ID: nht94-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dan Neaga -- Johnson Controls, Inc.; Dianna Sabo -- Johnson Controls, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 11/1/93 From Dan Neaga And Dianna Sabo

TEXT: Dear Mr. Neaga and Ms. Sabo:

This responds to your letter asking about a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for built-in child restraints that use "the same seat back surface as the adult occupant." I apologize for the de lay in responding.

Before I begin, I would like to reference a May 26, 1994 telephone call to you from Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, about your letter's statement that the information you sent us is confidential. Ms. Fujita explained that letters requesting interpretati ons of our FMVSSs are public information, but suggested that we could return your sketches to you and make publicly available only your cover letter. You agreed this would satisfy your concerns about not disclosing your design concepts. Accordingly, Ms . Fujita has mailed your sketches to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of the vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification " process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

You ask if your understanding is correct that "lateral support of the side of the child's torso is not required by FMVSS 213." The answer is yes. The torso impact protection requirement of S5.2.2.1(b) of Standard 213 specifies requirements for "[e]ach s ystem surface provided for support

2

of the side of the child's torso" (emphasis added). The preamble for the final rule adopting S5.2.2.1(b) explains: "The specifications do not require manufacturers to incorporate side supports in their restraints, they only regulate the surfaces that th e manufacturer decides to provide so that they distribute crash forces over the child's torso." 44 FR 72131, 72135; December 13, 1979.

Please note that NHTSA determines independently from the manufacturer whether a particular surface is provided for side support. The determination is based on factors such as the design and intended use of the restraint, and the advertising literature f or the restraint. Accordingly, a manufacturer cannot avoid complying with S5.2.2.1(b) simply by asserting that a side surface was not provided for side support. However, with regard to a built-in restraint such as yours that uses the same seat back sur face as the adult occupant and where "no lateral support other than the one offered to the adult occupant is provided," it does not appear that the child restraint incorporates side supports subject to S5.2.2.1(b).

If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William L. Blake -- Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/11/94 From William Blake To Department Of Transportation and Letter Dated 4/29/94 From William Blake To United States Department Of Transportation

TEXT: Dear Mr. Blake:

This responds to your letters of April 29 and May 11, 1994, to the Department of Transportation with respect to the importation of replacement parts for a 1985 Mercedes-Benz 280SL that was not originally manufactured to conform to Federal bumper requirem ents, and which, apparently, was not conformed after importation to comply with those requirements. Your client, who owns such a vehicle, has been informed that "it is illegal to import bumper parts which do not conform to United States crash standards and that accordingly the entire bumper must be replaced. . . ." You have asked whether it is legal to import "European bumper parts" for the vehicle in question, and for us to provide you with citations to appropriate statutes and regulations.

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, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq..) and bumper standards under Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). NHTSA is authorized to issue safety standards and bumper standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicle s and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards and bumper standards.

NHTSA has issued one bumper standard, which is set forth at 49 CFR Part 581. The standard was issued under the joint authority of the Safety Act and the Cost Savings Act. While the agency has the authority to issue bumper standards for both passenger mo tor vehicles and passenger motor vehicle equipment, it has to date only issued a bumper standard for motor vehicles. There is no applicable standard that replacement bumper components must meet, and, because of this, no prohibition against importation o f bumper system components which differ from those required for a vehicle to comply with

2

Part 581. I note that this is reflected in the lack of any provision in our importation regulation, 49 CFR Part 591, requiring conformance of imported bumper parts.

Your second question is whether it is illegal for an owner "to participate in the installation of bumper parts which do not conform to United States standards." As we have seen, no Federal standards apply to replacement bumper parts. This means that it is not illegal for an owner or anyone else to participate in the installation of equipment that is intended to replace original bumper equipment on vehicles that were not manufactured to conform to U.S. bumper requirements. As a matter of interest, our records do not indicate that the importer of the vehicle in question, WDB1070421A026883, failed to conform it to Part 581, but we cannot verify this as the conformance documentation for the vehicle no longer exists.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 2/25/94 From Jerry Steffy To Dave Elias (OCC-9709)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your request to Mr. David Elias, formerly of this office, for an interpretation concerning whether a motorcycle certification label may be placed in a location other than that specified in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. As explained bel ow, the answer is yes, the agency has permitted an alternative location in certain circumstances.

49 CFR @ 567.4(e) states that motorcycle certification labels "shall be affixed to a permanent member of the vehicle as close as is practicable to the intersection of the steering post with the handle bars, in a location such that it is easily readable w ithout moving any part of the vehicle except the steering system." In your letter, you seem to refer to this intersection as the "headstock area," and ask whether the certification label can be placed elsewhere.

In an interpretation letter of November 23, 1982, to Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., (copy enclosed) NHTSA permitted the motorcycle certification label to be placed "on the down tubes in front of the engine on either the right or left side." The agency permitted the alternate location because some Suzuki motorcycles were equipped with fairings, obscuring labels placed in the specified location.

Your inquiry seems to imply that Triumph's design would cause a certification label placed in the location specified in @ 567.4(e) to be obscured. If that is the case, please contact Mr. George Shifflett of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety

2

Compliance at (202) 366-5307. NHTSA would be happy to work with you on finding an alternative location for your certification label.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Esq., Mayer, Brown & Platt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 12/16/93 From Erika Jones To John Womack (OCC-9459)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter asking for our concurrence that @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts a "California flammability standard" as that standard applies to child restraint systems. The standard you enclosed is Ca lifornia Business and Professions Code, Division 8, Chapter 3, @ 19006 and @ 19161. I apologize for the delay in this response.

Because it was not readily apparent from your letter that the California flammability standard applies to child restraint systems, Ms. Fujita of my staff contacted California state officials for more information about the standard. We were informed by Mr . Art Anderson, Chief of the California Highway Safety Office, that California does not have a flammability standard for child restraint systems. Mr. Anderson was aware that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302 applies to child restrain ts by way of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

As you point out, Federal preemption issues would arise if California had a flammability standard for child restraint systems that covered the same aspect of performance as FMVSSs 213 and 302. However, in view of Mr. Anderson's statement that California has no flammability standard for child restraint systems, we need not address those issues today.

We hope that this explanation is helpful. Mr. Anderson of the California Highway Safety Office (telephone (916) 445-0527) said he will be happy to answer any questions you might have about California's requirements. If you any further questions about @ 103(d), please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: Allan E. McIntyre -- Vice President, Engineering and New Product Development, Sprague Devices, Inc.

TO: Rodney Slater -- Administrator, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Allan E. McIntyre (A43; Std. 104)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Slater:

The purpose of this letter is to request your office for an interpretation/understanding of FMVSS-104 regarding evaluation procedure or how to undertake ammendment / revision of FMVSS-104.

By way of background please note that Sprague Devices, Inc. of Michigan City, Indiana both designs and markets components for windshield washer systems for trucks, buses and multipurpose vehicles. Secondly, I serve as Chairman of the SAE subcommittee re sponsible for windshield wiping and washer documents specifically SAEJ198 and 1944. I also chair a similar task force under the direction of TMC (The Maintenance Council of ATA).

My specific inquiry is regarding FMVSS-104- S4. 2.2 describing windshield washer requirement for truck, bus and multipurpose vehicles. Document lists SAE recommended Practice J942 of 11/65 (with modification). J942 has been superceded by an "a" and a " b" revision at SAE level. It also pertains specifically to PASSENGER CAR WINDSHIELD WASHER SYSTEMS.

SAE recognized the need of a document specifically addressing commerce vehicles, etc., and had chartered my subcommittee to develop such a document. J1944 is the result of our subcommittee activity and has been both approved and published in SAE Handboo k. (Copy attached). Its purpose is to follow the overall format of the J942 document while recognizing that advancements in technology allow for more strigent requirements, increased performance levels, etc. J1944 is overall a "tougher" document compa red to the J942 series.

Would the above situation allow for documentation of compliance to FMVSS-104 through use of the new J1944 recommended practice or is it necessary to evaluate per J942 as specifically written?

Second inquiry relates to the above also. If it is necessary to evaluate per J942 (both recognizing its' being superceded by "a" and "b" and more recently J1944) how does one petition for a revision in FMVSS-104?

There are other areas in FMVSS documents that are similar in nature to the above and therefore your response to this specific question could in essence respond to the inquiries of many.

Respectfully,

Enclosures

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104; SAE J1944 - Truck and Bus Multipurpose Vehicle Windshield Washer System

(Text of enclosures is omitted.)

ID: nht94-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 13, 1994

FROM: Mary B. Falls -- Sherrard and Roe, Nashville, TN

TO: Office of General Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Vehicle Identification Numbers

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/08/94 from John Womack to Mary B. Falls (A42; STD. 115)

TEXT: Our firm represents Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corporation USA, who manufactures cars and light trucks in Smyrna, Tennessee. We have been advised that, from time to time, leased Nissan automobiles are stolen for the purpose of removing the plate contain ing the vehicle identification number ("VIN") from the dashboard of the leased car. In most cases, the leased vehicle is recovered with very little damage other than damage associated with the removal of the VIN plate. NMMC has asked us to determine ho w replacement VIN plates can be obtained for these stolen vehicles and what additional steps, if any, must Nissan or the vehicle lessee take to satisfy state and federal laws with respect to the issuance of a new VIN plate. While Tennessee statutes clea rly contemplate the issuance of replacement VIN plates, we have found no federal statute or regulation which addresses this particular issue. Among the various federal regulations we have reviewed are the following: 49 C.F.R. 565 and 49 C.F.R. 571.115. In addition to researching the federal statutes and regulations. we have contacted Peggy Proctor at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. This letter is submitted to you at the request of Ms. Proctor.

The issue we submit to you is as follows: If Nissan complies with the requirements prescribed by the State of Tennessee for the issuance of replacement VIN plates, will Nissan also be in full compliance with applicable federal statutes and regulations pertaining to vehicle identification numbers? If not, what additional steps must Nissan take to ensure full compliance with federal laws and regulations? For your convenience, the balance of this letter describes the process pursuant to which the State of Tennessee will issue replacement VIN plates to Nissan.

Section 55-5-111 of Tennessee Code Annotated provides that it is a Class C misdemeanor for any person to buy, sell, offer for sale, or possess a motor vehicle from which the manufacturer's serial, engine, or transmission number or other distinguishing number or identification mark or number has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed. In addition, @ 55-5-112 provides that the owner of an original engine, serial, transmission, or "other number or mark" may restore such number or mark pu rsuant to a permit issued by the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Tennessee Department of Safety.

Upon written request by the owner of a stolen VIN plate, the Criminal Investigation Unit will issue one (1) replacement VIN plate. Because the vehicles in question are leased, Nissan (as owner) would be the party making the request for the replacemen t plate. In addition to requesting a replacement VIN plate, the written request must include a copy of the certificate of title for the automobile in question (thus verifying the original VIN for that automobile), a copy of the theft recovery report for the automobile in question, and a check in the amount of $ 10.00. Once Nissan receives the replacement VIN plate, the plate is affixed to the door jamb of the vehicle. We have been advised that the replacement VIN plate contains a "control number" whi ch indicates that it is a replacement plate issued by the Tennessee Department of Safety. Apparently this control number permits the vehicle to be tracked and differentiates it from the vehicle bearing the stolen VIN plate. Because the replacement VIN plate bears the same VIN as the original VIN plate, the certificate of title for the automobile, the VIN stamped on other parts of the automobile, and the manufacturer's label affixed to the door of the car do not need to be changed.

Because these leased vehicles cannot be operated without replacement VIN plates, a prompt response would be greatly appreciated. Of course, if you have any questions, we would be pleased to provide any additional information that you desire.

ID: nht94-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1994

FROM: Reidar Brekke -- Market Analyst, Norwegian Trade Council

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Legal Interpretation on "Belly Safe" a safety device used by pregnant women

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-14-94 from John Womack to Reidar Brekke (A42; STD 208)

TEXT: The Norwegian Trade Council- New York (NTC-NY) is currently representing the Norwegian companies, HTS and Loyd's Industri, in their effort to introduce Belly Safe to the US market.

Belly Safe is a safety device made to protect the "unborn life". Belly Safe forces the car lap belt under the bulge of the stomach, and ensures that in the event of an emergency stop or a collision, that the "damaging" pressure will be concentrated on t he hip bone and not on the stomach where the fetus is situated.

We were recommended by Mr. Dan Orden, Chief of Import Division, Office of Vehicle Compliance, to contact you for a legal interpretation of this safety device. He felt that this was important even though there are no applicable standard for this type of products in the US.

As you will se from the information enclosed, the product has been tested and approved in both Sweden and in Germany. The product is made of Polyester and Acetal (see Constructional data form).

The product is currently sold in several European countries and in Australia. Belly Safe is patented in Europe and in the US.

We hope this information will be sufficient for you to give Belly Safe an legal interpretation.

4

Pleas contact us if you have any questions or if you need more information.

Enclosed: German approval of Belly Safe under ECE R 16 rules and regulations Constructional data form from TUV Rheinland e.V. Preliminary translation of instructions Test results from the Swedish National Testing Institute Advertisement with references

ID: nht94-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 16, 1994

FROM: DOUG BEREUTER -- Member of Congress, House of Representatives

TO: Christopher Hart -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to Letter Dated 09/16/94 from Christopher A. Hart (for Ricardo Martinez) to Doug Bereuter (A42; Part 303)

TEXT: I am writing to you again regarding my continuing interest in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) long-delayed rulemaking concerning compressed natural gas fuel containers. In previous correspondence, you stated that the final r ule would be sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review. Has this happened or is this no longer necessary? Please send me an update on the current status of the rulemaking. Despite past assurances, this matter continues to be stalled. I w ant evidence that progress is being made. This matter is too important to be placed on NHTSA's back-burner.

ID: nht94-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1994

FROM: Paul L. Anderson -- President, Van-Con Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Reflective Tape "Outlined Around Its Perimeter" For Emergency Rear Doors On Type A-1 Sixteen & Twenty Passenger School Buses Under 10,000 Lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight.

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To Paul Anderson (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Thank you for your clairification of my questions May 2, 1994 letter. You stated that the Emergency Rear Doors of Type A-1 School Buses must be outlined around the perimeter with reflective tape. This brings up a question of tape installation due to th e existance of door hinges, O.E.M. tail light position, and the proximate position of Rear Door bottom edge to bumper.

There is no problem with installing reflective tape across the top and above both doors (see enclosed picture of rear doors on color brochure). There is also no problem running the tape down the left and right sides of the two doors, although the tape w ould not be continuous due to door hinges and the tail light lenses. Tape on the hinges would not last long because water, dirt, snow and ice would get behind it and lift it off also it would be a mess. The tail light lens comes within less that 1/2 in ch of door edge and I don't think it would be a good idea to run the tape over the tail light lens.

The bottom of the Emergency Rear Doors closes on a rubber gasket that touch the anti-hitch filler strip that closes the gap between the bumper and the bus body so there is no place to put reflective tape on the outside perimeter of the door bottom unless it is put on the bottom of the doors in which case it would not be on the "outside perimeter".

Question: Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and downthe left and right side of the double door opening with breaks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom?

As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors?

Very truly yours,

ID: nht94-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 16, 1994

FROM: Darlene E. Skelton, President, National Institute Of Emergency Vehicle Safety, Inc.

TO: Barry Felrice -- Asst. Administrator-NHTSA Office of Rulemaking

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO DARLENE SKELTON (A43; STD. 120; STD. 121; PART 567)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Felrice:

The National Institute of Emergency Vehicle Safety is a nonprofit organization committed to improving safety in the purchase, application, operation, and maintenance of emergency vehicles. Over the course of our work, several items have come to question .

1. We have examined vehicles that the GVW exceeds the tire rating capacity. In such cases the manufacturer places a limitation on the distance and speed the vehicle can travel.

For example, a fire truck with four rear mounted tires rated 7,000 lbs. each or a total of 28,000 lbs. are mounted on a 31,000 lb. axle. The final stage manufacturer actually acquired a letter from the tire manufacturer a. raising the air pressure from 100 to 110 or 115 psi b. placing a limit of driving no more than 55mph for a distance no greater than than seven (7) miles.

Our question is, do these practices constitute a violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)?

2. We have also examined vehicles where the axle has been re-rated.

For example, one manufacturer increased the axle rating because fire trucks do not cycle as much as tractor trailer trucks. Because there is less cycling over the highway, they decided that the same axle in a fire truck application could be increased fr om 22,000 lbs. to 24,000 lbs.

Does this re-cycling of axles constitute a violation of the FMVSS?

3. We have knowledge of some manufacturers taking air supply for horns off of the air supply for breaks.

Does this violate the FMVSS?

Any direction you can provide regarding these issues is greatly appreciated.