ID: nht91-4.11

DATE: June 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Norman H. Dankert

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-14-91 from Norman H. Dankert to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6047)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 14, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to your patent. We appreciate that you included a copy of the patent so that we might have a better understanding of your invention.

As you have explained it, "a sensor that responds to the movement of the accelerator pedal serves to maintain the activation initiated by the brake pedal until the accelerator pedal is depressed, regardless of any speed." In short, when the center highmounted stop lamp is activated by application of the brake pedal, your device ensures that the lamp remains activated when the foot is removed from the brake pedal until such time as the accelerator is again depressed.

The Summary of the Invention in the patent indicates that the basic kit includes a logic circuit unit connecting the accelerator, high mounted stop lamp, and back up lamp (so that when the vehicle is placed in reverse gear, the center lamp, if on, remains on). Optionally, the unit can connect the right and left turn signal lamps (which the Operation of the System in the patent indicates "flashes that 'third' light when either turn signal is operated . . . ."

You believe that your system complies with Standard No. 108, specifically, paragraph S4.5.4 (now S5.5.4) which states "The high-mounted stop lamp on a passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes." I regret that we must disagree with you. The "only" activation of the center lamp permitted by Standard No. 108 is "upon application of the service brakes." If the service brakes ceased to be applied, the lamp must be deactivated. To allow the center lamp to remain activated when the service brakes are no longer applied would be to allow its activation under conditions other than the application of the service brakes. The stop lamps on the vehicle serve a clearly defined purpose: to indicate the intention of the driver to stop the vehicle, or to diminish its speed, through braking. Paragraph S5.5.4 ensures that the stop lamps will not be used at times other than braking. While use of the stop lamp to indicate a vehicle stopped by the road may be an intuitively attractive idea, we note that there is already a safety system on a vehicle, the hazard warning flasher system, that is specifically intended to be used for this purpose.

We also note that the invention would appear to be prohibited by paragraph S5.1.3 (formerly S4.1.3) of Standard No. 108. This prohibits the installation of any item of motor vehicle equipment that may impair the

effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. We deem effectiveness impaired when the intended function of a lamp is lessened, either by outright interference with the lamp's performance, or by the introduction of factors that may create confusion as to the meaning of the signal sent by the lamp. We appreciate the fact that you believe your invention will contribute to motor vehicle safety by indicating the presence of a car that has been put into reverse gear. However, we believe that your invention would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamp. In the reverse mode, the simultaneous activation of the center stop lamp and the backup lamp could create at least momentary confusion as to whether the driver was braking, had braked, or was reversing direction.

The option of the invention that flashes the center lamps with the turn signal lamps is prohibited by paragraph S5.5.10(d) which, in essence, requires all stop lamps to be steady burning in use.

For the foregoing reasons, Standard No. 108 does not allow your invention to be used as original equipment on passenger cars. Nor could it be retrofitted on passenger cars already in use that are equipped with the center lamp. Federal law, in essence, prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, from rendering a safety system wholly or partially noncompliant. As noted above, your invention would have this effect on the center lamp or the backup lamp.

We would also caution against use of your device in conjunction with aftermarket high-mounted stop lamps intended for retrofit on vehicles that were not required by Standard No. 108 to be equipped with them (i.e., passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, light trucks, and vans manufactured before September 1, 1992). In our opinion, the reasons expressed in the last two sentences of the preceding paragraph would continue to apply to the backup lamp system.

Even if permitted under Federal law, the laws of the individual States where an invention is sold may prohibit such a device. We are not in a position to advise on the acceptability of inventions under States laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht91-4.12

DATE: June 3, 1991

FROM: Samuel Albury -- President, Three Wolves and Associates, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Samuel Albury (Signature by Ken Weinstein)

TEXT:

I am writing to get a rulling on a matter thats in the development stage.

My company is now negotiating with a manufacturer of jeep converison kits. We are planning to use the kits to bring about a smarter looking Jeep. One that all age groups will like to own.

The structure will be the same configuration as the present jeeps made by the Chrysler corporation.

The body will be one solid piece, the wheel wells will be added. The doors, windshield (with the required safety glass) will be added. The top solid (or canvas) all designer series will be added. The roll bar will be dressed-up.

We would buy the basic stripped down model jeep from the Chrysler Corp (if Possible) and add the body, stereo, a/c, tires, running lights, carpeting, high visibility seats OR purchase just the chassis with (engine, transmission, etc ) from Chrysler and add the above.

We hope to make the first prototype for marketing by end of year. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHRYSLER JEEP AND WHAT WE PROPOSE IS THE BODY WILL BE VERY BRIGHT, RUST FREE AND A LITTLE HEAVIER.

I was told that I might be considered the manufacturer of the jeeps by making the stated changes. Please provide some guidance in this matter.

Attachment Photos of the jeep. (graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-4.13

DATE: June 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Masaharu Morino -- Manager, Far East Department, Guy B. Barham Company

COPYEE: Area Director of Customs, New York Seaport

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: 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); Also attached to letter dated 5-9-91 from M. Morino to U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA (OCC 6049)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR S 571.211). In your letter, you enclosed two samples of "spinner" hubcaps, a product sheet describing several different designs of spinner hubcaps, and a letter from the New York Area Director of the U.S. Customs Service regarding spinner hubcaps. You asked whether these "spinner" hubcaps may legally be imported into this country from Taiwan. The answer is no. Spinner hubcaps may not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States, nor may they legally be imported into the United States.

I have enclosed copies of this agency's March 16, 1988 letter to Representative Terry L. Bruce, a May 13, 1987 letter to Representative William E. Dannemeyer, and a November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. These letters reaffirmed past interpretations stating that spinner hubcaps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) makes it illegal to "MANUFACTURE FOR SALE, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, OR IMPORT INTO THE UNITED STATES" any hubcaps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added.). We would consider each sale or offer for sale of spinner hubcaps to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108(a), up to a maximum of $800,000.

In your letter, you stated that some spinner hubcaps are currently being manufactured in the U. S. Thank you for alerting us to this situation.

We have referred this information to our enforcement staff for appropriate action. I have also sent a copy of this letter to the Area Director of Customs for the New York Seaport.

ID: nht91-4.14

DATE: June 4, 1991

FROM: Debby Funk

TO: The United States Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Debby Funk (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am writing to request that you send me information regarding any and all rules and restrictions regarding the display of lighted signs in vehicles. If such signs are not prohibited, I am particularly interested in regulations governing size, placement, color, luminosity, and power source (i.e. batteries, wire connections to either brake lights or cigarette lighter).

I thank you in advance for your prompt reply. Your help and attention in this matter are greatly appreciated.

ID: nht91-4.15

DATE: June 5, 1991

FROM: Steven M. Healy; Morris G. Healy

TO: Richard Van Eiderstein -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Steven M. Healy and Morris G. Healy (A38; Std. 108; VSA (a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

Enclosed please find a brief description and drawing relative to monitoring lights that attach to bug deflectors (or shield) and/or to other appropriate mounting areas on vehicles.

The primary purpose of these lights is to bring indicator lights up and into the line of vision of the vehicle operator. Mainly, directional signals and high beam indicator (or other appropriate applications desired by the operator). The need of focusing and refocusing the eyes is eliminated through their use. The existing indicator lights on the dash board are left undisturbed.

A patent pending was obtained approximately two months ago. An opinion from your agency relative to the legality would be appreciated.

Attached to drawing of directional signal attached to bug deflector. (graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-4.16

DATE: June 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 4-15-91 from Danny J. Pugh to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 5958)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 15, 1991 regarding requirements for safety belts and door hardware in the prisoner area of police vehicles. Specifically, you asked if police vehicles are required to have seatbelts for prisoners, and if so, what type. You also asked if these vehicles are required to meet the door hardware requirements of Standard No. 206 for rear and side doors.

All new vehicles, including police vehicles, are required to comply with all safety standards applicable to their type. Therefore, police vehicles, unless they are buses, are required to have safety belts at all designated seating positions when they are sold to the customer. Our December 13, 1990 letter to you regarding van conversions summarizes what type of safety belts are required depending on the seating position and vehicle type.

In addition, police vehicles are required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 206, if the vehicle is classified as a passenger car, a multipurpose passenger vehicle or a truck. You should note, however, that the requirements of Standard No. 206 do not apply to back doors, including car hatchbacks, van rear doors, and pickup truck tailgates.

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: nht91-4.17

DATE: June 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rosemary Dunlap -- President, Motor Voters

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-91 from Rosemary Dunlap to Jack Rice (OCC 6035)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning bills under consideration by a number of states which would require disclosure concerning safety features in light trucks and vans and bumper strength. You stated that there is considerable debate about whether such bills would be preempted be Federal law, and noted that opponents have represented that a NHTSA spokesperson indicated that the states are preempted in this area. You stated that you have been unable to locate this statement, and asked whether NHTSA has an official opinion regarding Federal preemption and disclosure.

I believe that the statement you refer to was made by NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, Barry Felrice, at the July 1990 NHTSA Public/Industry Meeting. Mr. Felrice was responding to a question from the Center for Auto Safety. I have enclosed a copy of the relevant portion of the transcript for that meeting and the question.

As you can see from the transcript, Mr. Felrice did not say that states are necessarily preempted from establishing information disclosure requirements. In order to provide an opinion as whether a particular bill would be preempted, I would need to review the specific language of the bill.

I hope this information is helpful.

Attachment NHTSA MEMORANDUM

Subject: INFORMATION: Submittal to Docket Date: August 13, 1990 NHTSA/Industry

From: Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

To: Docket Section THRU: Jack Rice Chief Counsel

Please insert in that Section of the Docket titled, "Rulemaking, Research and Enforcement Program: Public Meetings, the following:

1. Federal Register Notice 55 FR 25920 of June 25, 1990 - Notice of Meeting July 18, 1990, Ann Arbor, MI.

2. Agenda of Meeting

3. Submittal from Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc, subject: "NHTSA/Industry Meeting - Agenda Items, July 18, 1990."

4. Letter dated July 10, 1990, from Center for Auto Safety, subject: "Questions for the July 18, 1990, NHTSA/Industry Meeting."

5. Letter dated July 9, 1990, from Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, subject: "Questions for NHTSA/Meeting, July 18, 1990.

6. Transcript of Proceedings for the NHTSA Industry Meeting on July 18, 1990.

Attachments

Agenda for NHTSA Industry Meeting Wednesday, July 18, 1990 Ann Arbor, Michigan

I. RULEMAKING

Q. MVMA

1. Attached is a list of unresolved petitions. Please advise as to their status and anticipated actions.

CRASHAVOIDANCE

Q. AIAM

1A. What is the status of NHTSA action on the petition that would require brake hydraulic system malfunction indication for fluid loss and/or pressure loss?

Q. MVMA

2. After review of petitions for reconsideration, does the agency expect to retain the current method of measuring turn signal/headlamp separation by amending the recent FMVSS 108 Final Rule (effective November, 1990)?

3. When does the agency plan to issue a Final Rule on Docket No.

89-24; Notice 1 (optional combinations of lamps)? What changes are expected from the NPRM?

4. When does the agency plan to issue a Final Rule on Docket No.

81-11; Notice 29 (amended humidity test procedure)? What changes are expected from the NPRM?

5. When will the next rulemaking action be taken and what will be the content regarding the adoption of roadway illumination specifications for forward lighting? (Docket 85-15, Notice 7)

Q. AIAM

6. NHTSA issued a final rule to require vehicles with automatic transmissions to be equipped with key-locking systems from September 1, 1992. Has the agency received any request for reconsideration of the requirements and does the agency have an intention to amend the regulation?

Q. MVMA

7. When does the agency plan to issue a SNPRM on brake harmonization? Please describe any expected changes from the previous notice.

Q. AIAM

51. Automobile manufacturers are well aware of the benefits of ABS systems and many are moving forward to adopt ABS for their model lineups. However, in the State of California, a bill, AB 4342 is currently being deliberated, which would make ABS mandatory for all vehicles 6,001 lbs unloaded vehicle weight. While the intent of the bill is a step for the better, we do believe that the bill may conflict with Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

Could NHTSA comment on whether this bill does come into conflict with Federal preemption of state laws as stated in Section 103(d)?

Q. MVMA

52. When is NHTSA planning to complete and make available the "EMERGENCY RESCUE GUIDELINES FOR AIR BAG-EQUIPPED VEHICLES"?

-How and when can copies be obtained?

-How will the "GUIDELINES" be announced and distributed, and to what organizations and mailing lists?

-To whom should individual requests be directed?

Q. CFAS

53. Because light trucks and vans (LTV's) need not meet the same safety standards as passenger cars, several states have proposed laws to require disclosure of standards that a particular LTV does or does not meet, and any effect on the owner's insurance rates. What is NHTSA's view on such state laws?

54. To what extent does NHTSA plan to continue soliciting the opinions of consumer groups in roundtable meetings, such as the recent one on rear seat shoulder belt installation?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

In the Matter of:

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION INDUSTRY MEETING

PAGES: 1 through 79 PLACE: Ann Arbor, Michigan DATE: July 18, 1990

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Official Reporters 1220 L. Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20805 (202) 623-4233

...regulate. So while we don't specifically require or address anti-lock in our standards, we think that a state law requiring anti-lock can be regarded as addressing the same aspect of performance as Standard 105 and therefore, would be preempted by our standard.

MR. SCHWENTKER: Don Schwentker from AIAM. One might argue that breaking is an aspect of performance quite apart from anti-lock breaking and that a breaking standard, itself, might be preempted like that.

MR. FELRICE: Could be. But we're willing right now to go even further than that. Like I said, breaking stability is regulated by Standard 105. So, without looking at the actual bill, you know, the lawyers think that such a law would be preempted by us.

MR. SCHWENTKER: Does NHTSA have any plans to communicate their feelings on that to California?

MR. FELRICE: No, not at this time. It would be premature.

Fifty two we talked about. Fifty three is another legal question. In this case, the states are requiring disclosure of information to consumers, in this case, light trucks and vans -- a label or something that says these vehicles do not meet all the same requirements that passenger cars do. I think we've seen similar laws here on the bumper performance.

This is a different case. Here we -- there is nothing in federal law that preempts or otherwise prohibits a state from establishing information disclosure requirements as long as the information is accurate and is not required to be affixed to the vehicle. And we think

there is federal preemption there but if a state wants to provide dealerships, provide point of sale information to consumers, or that there be information in an owner's manual, we believe that they have authority to do that.

And the second part of this question asks, what are our views on such state laws? We would hate to give any kind of opinion as to whether a particular state law was good or bad or if we agreed with it based on the specifics of that particular law and I really don't want to give a general statement that we disapprove of the states being in this area.

MR. DANA: Greg Dana, AIAM. About petitions -- did you just say as long as that information labeling requirement, whatever, is not attached to the vehicle?

MR. FELRICE: Yes.

As long as it is not required to be affixed to the vehicle. MR. DANA: All right.

MR. FELRICE: And what the legal cite for that particular aspect is I don't know and you can feel free to ask Jack Rice, our Chief Counsel, who said you can say this, Barry.

Now the last question asks, To what extent we plan to continue soliciting the opinions of consumer groups or others in round table meetings?

For instance, in a recent one, we had an issue about lap/shoulder belts. These will be done periodically. Jerry Curry wants to reach out a lot. We've had meetings with insurers, with manufacturers, consumer groups -- the rear seat lap shoulder belt meeting was an interesting one because we sort of had everybody there together: dealers, manufacturers, consumer groups and insurers. We don't have a particular time table that we'll do these. And probably -- I think everyone wants to do them once every six months, once every year, and I think we will continue to do that and as specific subjects come up, like rear seat lap shoulder belt retrofit kits that merit a specific meeting, we'll just call it then. So they will be continued but there is no specific schedule for doing that.

And I will answer any other questions.

MR. BENNETT: Milford Bennett, General Motors. Barry, a follow up on Item 22, Side Impact. BIOSID AND SID...

ID: nht91-4.18

DATE: June 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen Mamakas -- AIR Inc.

TITLE: None

TEXT:

In a telephone conversation with Stephen Kratzke of my staff, you asked for a clarification of my May 13, 1991 letter to you. My May 13 letter explained that Federal law would not affect any plans to repair air bags, but that a host of safety concerns and potential product liability issues under State law would arise in connection with any planned operation to repair air bags.

You explained in your telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke that the last paragraph of my May 13 letter to you suggests that I did not fully understand your company's plans. In that last paragraph, I referred to repacking a deployed air bag. In your telephone conversation, you explained that your company would not reuse any used equipment. Instead, you plan on installing the new air bags and new sensors recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. After your company completes its work on the vehicle, you are prepared to certify that the air bag will work as intended by the vehicle manufacturer. You asked how this difference would change the answer in my May 13 letter.

This new information would not affect my previous advice that Federal law does not affect your planned repair operations. However, the safety concerns I expressed in my previous letter would be addressed if your company's repairs used only the replacement parts for the air bag system recommended by the vehicle manufacturer and installed those parts in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's instructions.

ID: nht91-4.19

DATE: June 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael L. Harmon -- President, Classic Interiors

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-14-91 from Michael L. Harmon to Paul J. Rice (OCC 5721)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, permits the installation of a built-in child restraint system (i.e., a child restraint system that is an integral part of the vehicle) in a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), and if so, what requirements apply.

As discussed below, a child restraint system built into an MPV would fall within the definition of "child restraint system" in Standard No. 213 and would therefore have to comply with all the provisions of the standard that are generally applicable to child restraint systems. Since such a restraint would not be portable, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, by its own terms, or those of the compliance test procedure for that requirement, specifically applicable to "add-on child restraint systems" only. Since it would be built into an MPV instead of a passenger car, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, for the same reasons, specifically applicable to "built-in child restraint systems" only.

The following sections of Standard No. 213 contain requirements that would apply to a child restraint built into an MPV: S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability). The principle requirements of the standard that would not apply are those in S5.1.1 relating to dynamic performance. In view of the importance of the dynamic performance requirements for ensuring the safety of child restraint systems, we intend to begin rulemaking to apply those requirements to all built-in systems, not just to those installed in passenger cars. In the meantime, we suggest that manufacturers of such systems for MPVs carefully consider whether the systems provide protection comparable to that provided by built-in child restraint systems in passenger cars.

You should also be aware that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S-C- 1381-1431) imposes responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety-related defects. Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the vehicles and equipment they manufacture are free from safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. If the manufacturer or the agency determines that a safety-related defect (or noncompliance with an FMVSS) exists, the manufacturer is obligated under S151 et seq. of the Act to notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect

or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Standard No. 213 applies to child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft. See section S3. The term "child restraint system" is defined as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." See section S4. A child restraint system that is an integral part of an MPV would come within this definition.

Some of Standard No. 213's requirements apply generally to "child restraint systems," i.e., without regard to whether a child restraint system is built-in or add-on or whether, if it is built-in, it is installed in a car or other type of vehicle. Since a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV comes within the definition of "child restraint system," it is required to meet all such requirements unless excepted. The following sections of Standard 213 contain requirements which apply generally to "child restraint systems": S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability).

In a number of instances, however, particularly with respect to dynamic performance, Standard No. 213 either specifies separate requirements for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems," or provides a test procedure for these two types of child restraint systems only. The standard defines "add-on child restraint system" without respect to the type of vehicle to which it might be added, i.e., as "any portable child restraint system." The term "built-in child restraint system" is defined more restrictively, as "any child restraint system which is an integral part of a passenger car." (Emphasis added.) A child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV does not come within either of these definitions, since such a restraint is neither portable nor a part of a passenger car. Therefore, Standard No. 213's requirements for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems," do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV. Similarly, those requirements for which the standard specifies a test procedure for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems" only do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-4.2

DATE: May 20, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from John E. Calow to Dorothy Nacoma (OCC 5889)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the responsibilities of an incomplete vehicle manufacturer under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements. In your letter, you explained that Oshkosh provides chassis to final stage manufacturers. You stated that the final stage manufacturers are requesting that Oshkosh provide a duplicate VIN tag with the incomplete vehicle. The additional VIN tag would be affixed by the final stage maufacturer, so that it is readable through the vehicle glazing. You noted that there is a possibility that the final stage manufacturer might place the incorrect VIN tag under the vehicle glazing, and that Oshkosh would have no control of the final stage manufacturer correctly identifying the vehicle. You then asked two questions, which are addressed below.

Your first question asked whether it is legal for an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to supply the final stage manufacturer with an additional "loose" VIN tag. The answer to this question is yes. No provision in Standard No. 115 prohibits the incomplete vehicle manufacturer from providing an extra VIN tag which the final stage manufacturer may affix so that it is visible through the vehicle glazing.

Your second question asked about the legal responsibilities of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer if an incorrect VIN tag is affixed to the vehicle by the final stage manufacturer. Except in the situation where an incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by the Safety Act (see 49 CFR Part 568.7), which we assume does not apply in your case, an incomplete vehicle manufacturer is not responsible under the Safety Act for the actions of a final stage manufacturer.

I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If there are any further questions, please write to me or contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.