. NHTSA concluded that the frontal test requirements of these standards need to be met only at the suspension heights that can occur at the speed used in the crash test (generally speeds up to 30 mph), even though the requirements have relevance at higher and lower speeds. The letter also determined that Standard 208's lateral moving barrier crash test requirements must be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational, i.e., at all vehicle heights that can occur during vehicle operation, regardless of speed. This is because Standard 208 specifies that the lateral moving barrier test is conducted with the vehicle at rest. Thus, the standard's evaluation of this aspect of safety performance is not limited to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds (e.g., speeds up to 30 mph). For basically the same reason, NHTSA also concluded that Standard 301's side and rear moving barrier crash tests would have to be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational.

With respect to your inquiry and Standard 214, applying the language of the standard and the principles and conclusions of the Mazda letter leads us to conclude that crash testing of vehicles equipped with the Nivomat would be performed with the vehicle at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle traveling at a 15 mph vehicle speed. In issuing the dynamic side impact requirements of Standard 214, the agency decided to limit the standard's evaluation of occupant crash protection in side impacts to how vehicles perform in impacts between a vehicle traveling 15 mph (the test vehicle) and a striking vehicle traveling 30 mph. A vehicle equipped with the Nivomat could attain a speed of 15 mph before traveling the distance that is needed to activate the Nivomat, and could become involved in a side impact crash before activation of the Nivomat. Thus, while we agree that a vehicle could be tested to Standard 214 with the Nivomat activated, we also conclude that NHTSA should not exclude testing of the vehicle without activating the Nivomat. Testing a vehicle both prior to and after activation best ensures that the vehicle would provide the requisite level of safety protection at all ride heights that can occur with the vehicle operational.⁽³⁾ Thus, manufacturers must assure that the vehicle complies with the standard under both conditions; i.e., when the Nivomat is activated and when it is not.

Your second question relates to testing a vehicle with the Nivomat system in the activated mode.⁽⁴⁾ You suggest a means that NHTSA could take "to ensure that the Nivomat system's leveling action is taken into account during compliance testing."

You state on pp. 2-3 of your letter:

Specifically, the test facility would measure the test vehicle's attitude as follows. Pursuant to FMVSS 214, S6.2, the test facility would measure the test vehicle's attitude in the "as delivered" condition precisely as set forth in the standard. When measuring the test vehicle in the "fully loaded" condition, the test facility would add the appropriate ballast, and then bounce the vehicle up and down on both the front and back ends of the vehicle for several minutes. This bouncing will simulate the action of driving the vehicle on the road and activate the Nivomat system. Once bouncing is completed on both sides, the test facility would immediately measure the test vehicle's attitude. Once these test vehicle attitude parameters are obtained, the test facility may make appropriate adjustments prior to conducting the actual test.

For the dynamic test, FMVSS 214 requires the test vehicle attitude to be at or between the measurements mentioned above. If, due to time delays, the test vehicle is not at the appropriate attitude, the test facility is able to use standard, available means to adjust the test vehicle attitude. For example, the test facility may use after-market spacers placed between coils in the suspension springs as a means to easily maintain the measured attitude.

We understand you to be asking how a test vehicle can be adjusted (raised) to reflect the condition of the vehicle with the Nivomat in the activated mode. NHTSA typically does not specify in an interpretation a particular means for testing a vehicle when that means is not set forth in the standard. We stated in the Mazda letter, however, that the basic principle that should be followed in selecting a means for maintaining suspension height is that it should not result in different test results than would occur if testing could be conducted with suspension height being maintained as it would happen in the real world. NHTSA also stated, "For a crash test, it is important that a vehicle not be altered in any way that would change the vehicle's crash performance relevant to the aspect of performance being tested." We believe that the use of spacers could be a suitable way of maintaining the height of a vehicle to replicate an activated Nivomat system. Bouncing the vehicle to activate the Nivomat (and to measure the fully loaded condition) could be acceptable, if the bouncing action would not affect the vehicle being tested or the test devices (e.g., the side impact dummies) that were installed in the vehicle for the dynamic test. NHTSA may or may not use these suggested means in its compliance testing. The suitability of these means would have to be determined in the context of an actual compliance test, for the particular vehicle being tested.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff if you have other questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/24/98
ref:214

1. Mazda's vehicle had an active suspension system that was operational only when the vehicle's engine was operating. At vehicle speeds in excess of approximately 35 mph, the suspension height would be lowered a certain amount from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation. If the vehicle were not used for several days, the height may be lowered from the nominal or design position even more than the height attained at 35 mph. The suspension height would return to the nominal or design position for vehicle operation after such an extended period of inoperation almost immediately after starting the vehicle's engine.

2. As you indicate in your letter, the standard does specify that the vehicle attitude during the test must be at or between the "as delivered" and the "fully loaded" attitude (S6.2). Attitude is the vehicle position as measured from the ground to a reference point above each of the four wheels. Thus, attitude is a measure of vehicle position with respect to the ground and is a combination of both height and angle.

3. Further, it is unclear whether the Nivomat would be activated if the driver were alone in the vehicle.

4. Please note that, as stated in the previous paragraph, we could test a Nivomat-equipped vehicle with the Nivomat not activated, as well as with it activated.

ID: 17168.wkm

Mr. Roy Hinz
Marketing Resources
Tire Pressure Control International, Ltd.
15803-121 A Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5V 1B1

Dear Mr. Hinz:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked for "U.S. federal approval" of your REDLINE-ELTEK Tire Pressure Control (TPC) System. Please be advised that this agency cannot give Federal approval of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, as explained below.

You stated that TPC International, a Canada-based company, manufactures and distributes the TPC system in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. You now want to enter the U.S. market. You stated that your TPC system integrates with the vehicle's existing compressed air supply system. It has five component assemblies: a computer in the cab that lets the driver change pressures and warns of any problems; air priority valves that protect the air brake system; control air valves; air lines to and from the control valves; and axle-end rotary hardware that transmits air into and out of the tires even while the tires are rotating. If the driver wants to open the inflate control valve, air is provided from the wet tank into the TPC system. Air can be exhausted from the tires through the deflate valves. Priority switches ensure that air is available for tire inflation only when air brake pressure in the system is above a safe level, typically 90 psi. A computer continuously monitors tire pressure, thus inflating, deflating, or maintaining a pre-selected tire pressure. The system monitors vehicle speed and if the vehicle is going too fast and risking tire damage, the system warns the driver to slow down or choose another mode. If the driver ignores the warnings, the system is programmed to automatically select a mode more suitable for higher speeds. You indicated an intent to make your system available both as original equipment on new vehicles and as aftermarket add-ons, and asked how individual states within the U.S. would view our Federal recommendations.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency enforces the FMVSSs after the fact by purchasing vehicles and equipment at retail and testing them for compliance with the standards. If the vehicles or equipment pass, no further action is taken. If they do not pass, or if the manufacturer or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determines that a noncompliance or defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem at no expense to the customer. This responsibility would be borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your TPC system is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle. If the TPC system is marketed in the U.S. as an aftermarket item, the notification and remedy responsibilities would be borne by the TPC system manufacturer, which is defined to include the importer of equipment produced outside the United States. Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to substantial civil penalties.

Because of the self-certification system established by the Safety Act, this agency cannot approve, disapprove, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of your TPC system prior to its introduction into the U.S. retail market. If your TPC system is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs with the device installed. If the TPC system is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, that person or business is prohibited from making inoperative any device or element of design that was originally installed on or in the vehicle pursuant to any FMVSS.

We do not have an FMVSS applicable to a system such as the TPC system. However, FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121) (copy enclosed) specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on motor vehicles that are equipped with air brake systems. That standard does not prohibit the use of air pressure from the brake air supply to operate other items of equipment, but doing so could affect the vehicle's compliance with the brake standard.

The hoses connected to the TPC system could be subject to FMVSS No. 106, Brake hoses (49 CFR 571.106) (copy enclosed). Such hoses would be subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, or stated another way, if a failure of the hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this were the case, the hoses are "brake hoses" and must comply with FMVSS No. 106. If a check valve or other device is used so that the braking system is not affected by a leakage failure in your TPC system, then the hose would not be considered to contain or transmit brake air pressure and would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 106.

With respect to your question about how the various states would view Federal recommendations, the Safety Act provides that states and political subdivisions thereof may specify a motor vehicle safety standard only if that standard is identical to the Federal standard. In other words, the FMVSSs preempt any state motor vehicle safety requirements that address the same aspects of motor vehicle performance, except that the U.S. and state governments may require a higher standard of performance on vehicles or equipment procured for their own use, such as school buses.

In addition to the requirements discussed above, should you market your TPC system in the U.S., you would be required by 49 CFR Part 566 (copy enclosed) to submit to NHTSA your name, address, and a brief description of the item or items of equipment that you manufacture. This requirement applies to the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment (any vehicle or item of equipment, except tires, to which an FMVSS applies) supplying its products to a domestic or foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the U.S. (See enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. Virve Airola, dated May 31, 1990).

Finally, if you market your TPC system in the U.S., you would be required by 49 CFR Part 551, Subpart D (copy enclosed) to designate a permanent resident of the U.S. as your resident agent for the service of legal process. Such agent can be a person, a firm, or a domestic corporation. Subsection 551.45(b) specifies the form and contents of the designation. However, you would not be required to designate a resident agent if you only supplied your TPC system to a foreign vehicle manufacturer, even if that foreign manufacturer installed your TPC system in vehicles manufactured for sale in the U.S.

Finally, for your additional information, I am enclosing two fact sheets entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

We are forwarding your letter with its enclosed product overview to the U. S. Federal Highway Administration for its review. That agency issues the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations which establish safety standards applicable to vehicles-in-use in interstate commerce.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
Ref:106#121
d.4/29/98

ID: 1984-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Goldstein; Serlin; Grass & Eserow; P.C.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Stuart Goldstein, Esq. Goldstein, Serlin, Grass & Eserow, P.C. 3000 Town Center- Suite 505 Southfield, MI 48075

This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1984, alleging discrimination by the U. S. Customs Service in enforcing regulations governing importation of vehicles that do not meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked that this agency direct Customs "to allow importers to make the speedometer substitution or modification prior to release of the vehicle..."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires that all vehicles imported into the United States be brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. The Act does not differentiate between individual and commercial importers. Pursuant to the Act this agency, the Customs Service, and the Department of the Treasury issued an implementing regulation, 19 C.F.R. 12.80. Under this joint regulation, vehicles that do not conform are to be entered under bond for production of a statement within 120 days (an additional 60 available upon request) that all necessary compliance work has been done. Thus, no directive of the nature you ask is needed because under the regulation importers must make all required modification before vehicles are released.

However, in developing the regulation, the issuing agencies took into account the heavy traffic that exists at the Canadian and Mexican borders and the impracticability of requiring a written declaration (Form HS-7) from each person driving a car over the border into the United States. Each district director at Canadian and Mexican border districts was provided discretionary authority (19 C.F.R. 12.80 (f)) to waive the written declaration "for a United States, Canadian or Mexican registered vehicle arriving via land borders" for vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1968, for vehicles conforming to standards except for readily attachable equipment items to be installed before sale, and for vehicles imported by foreign tourists not intending to stay for over a year. No authority, however, was provided to waive the written declaration for vehicles permanently entering the United States that were not in compliance.

We are not aware that Customs officials have been abusing their discretionaly authority at the Canadian border by waiving the declaration requirement and by allowing permanent importation into the United States of vehicles of recent manufacture with speedometers graduated in kilometers rather than miles per hour. However, your client's car must be brought into compliance with this requirement. It should not, however, take six (6) months to resolve safety issues if the speedometer is the only item in question.

If we can help you further, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Fank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 27, 1984

National Highway Transportation Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTENTION: Chief Counsel RE: 15 U.S. Code 1403 (Pub.L. 89563, Title I, S 114, Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 726.) (copy attached)

Dear Administrator:

Our office represents a foreign car importer. Because of an erroneous interpretation by my client of the above law, certain vehicles imported were seized by U.S. Customs at Detroit, Michigan. The seized vehicles complied with all E.P.A. Standards. The seized vehicles complied with all D.O.T. Standards with the sole exception that the speedometer registered speed in kilometers per hour, rather than miles per hour as required by D.O.T. Our client, because it desires to comply with the law, is unable to substitute a miles-per-hour speedometer for the kilometers-per-hour speedometer prior to importing the vehicles to the United States. Our client's only option, pursuant to the Customs' requirements as enunciated is to complete a form (HF7) stating that the vehicle does not conform to E.P.A. and D.O.T. Standards.

Since the date of enactment of the law in 1966, steps have been taken by all foreign automobile manufacturers to comply with U.S. E.P.A. and D.O.T. Standards for cars capable of being imported into the United States. The policy in effect at Customs if an individual purchased a vehicle with a speedometer registering speed in kilometers-per-hour, allows an individual to bring the vehicle into the United States without stating that the vehicle is non-conforming and without requiring substantial costs and time for conformity. This is discriminatory! At other Customs check points, the relaxed standard allowing importation of vehicles with kilometers-per-hour speedometers has been allowed for business importers as well. This too is discriminatory.

In order to obtain the certificate cf conformity to comply with Customs, there is approximately a six month administrative delay. This delay is unreasonable and costly not only to my client, but to our Government as well.

A Directive from your office to E.P.A., D.O.T. and Customs regardinq the speedometer problem to allow importers to make the speedometer substitution or modification prior to release of the vehicle from Customs, would save substantial Federal time and money. This directive would not affect the manufacturer's certificate as to E.P.A. Standards as the odometer does not relate to the E.P.A. Standards. Since D.O.T. is concerned with safety, the directive as proposed by our office could satisfy all concerned saving both time and money.

If this recommendation is inappropriate, an alternate suggestion by you would be appreciated.

Should you have any questions, please contact me.

Very truly yours,

GOLDSTEIN, SERLIN, GRASS & ESEROW, P.C.

STUART GOLDSTEIN ST:pls cc: The Vice President cf the United States George Bush