ID: nht91-3.39

DATE: May 6, 1991

FROM: John Mayeda -- Marketing and Sales Coordinator, GRE America, Inc.

TO: Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-1-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John Mayeda (A38; Std. 101); Also attached to letter dated 6-4-87 from Erika Z. Jones to Robert J. Heath; Also attached to letter dated 9-21-89 from Stephen P. Wood to Jim Bowen; Also attached to letter dated 1-7-88 from Erika Z. Jones to Koji Tokunaga (Std. 101)

TEXT:

I'm writing to you concerning any laws or regulations that governs car stereo safety. What I mean by car stereo safety; are there any regulations on car stereos - that might distract the driver, or inhibit driving performance. As in our case having a television monitor built into a car stereo (See Attached Diagram).

The TV monitor in the radio will only turn on when the car is not in motion or is parked, IT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE TUREND ON WHEN THE CAR IS IN MOTION.

I would like to know all the laws and regulations that govern car stereos, if there are no such regulations - What I would like from you is a written statement stating that there is no laws or regulations that govern car stereo safety (INHIBITING DRIVING PERFORMANCE). This documentation is very important for our Research and Development Department, in order for them to begin development of our prototype unit.

If you have any questions, or if you need more information, please call, write, or send a facsimile to my attention at your earliest convenience.

Attachment

Diagram of Car Dashboard, Steering Wheel, Car Stereo with TV Monitor (graphics omitted)

Dear Sir/Madam:

I'm writing you concerning any laws or regulations that govern car stereos. Our car stereo with a built in television is being developed, and I would like to know all the governing sanctions imposed on our product. The TV monitor in the radio will only turn on when the car is not moving in traffic or is parked, it will not be able to be turned on when the car is in motion

ID: nht91-3.4

DATE: March 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rueben K. Brown -- Product Engineer, Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-12-91 from Rueben K. Brown to Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 5815)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 12, 1991 requesting an interpreta- tion of the applicability of the spike stop requirement in Standard No. 105 to school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs. While school buses are required by S5.1 to be capable of meeting the requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.6, the spike stop requirement in S5.1.6 is only applicable to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less. Therefore, school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs are not required to be capable of meeting the spike stop requirement.

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

ID: nht91-3.40

DATE: May 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Keith Salsman

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-16-91 from Keith Salsman to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5972)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 16, 1991, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to the "Braking Intensity Array" that you have invented.

The device is an array of nine rear lamps which include a high mounted stop lamp. The center lamp responds to pressure on the brake pedal. If "actual braking" occurs, then the lamps adjacent to the center lamp "will respond appropriately with the adjacent lights lighting under mild braking force", and the remaining pairs of lamps lighting as the braking force increases. You have assured us that the center lamp meets all requirements of Standard No. 108, and that the remaining lamps in the array are controlled by a separate device and will not operate independently.

As we see it, the acceptability of your invention under Standard No. 108 is not dependent upon any of the five sections of the standard that you quote. The four pairs of lamps that flank the designed-to-conform center stop lamp are "additional lamps" within the meaning of S5.1.3, which prohibits the installation of any additional lamp as original equipment if it "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. Whether impairment exists is a determination to be made by the person installing the lamp as original equipment, either the manufacturer or the dealer prior to the vehicle's first sale. In this instance, it does not appear to us from your description of the array that it would impair the effectiveness of the center lamp or other stop lamps on a vehicle. We would be concerned if the size of the array is such that the interior rear view mirror could not meet the field of view requirements of Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors; however, if the field of view is not met, the standard allows, as an alternative, the installation of an exterior rear view mirror on the passenger side.

Although your array may be permissible under Federal law, it remains subject to regulation by the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht91-3.41

DATE: May 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John E. Calow -- Senior Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Chassis Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-4-91 from John E. Calow to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 5805)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 4, 1991, which requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You asked whether the standard specifies parking brake actuation times for hydraulic brake systems. In a telephone conversation with Mark A. Holmstrup of my staff, you also asked whether the standard specifies a certain percentage of braking torque or brake pedal force to actuate the brake stop lamp switch. You stated that you have designed a braking system where the brake pedal must be depressed 1/8" before the brake stop lamp switch is actuated. I will answer your questions in that order.

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 vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and in the aforementioned telephone conversation.

Standard No. 105 does not expressly provide that the parking brake must be actuated within some specified period of time. However, S5.2 of Standard No. 105 provides that the standard's parking brake holding requirements (set forth in S5.2.1, S5.2.2, and S5.2.3) must be met when a vehicle is tested according to the procedures specified in S7. S7.7.1.3 provides that a vehicle's parking brake is applied by a single application of the force specified by the standard, except that a series of applications to achieve the specified force may be made in the case of a parking brake system design that does not allow the application of the specified force in a single application. The parking brake test procedure is continued in S7.7.1.4, as follows:

Following the application of the parking brake in accordance with S7.7.1.3, release all force on the service brake control and commence the measurement of time if the vehicle remains stationary. If the vehicle does not remain stationary, reapplication of the service brake to hold the vehicle stationary, with reapplication of a force to the parking brake control at the level specified in S7.7.1.3(a) or (b) . . .may be used twice to attain a stationary position.

The parking brake test procedure specified in S7 does not provide for any waiting period between the time a vehicle's parking brake is applied in accordance with S7.7.1.3 (by means of applying a specified force to the parking brake control) and the time all force on the service brake control

is released to see if the vehicle remains stationary. Thus, during compliance testing by the agency, all force on the service brake control would be released as soon as the specified force had been applied to the parking brake. After the release of force on the service brake control, the agency would determine if the vehicle remains stationary.

If the vehicle did not remain stationary, S7.7.1.4 specifies that forces may be reapplied and released twice more if necessary. After each reapplication and release of the specified forces, the agency would determine if the vehicle remains stationary. If the vehicle does not remain stationary after the two additional reapplications and releases of the specified forces, the parking brake would not comply with Standard No. 105.

Regarding your second question, Standard No. 105 does not specify actuation forces for brake stop lamp switches. However, Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is relevant to your question. Section S5.5.4 of the standard requires that "(t)he stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes."

In interpreting S5.5.4, a distinction must be made between depression of the brake pedal by a driver and application of the service brakes. When a brake pedal is depressed by a driver, there may be a small amount of "free-play" before the service brakes begin to apply. Since section S5.5.4 requires the stop lamps to be activated "upon application of the service brakes," the stop lamps must be activated as soon as the service brakes begin to apply. Thus, the stop lamps would not need to be activated during any initial free-play of the brake pedal which does not result in application of the service brakes. The stop lamps must, however, be activated as soon as any measurable brake torque occurs.

I hope that this information has been helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: nht91-3.42

DATE: May 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dan P. Strauser -- Manager, Research and Development, Elgin Sweeper Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Dan P. Strauser to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5940)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 25, 1991 regarding the applicability of this agency's safety standards to a number of models of Elgin and Ravo street sweepers.

In general, all vehicles classified as "motor vehicles" are subject to safety standards. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"Motor vehicle" means 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.

Under a longstanding policy, this agency has regarded vehicles not to be "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Act and therefore not subject to safety standards, despite their use on the highways, if they (1) have an unusual body configuration which sets the vehicles apart from typical highway traffic and (2) have a maximum speed capability of 20 mph or less.

Based upon the literature you provided, the Pelican "SE" and Pelican "P" 3-wheel street sweepers appear to meet these criteria. If the advertised speed ("Up to 20 mph") is the maximum speed these vehicles are capable of, these vehicles would not be considered "motor vehicles" and therefore would not be required to comply with the safety standards. Since the advertised speed of the Whirlwind, Crosswind, and Eagle 4-wheel street sweepers, and the Ravo Model 5000 street sweeper exceeds 20 mph (or the description, i.e., "legal highway speeds", suggests that the vehicle is capable of exceeding 20 mph), these vehicles would be considered "motor vehicles." The information you enclosed on the Ravo Model 4000 street sweeper did not indicate its maximum speed capability. If this vehicle is capable of speeds in excess of 20 mph, it would also be considered a "motor vehicle."

Street sweepers which are considered to be "motor vehicles" would be classified as "trucks" and required to comply with all safety standards applicable to trucks. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238.

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

ID: nht91-3.43

DATE: May 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George Ziolo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-18-91 from George Ziolo to Administrator, US DOT/NHTSA (OCC 5853)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter styled as a "Petition for Rectification of an Error" in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Your letter suggested that the version of Standard No. 208 published in the October 1990 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations retroactively changed the requirements for vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1972 and August 31, 1989. You stated that this change consisted of a new requirement that the manual belts at ALL front seating positions be equipped with a warning system to show when the belt is not fastened, whereas previously only manual belts at the driver's position had to be equipped with such a warning system. The change to Standard No. 208's warning system requirement identified in your letter was never made, so no action by the agency is necessary to alleviate your concerns. A detailed explanation is set forth below.

In your letter, you identified several sections of Standard No. 208 in the October 1990 version of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations that, in your view, require safety belt warning systems at front seating positions in addition to the driver's seat. You asserted that S4.1.1.3.1(a) and S4.1.1.3.2 require the front outboard passenger's safety belt in vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1972 and August 31, 1973 to be equipped with a warning system, while the front outboard and front center passenger's safety belt are required to be equipped with a warning system by S4.1.2.3.1(a) and (b) and S4.1.2.3.2. Your assertions of the meaning of these sections are incorrect.

At the outset, we note that the versions of the sections of Standard No. 208 that were identified in your letter are verbatim identical in the October 1990 version of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations to the October 1989 version of those sections and to every version of those sections of Standard No. 208 that has been published since 1984, when the automatic crash protection requirements were reinstated in Standard No. 208. Accordingly, it is not clear why you believe that the October 1990 version of these sections of Standard No. 208 wrought any change.

The sections of Standard No. 208 identified in your letter all require various front seating positions to be equipped with "a seat belt warning system that conforms to S7.3." S7.3 of Standard No. 208 establishes requirements for a warning system only at the driver's seating position. Thus, a vehicle that has a conforming warning system for the driver's position only would comply with S7.3 and all other sections of Standard No. 208 that require safety belts to be equipped with a warning system. This has been the agency's position for many years now and it has not been modified by anything in the October 1990 version of Standard No. 208.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht91-3.44

DATE: May 9, 1991

FROM: M. Morino -- Manager, Far East Department, Guy B. Barham Company

TO: Import Specialist, Motor Vehicle Equipment -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Importer: Wheelmate Products, 13238 Florence Ave, Santa Fe Springs, Ca 90670

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-4-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Masaharu Morino (A37; Std. 211); Also attached to letter dated 11-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Maloney; Also attached to letter dated 5-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to The Honorable William E. Dannemeyer (Std. 211); Also attached to letter dated 3-16-88 from Erika Z. Jones to The Honorable Terry L. Bruce (Std. 211)

TEXT:

We have been requested by Wheelmate Products, to verify with your department that there is currently no Sanctions or Seizures for the following items identified above.

The Bulk Wheel Accessories, Spinners is currently being manufactured in the U.S. To make it feasible, and less expensive, the manufacturer here in the U.S. would like to have this identical product made in Taiwan by Zeta Ltd, 1 Fuhsiung North Rd, Taipei, Taiwan and import these products to the U.S.

We have enclosed photocopy of the Bulk Wheel Accessories and two samples, one chrome and one pink, both 3 bar mount as well as a copy of the binding ruling.

We respectfully request your instructions as to whether these products can be imported into the U.S.

We thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Attachment

Photos and descriptions of Bulk Wheel Accessories Spinners and Colored Spinners (Text and photos omitted)

Attachment

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE New York, N.Y.

NY 835326

JAN 11 1989 CLA-2-87:S:N:N1:101 835326 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 8708.70.8050 Mr. Robert W. Snyder Attorney at Law Wellington Square-Second Floor 940 West 17th Street Suite F Santa Ana, CA 92706

RE: The tariff classification of a center cap from Taiwan.

Dear Mr. Snyder:

In your letter dated December 14, 1988, on behalf of Macklin Industries, you requested a tariff classification ruling.

You have enclosed a sample of the imported product which is a metal spinning center cap (with three spinners) that will be mounted to a wheel. The spinning center cap is used as an ornamental wheel cover for automobiles, trucks and other motor vehicles.

The applicable subheading for the spinning center cap will be 8708.70.8050, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for parts and accessories of motor vehicle wheels. The rate of duty will be 3.1 percent ad valorem.

This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Section 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177).

A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction.

Sincerely,

Jean F. Maguire Area Director New York Seaport

ID: nht91-3.45

DATE: May 9, 1991

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown & Platt

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Erika Z. Jones (A38; Part 565)

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of a client to seek NHTSA's interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565 relating to the vehicle identification number. In particular, my client is interested in knowing NHTSA's views with respect to two issues involving the unique World Manufacturer Identifier assigned by the Society for Automotive Engineers under NHTSA's supervision.

We have framed our questions in the context of a hypothetical corporation with two subsidiaries. The XYZ Company manufactures motor vehicles for sale in the United States and Europe. XYZ certifies that the motor vehicles offered for sale in the United States comply with vehicle safety standards, and accepts all responsibilities of a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. XYZ has two wholly-owned subsidiaries: the ABC Company, which performs assembly and marketing functions in the United States for the U.S.-certified vehicles manufactured by XYZ, and the DEF Corporation, which performs assembly and marketing functions solely for vehicles sold outside the United States. As we understand NHTSA's interpretations, we assume that the world manufacturer identification component of the Vehicle Identification Number required by Part 565 of NHTSA's rules should identify XYZ as the manufacturer for any vehicle offered for sale in the United States, even if the actual assembly and/or marketing was performed by the ABC Company.

Our first question is whether there are any implications under NHTSA rules, particularly Part 565, if the DEF Company (the subsidiary that assembles and markets vehicles solely outside the United States) were to obtain a world manufacturer identification code from the SAE in its own name, for use solely on vehicles offered for sale outside the United States.

Our second question is whether NHTSA would have any objection if the XYZ Company were to request the SAE to include in its next directory of world manufacturer identifiers a simple notation (such as a parenthetical or a footnote) indicating that XYZ has authorized its subsidiary, ABC, to use one of XYZ's world manufacturer identification codes on vehicles assembled or marketed by ABC. In our view, such an illustrative parenthetical would provide helpful information to users of the SAE reference material, while having no effect on NHTSA's requirements, which would continue to apply to XYZ as the certifying manufacturer.

I look forward to your response. Please call me if you have any questions.

ID: nht91-3.46

DATE: May 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Danny J. Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Special Service Vehicles, Utilimaster Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-16-91 from Danny J. Pugh to NHTSA (OCC 5957)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 16, 1991 regarding auxiliary seating in walk-in van-type vehicles. You asked if jump seats are required to meet Standards No. 207, 208, and 210. You also asked if these seats "need Type II seat belts in the passenger outboard seating position and in side facing seats."

Standards No. 207, 208, and 210 include requirements for "designated seating positions" in vehicles. The term "designated seating position" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely tCo be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, EXCEPT FOR THE AUXILIARY SEATING ACCOMODATIONS SUCH AS TEMPORARY OR FOLDING JUMP SEATS....(Emphasis added.)

Because an auxiliary seat is not a designated seating position, it is not required to meet Standards No. 207, 208, and 210. In addition, auxiliary seating is not required to have Type II seat belts in the passenger outboard seating position and in side-facing seats. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine if a specific seat qualifies as auxiliary seating. However, the agency will issue an opinion if a manufacturer submits specific information describing the seat.

While auxiliary seating is not subject to all safety standards, we encourage you to ensure that the seats provide safe performance when in use. In particular, we would encourage you to provide safety belts for these seats to ensure that their occupants will have adequate crash protection.

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

ID: nht91-3.47

DATE: May 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vicki Haudler

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-91 from Vicki Haudler to S. Kratzke (OCC 5943)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking further information about a possible determination to be made by the Secretary of Transportation under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208). S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

As you noted in your letter, S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., (the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect)." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements went into effect as of September 1, 1989 for all passenger cars.

I have returned the self-addressed, stamped envelope you enclosed in your letter. Good luck in your legal career.