ID: 7206-2

The Honorable Phil Gramm
United States Senate
2323 Bryan Street, #1500
Dallas, Texas 75201

Dear Senator Gramm:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Frank Sonzala, Senior Vice President of International Transquip Industries (ITI), regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. ITI is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling its product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson Rice, reviewed Mr. Sonzala's concerns, and I am pleased to provide you the following information.

By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI.

The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (ITI uses the term "original equipment manufacturers") relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with "any single leakage-type failure" of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage- type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired.

For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, ITI would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. ITI states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e., they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. ITI argues that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting its position.

After consulting with NHTSA's Chief Counsel, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm with a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm.

As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with any single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaphragm. The usage of the term "any," when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing.

We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure. ITI also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failures in a vehicle's brake system.

We hope that this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Grubbe

Enclosure: Constituents Correspondence

cc: Washington Office

Ref: 121 d:5/20/92

ID: 7206

The Honorable Phil Gramm
United States Senate
2323 Bryan Street, #1500
Dallas, Texas 75201

Dear Senator Gramm:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Frank Sonzala, Senior Vice President of International Transquip Industries (ITI), regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. ITI is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling its product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson Rice, reviewed Mr. Sonzala's concerns, and I am pleased to provide you the following information.

By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI.

The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (ITI uses the term "original equipment manufacturers") relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with "any single leakage-type failure" of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage- type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired.

For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, ITI would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. ITI states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e., they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. ITI argues that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting its position.

After consulting with NHTSA's Chief Counsel, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm with a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm.

As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with any single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaphragm. The usage of the term "any," when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing.

We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure. ITI also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failures in a vehicle's brake system.

We hope that this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Grubbe

Enclosure: Constituents Correspondence

cc: Washington Office

ref:121 d:5/20/92

ID: nht87-2.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bill Goodling

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 15, 1985 The Honorable Bill Goodling 2263 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Goodling: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Andy Witten of Biglerville, Pennsylvania, concerning our regulations for school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. Mr. Witten believes that Federal law prohibits schoo ls from carrying more than 9 students in a van. He suggested that the law should be changed to allow schools to use the full capacity of 15-passenger vans. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for school buses. As explained below, there is no Federal law prohibiting schools from transporting 15 school children in a 15-passenger van. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. Congress amended t he Vehicle Safety Act in 1974 to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, and fuel systems. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a "school b us" is defined as a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons and intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. Thus, a 10- or 15-passenger van is considered a school bus if intended for school purposes, and our school bus safety standards apply to those vehicles as well as to larger school buses. If any new school bus does not meet those standards, the seller may be required under the Vehicle Safety Act to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties. The Federal requir ements apply only to the manufacture and sale of school buses, not to their operation. State law determines the requirements which vehicles must meet in order to be licensed for use as school buses. School vehicles that are within Pennsylvania's definiti on of a "school bus" are subject to the State's requirements for school buses. We are aware that Pennsylvania has recently amended its definition of a "school bus" by extending it to vehicles with a capacity of 10 passengers and a driver. Previously, tho se vehicles were excluded from the definition. Pennsylvania now requires those previously-excluded vehicles to comply with the State's school bus regulations in order to be used as school buses in that State. The nature of the State's regulations for school bus use is a matter left to Pennsylvania. Our agency has issued recommendations for state highway safety programs regarding the use of school buses in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transpor tation Safety (copy enclosed), which Pennsylvania may choose to adopt. Program Standard No. 17 is part of a series of program standards covering various aspects of highway safety which were issued by NHTSA under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. Pennsylvania may have decided that our recommendations should be made part of the state's comprehensive regulations for school bus usage. Again, however, operating requirements which school buses must meet are determined by State officials. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures: Constituent's correspondence, HSPS No. 17

ID: nht92-6.22

DATE: June 1, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frank J. Sonzala -- Senior Vice President, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Frank J. Sonzala to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7172); Also attached to letter dated 5/20/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Phil Gramm (A39; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Frank J. Sonzala to Phil Gramm (OCC 7206)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Your company is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling your product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. I am pleased to provide you the following information.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI.

The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (you use the term "original equipment manufacturers") relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with "any single leakage-type failure" of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage-type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired.

For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, ITI would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. Your letter states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e.,

they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. You argue that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting your position.

After reviewing this matter, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm with a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm.

As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with ANY single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaphragm. The usage of the term "any," when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing.

We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure.

You also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failures in a vehicle's brake system.

We hope that this information is helpful.

ID: 2704y

Ms. C. D. Black
Manager, Product Legislation and Compliance
Jaguar Cars Inc.
555 MacArthur Blvd.
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430-2327

Dear Ms. Black:

This concerns your July 23, 1990 petition requesting "reconsideration of an interpretation" of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114), as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). You requested that the agency consider interpreting the amendment to permit a mechanical override device that would allow shifting the transmission lever through the use of a separate tool, other than the key.

We note that while your petition requests an "interpretation," it appears to be seeking an amendment to the standard. Moreover, it appears that you consider your submission to be a petition for reconsideration. However, your petition was submitted to the agency after the June 30, 1990 deadline for submitting petitions for reconsideration. Under 49 CFR 553.35, NHTSA considers a late-filed petition for reconsideration as a petition filed under Part 552, i.e., as a petition for rulemaking. In the case of your petition, the agency received timely petitions for reconsideration which addressed the same issues. NHTSA therefore plans to address the issues raised by your petition at the same as we respond to those petitions.

In addition, in this letter, we will address your questions in the context of Standard No. ll4's current requirements, as amended in the May 30, l990 final rule. As discussed below, your proposed system would not appear to comply with the requirements of section S4.2, as amended.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not approve any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000.

Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that:

"Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key."

You explained that you plan to equip your vehicles with an electrical interlock that allows the transmission shift lever to be moved by producing an electrical signal to disengage the interlock. In case of battery or electrical failure, the electrical interlock does not work and thus the transmission shift lever cannot be moved. Therefore, you plan to install a spring-activated mechanical emergency release that is activated by using a tool in one hand and simultaneously moving the transmission shift with the other hand. You believe that your system would adequately prevent against theft through the steering lock and "rollaway" accidents though the device just described, and there is no need to require the vehicle's key to activate the override.

We do not believe your suggested device would comply with Standard No. ll4, as amended. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. Assuming that the mechanical emergency release operates independent of the ignition key, it does not appear that the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be "locked" in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. It is irrelevant that your emergency release could only be operable by using a tool and both hands, because this requirement would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:ll4 d:l0/l2/90

ID: nht75-6.7

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Franklin Coach Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for submitting your draft defect notification letter for our review. We find that the draft fails in several respects to conform to regulations specifying the content of the notification (49 CFR Part 577, Defect Notification, copy enclosed). First the reference in the second sentence of your letter to "your motor home" does not contain the identifying criteria required by section 577.4(b)(1). The sentence should more objectively identify the motor home, preferably by model number and name.

It appears from the facts you present that in addition to adding new leaf springs, the certification label on the vehicles should be replaced. An upgrading of the vehicle's carrying capacity should be reflected in both its gross vehicle and axle weight ratings. A correct certification label should reflect the values as they apply to the repaired vehicle. Your notification letter should therefore specify steps the owner can take to correct the certification label (@ 577.4(e)). One method you should consider is to furnish to each owner a corrected certification label with instructions for its installation by him.

Your letter also fails to conform to section 577.4(e)(3), which applies when the manufacturer does not offer to assume the cost of the repair. It appears from your description that you are modifying the existing springs, and they should be identified by name and part number (@ 577.4(e)(3)(ii)). You also have not provided a required detailed description (including appropriate illustrations) of each step required to repair the defect (@ 577.4(e)(3)(iv).

Finally, the requirements of section 577.4(e)(3)(iii) require the manufacturer to take positive steps to determine the availability of repair parts. You are obligated to at least determine whether the parts you recommend for replacement are in fact available. We do not believe you have met this requirement by merely stating that the parts "should be available." You can probably obtain this information by contacting the vehicle manufacturer, or by finding comparable repair parts in the replacement market.

YOURS TRULY,

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act. Franklin Coach Company, Inc. has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in your motor home.

The defect is in the weight of your vehicle; when the designated number of seating capacity is multiplied times 150 pounds and added to the unloaded vehicle weight of your motor home, it is 200 pounds over weight.

The malfunction that may occur is difficulty in controlling the vehicle when operating on curves and rough roads. To reduce the chance that the malfunction will occur before the vehicle is repaired, the purchaser should reduce the water carried and the gasoline carried by 1/2 - this will reduce the vehicle weight by approximately 200 pounds.

The risk of safety to the vehicle will increase with the age of the vehicle. Vehicle crash can occur. However, preceeding crash there will be a noticeable difficulty in controlling the vehicle. When difficulty in controlling unit occurs, the vehicle must be lightened in weight.

The parts that must be installed is the addition of one leaf to the springs on each side of the motor home on the rear axle. The part number is: #3638194 at a list price of $25.80 each. The parts should be available at any Dodge dealer. The estimated time of installation is 3 hours. We recommend that the necessary work be performed by your local Dodge dealer.

FRANKLIN COACH COMPANY, INC.

Steve Abel Controller

ID: nht93-1.34

DATE: 02/12/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH S. KAPLAN -- ROSS & HARDIES

TITLE: REQUEST FOR A LEGAL INTERPRETATION NEW FLYER INDUSTRIES, LTD.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-29-93 FROM JOSEPH S. KAPLAN TO JOHN WOMACH (WOMACK)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1993, requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR 591.5(e) as it relates to the products of your client, New Flyer Industries, Ltd.

Section 591.5(e) permits the importation into the United States of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that is not in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards upon the declaration of the importer that "[the] vehicle or equipment item requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function other than the addition of readily attachable equipment items . . . ." New Flyer exports "bus shells" to the United States, which have been painted and equipped with tires and rims. You have informed us that the shells are completed as buses in the United States by the addition of "bumpers, engine and oil filter (or propulsion system), power plant, starter system, cooling syste, fuel system, interior lighting, electric system, destination signs, seating and stanchions, heating and air conditioning system, chair lift (except on low floor buses) and various option packages." Approximately 300 hours are required to finish the shells after their arrival. You ask for confirmation that the bus shells may be imported pursuant to section 591.5(e), without the necessity for bonding.

From our review of this matter, we have concluded that a New Flyer bus shell lacking its intended motive power is neither a "motor vehicle," as defined by 15 U.S.C. 102(3), nor an "incomplete vehicle" as defined by 49 CFR 568.3. Instead, as systems or parts of a motor vehicle, the bus shell is an assemblage of "motor vehicle equipment", as defined by 15 U.S.C. 102(4). It is manifest from your description that the assemblage requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function, and that these operations involve more than the addition of readily attachable equipment items such as wheel covers and windshield wipers. Therefore, it is permissible for a New Flyer bus shell assemblage to be imported pursuant to the declaration of 49 CFR 591.5 (e). As you have affirmed, each declaration will be accompanied by a written statement in accordance with 49 CFR 591.6(b) (2). We confirm that entries under 49 CFR 591.5(e) are not subject to the bonding requirements of this agency. However, they may be subject to those of the U.S. Customs Service.

You should be aware that certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly to equipment items (as contrasted with applying to completed motor vehicles), and if the bus shell assemblage includes those items, they must comply at the time of importation. Thus, the tires and rims on the assemblage must conform, and be certified as conforming, with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 119 and 120. If the shell contains window glazing, it must meet Standard No. 205.

Finally, we note your remark that "[with] regard to the documentation requirements of 49 C.F.R. 568.4 applicable to incomplete vehicles, the information required will be furnished when the completed buses are sold and delivered." As we have commented, the bus shell is not an incomplete vehicle, and the statement required by section 591.6(b) (2) is all the documentation that is required under the facts as you have related them to us. The bus shell will not become an "incomplete vehicle" until its power train is added, and the documentation specified by section 568.4 is not required to be furnished unless the bus is completed by a different manufacturer. All that is required to "be furnished when the completed buses are sold and delivered" is the permanently affixed certification of conformance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (Part 567).

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263).

ID: nht79-4.10

DATE: 03/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 1, 1979, letter asking whether any law or regulation prohibits the remanufacture of a school bus with an old chassis and a new body when the completed vehicle does not comply with the new safety standards.

As you are aware, the agency has stated many times that such a remanufactured vehicle need only comply with the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis as long as the remanufacturing process conforms to the guidelines established in Part 571.7(e) of our regulations. The agency does not view the remanufacturing problem as significant, because a vehicle's chassis normally wears out before its body. The recycling of noncomplying buses will cease when the supply of used chassis manufactured prior to April 1, 1977, disappears.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 1, 1979

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

The intent of Public Law 93-492, Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, and the subsequent regulations resulting from that law was to upgrade the safety of the national school bus fleet.

We have recently become aware of an industry which seems to be designed to circumvent the intent of public law 93-492. The industry (see enclosure) is involved in the restoration and remanufacture of complete school buses including body and chassis.

We are aware of the agency's recent interpretation regarding the manufacture of bodies stating that the bodies must meet the safety standards that were in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis.

However, we feel that this new industry could indefinitely recycle old buses into the fleet which do not meet the congressionally mandated safety standards for school buses.

In our opinion, we feel that this is a flagrant violation of the intent of the law. Therefore, we would like to ask you if there are any regulations or laws which would prohibit this practice.

Thank you for your early reply.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

School Bus Restoration Co.

511 SO. LINCOLN STREET ELKHORN. WISCONSIN 53121 (414) 723-4309

PRICE LIST

EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1978

School Bus Standard Type Forward Engine Cowl Mounted Specification 105

All body types, all lengths up thru 66 pass - Chevrolet Chassis $ 8950 *

All body types, all lengths up thru 66 pass - Ford Chassis $ 9250 *

All body types, all lengths up thru 66 pass - International Chassis $ 9250 *

All body types, all lengths up thru 66 pass - Dodge Chassis $ 8950 *

All body types, all lengths up thru 66 pass - G.M.C. Chassis $ 8950 *

Busses equipped with power steering additional 32500 *

* All Prices Plus Factory Rebult. Or New Engines. (Your Option)

Busses equipped with automatic transmission. Special Quote

School Bus Body Only

All body types, all lengths 48 thru 66 pass - Any Chassis 580000

Add-On eight light warning system 400

Please Add 20000 for each additional row of seats - Bus size over 66 pass. Restoration of internally mounted front engine and rear engine busses - will be on Special Quotation.

Any bus bearing unusual wear or damage will be on Special Quotation. All work performed is Guaranteed for 6 months or 6,000 miles. Guarantees on tires and batteries will be limited to mfg. Guarantee.

Engines are Guaranteed by the engine manufacturer in accordance with their individual policy and not by SCHOOL BUS RESTORATION. Or it's contract manufacturers.

All prices are subject to change without notice.

ID: nht90-4.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA (Signature by K.M. Weinstein)

TO: C.D. Black -- Manager, Product Legislation and Compliance, Jaguar Cars Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to copy of 49 CFR Part 571.114 and May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868) (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-23-90 from C.D. Black to NHTSA Administrator (OCC 501)

TEXT:

This concerns your July 23, 1990 petition requesting "reconsideration of an interpretation" of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114), as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). You requested that the agency consider interpretin g the amendment to permit a mechanical override device that would allow shifting the transmission lever through the use of a separate tool, other than the key.

We note that while your petition requests an "interpretation," it appears to be seeking an amendment to the standard. Moreover, it appears that you consider your submission to be a petition for reconsideration. However, your petition was submitted to t he agency after the June 30, 1990 deadline for submitting petitions for reconsideration. Under 49 CFR 553.35, NHTSA considers a late-filed petition for reconsideration as a petition filed under Part 552, i.e., as a petition for rulemaking. In the case of your petition, the agency received timely petitions for reconsideration which addressed the same issues. NHTSA therefore plans to address the issues raised by your petition at the same as we respond to those petitions.

In addition, in this letter, we will address your questions in the context of Standard No. 114's current requirements, as amended in the May 30, 1990 final rule. As discussed below, your proposed system would not appear to comply with the requirements o f section S4.2, as amended.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not app rove any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 pe r violation up to $800,000.

Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.

For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key."

You explained that you plan to equip your vehicles with an electrical interlock that allows the transmission shift lever to be moved by producing an electrical signal to disengage the interlock. In case of battery or electrical failure, the electrical i nterlock does not work and thus the transmission shift lever cannot be moved. Therefore, you plan to install a spring-activated mechanical emergency release that is activated by using a tool in one hand and simultaneously moving the transmission shift w ith the other hand. You believe that your system would adequately prevent against theft through the steering lock and "rollaway" accidents though the device just described, and there is no need to require the vehicle's key to activate the override.

We do not believe your suggested device would comply with Standard No. 114, as amended. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "pa rk" as the direct result of removing the key. Assuming that the mechanical emergency release operates independent of the ignition key, it does not appear that the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be "locked" in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. It is irrelevant that your emergency release could only be operable by using a tool and both hands, because this requirement would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: 8280

Joseph S. Kaplan, Esq.
Ross & Hardies
65 East 55th Street
New York, NY 10022-3219

Re: Request for a Legal Interpretation New Flyer Industries, Ltd.

Dear Mr. Kaplan:

This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1993, requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR 591.5(e) as it relates to the products of your client, New Flyer Industries, Ltd.

Section 591.5(e) permits the importation into the United States of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that is not in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards upon the declaration of the importer that "[t]he vehicle or equipment item requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function other than the addition of readily attachable equipment items . . . ." New Flyer exports "bus shells" to the United States, which have been painted and equipped with tires and rims. You have informed us that the shells are completed as buses in the United States by the addition of "bumpers, engine and oil filter (or propulsion system), power plant, starter system, cooling system, fuel system, interior lighting, electric system, destination signs, seating and stanchions, heating and air conditioning system, chair lift (except on low floor buses) and various option packages." Approximately 300 hours are required to finish the shells after their arrival. You ask for confirmation that the bus shells may be imported pursuant to section 591.5(e), without the necessity for bonding.

From our review of this matter, we have concluded that a New Flyer bus shell lacking its intended motive power is neither a "motor vehicle," as defined by l5 U.S.C. 102(3), nor an "incomplete vehicle" as defined by 49 CFR 568.3. Instead, as systems or parts of a motor vehicle, the bus shell is an assemblage of "motor vehicle equipment", as defined by 15 U.S.C. 102(4). It is manifest from your description that the assemblage requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function, and that these operations involve more than the addition of readily attachable equipment items such as wheel covers and windshield wipers. Therefore, it is permissible for a New Flyer bus shell assemblage to be imported pursuant to the declaration of 49 CFR 591.5(e). As you have affirmed, each declaration will be accompanied by a written statement in accordance with 49 CFR 591.6(b)(2). We confirm that entries under 49 CFR 591.5(e) are not subject to the bonding requirements of this agency. However, they may be subject to those of the U.S. Customs Service.

You should be aware that certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly to equipment items (as contrasted with applying to completed motor vehicles), and if the bus shell assemblage includes those items, they must comply at the time of importation. Thus, the tires and rims on the assemblage must conform, and be certified as conforming, with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 119 and 120. If the shell contains window glazing, it must meet Standard No. 205.

Finally, we note your remark that "[w]ith regard to the documentation requirements of 49 C.F.R. 568.4 applicable to incomplete vehicles, the information required will be furnished when the completed buses are sold and delivered." As we have commented, the bus shell is not an incomplete vehicle, and the statement required by section 591.6(b)(2) is all the documentation that is required under the facts as you have related them to us. The bus shell will not become an "incomplete vehicle" until its power train is added, and the documentation specified by section 568.4 is not required to be furnished unless the bus is completed by a different manufacturer. All that is required to "be furnished when the completed buses are sold and delivered" is the permanently affixed certification of conformance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (Part 567).

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:2/3/93:OCC 8280:62992 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron Interps. Part 591; Part 568, Redbook (4) 8280; ztv; U:\ncc20\interp\591\8280.ztv