ID: nht91-2.39

DATE: March 19, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Leonard M. Anderson -- Vice President, Engineering, Miller Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-84 from Erika Z. Jones to Richard E. Bond (A29; Part 565); Also attached to letter dated 11-30-90 from Leonard M. Anderson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5516); Also attached to letter dated 5-30-86 to Administrator, Attention VIN-Coordinator NHTSA, from Richard E. Bond (OCC 769)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. More specifically, you asked whether a world manufacturer identifier (WMI) that was assigned to one manufacturer may continue to be used by a different manufacturer when it purchases the assets of the manufacturer to which the WMI was assigned. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

Your letter set forth the following information. Miller Trailer, Inc. (Miller) is a trailer manufacturer that has been assigned a unique WMI, in accordance with 49 CFR S565.5(c). Oshkosh Truck Corporation (Oshkosh) is a manufacturer of primarily trucks and some specialized trailers. Oshkosh has also been assigned a unique WMI in accordance with 49 CFR S565.5(c). Oshkosh is purchasing Miller. Your question is whether Oshkosh can continue to use Miller's WMI to identify trailers Oshkosh produces at the facilities that were formerly used by Miller.

To answer this question, we must apply the regulatory provision of 49 CFR S565.4(a). That section provides that the WMI "shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if the manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually." NHTSA has previously interpreted the requirement that the WMI "uniquely identify the manufacturer as precluding the use of a WMI assigned to one manufacturer by any other manufacturer. For your information, I have enclosed a December 24, 1984 letter to Mr. Richard Bond, in which the agency explained that a newly-formed, wholly-owned subsidiary could not use the parent corporation's WMI to identify trailers formerly manufactured by the parent corporation.

With respect to your situation, this regulatory requirement means that the VIN assigned to each trailer manufactured by Oshkosh must identify Oshkosh as the manufacturer. This identification will facilitate the quick and accurate identification of the actual vehicle manufacturer in the event there is a need to do so.

Please note also that Oshkosh, upon manufacturing trailers that formerly were manufactured by Miller, has a responsibility to report any new types of motor vehicles that it produces. 49 CFR Part 566 requires manufacturers that have previously submitted identification information to keep their entries current by submitting revised information not later

than 30 days after the relevant changes occur. A copy of this part is also enclosed for your information.

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

ID: nht91-2.4

DATE: February 27, 1991

FROM: Charles A. Schue, Jr.

TO: Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, DOT/NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Charles A. Schue, Jr. (VSA Sec. 108; Regs. 591)

TEXT:

Reference is made to your Guide for Complying With Regulations On Imported Motor Vehicles, DOT HS 807 144, Effective January 31, 1990.

I just received this guide from your office and was previously unaware of the one provision regarding purchase of the vehicle prior to November 1, 1988.

I have been working in Turkey continuously sine June, 1986. This employment has been with two separate United States Companies who are contracted to the U.S. Air Force on the Turkey Base Maintenance Contract.

In addition, I retired from the U.S. Army as a Warrant Officer Grade Three in 1974 after 27 years honorable service. I have not imported any other non-conforming vehicle in the past.

I purchased my present foreign made automobile on 15 May 1969 from an American employee of my present company who had previously purchased it from another American employee of the same company many years before.

Statistics of this automobile are:

1979, Mercedes, 300D, 423 Four Door, Red, SN: 42313010127393.

Request waiver of purchase date requirement outlined in your referenced guide. I plan to import this vehicle prior to October 31, 1992.

In the event this waiver cannot be granted, please inform me of other provisions under which I may request approval to import this vehicle into the U.S.A.

ID: nht91-2.40

DATE: March 19, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Liam J. Moran -- Hagans, Brown, Gibbs & Moran

TITLE: Re Brey v. Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc.; Your File No.: 3571

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-7-91 from Liam J. Moran to Steven Kratzke

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke, our Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking an interpretation of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). More specifically, you noted that S5.5.2(g) requires add-on child restraint systems to be permanently labeled with the following:

WARNING! Failure to follow each of the following instructions can result in your child striking the vehicle's interior during a sudden stop or crash. Secure this child restraint with a vehicle belt as specified in the manufacturer's instructions located (Insert the location of the instruction booklet).

You also noted that Standard No. 213 requires the installation instruction booklet to "explain the primary consequences of not following the warnings required to be labeled on the child restraint system." Parenthetically, I note that your letter erroneously identified S5.6.3 as the source of this requirement. You told Mr. Kratzke in your telephone conversation that your litigation involves an add-on child restraint system. S5.6.3 applies solely to built-in child restraint systems. However, the identical requirement is set forth for add-on child restraint systems in S5.6.1.3 of Standard No. 213.

You asked whether the explanation in the instruction booklet of the primary consequences of not following the warnings labeled on the child restraint system (per S5.6.1.3) is required to be something more than the statement required to be labeled on the child restraint system (per S5.5.2(g)). The answer is no.

NHTSA explicitly addressed this question in the rulemaking that established the current labeling requirements. A notice of proposed rulemaking was published on May 18, 1978 (43 FR 21470). This proposal did not include any proposed regulatory text to require a label on the child restraint system warning users about the failure to follow the instructions provided by the manufacturer. However, the preamble did have the following discussion:

Comments are also requested on whether a brief explanation should be given of the primary consequences of not following the warnings and instructions PROVIDED BY THE MANUFACTURER ON THE RESTRAINT. An example of such an explanation is that failure to attach the tether on systems having top tethers may result in the top part of the system bending forward during a crash and striking the dashboard or back of the front seat, depending on where the restraint is installed.

Another example would be to explain that failure to adjust belts

snugly may result in the child coming entirely out of the restraint during a crash or in crash forces being placed on the wrong portions of the child's body. (Emphasis added).

43 Fed. Reg. 21476. This request for comments was addressed solely to information that should be labeled on the restraint itself. There is no indication in the proposal that the agency sought comments on or otherwise considered requiring information in addition to this to be provided in the instruction booklet.

A final rule implementing this proposal was published on December 13, 1979 (44 FR 72131). That rule included the following discussion:

Many commenters (citation omitted) supported the proposed requirement that manufacturers inform consumers about the primary consequences of not following the manufacturer's warning about the correct use of the restraint. Therefore, the visible label must state the primary consequence of misusing the restraint. The SAME INFORMATION would also have to be included in the instruction manual accompanying the restraint. (Emphasis added).

44 Fed. Reg. 72137. The regulatory language that was added to the labeling requirement for child restraints in the final rule to "state the primary consequence of misusing the restraint" was the warning now in S5.5.2(g) of Standard No. 213. The last sentence in the above-quoted section of the preamble expressly states that the instruction booklet that accompanies the child restraint must include the same warning that is required to be labeled on the child restraint. There is, therefore, no basis for the assertion that the instruction booklet must include some warning in addition to the warning required to be labeled on the child restraint system.

ID: nht91-2.41

DATE: March 20, 1991

FROM: H. Hurley Haywood -- Vice President, Brumos Motor Cars, Inc.

TO: Chief Consul -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to H. Hurley Haywood (A37; Part 591)

TEXT:

A company in England would like information regarding the sale of a very limited number of specially built cars in the U.S. All component parts, i.e.; engine, suspension, gear box would be manufactured by Porsche. The chassis would be a carbon fiber 962 racing tub with hand built body.

The car could be built completely in England or shipped to the U.S. as a kit car and assembled here.

The company would like information regarding low-volume manufacturers exemptions from certain DOT regulations, emmissions, passive restraints, bumper height, and all other pertinent information regarding manufacturing and sale of vehicles in the U.S.

Thank you for your cooperation.

ID: nht91-2.42

DATE: March 21, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Chris Lawrence -- Chang & Lawrence

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-17-89 from Stephen P. Wood to Alan S. Eldahr (VSA 108(a)(2)(A)); Also attached to letter dated 1-5-91 from Chris Lawrence to August L. Burgett (OCC 5764)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett of this agency. Though dated January 5, 1991, we did not receive it until March 7.

With respect to your wish to produce an electronic sign board for installation in the rear window area, or on the rear, of a passenger car, I enclose a copy of an interpretation of this Office dated August 17, 1989, regarding such a device. Although the interpretation is restricted to an interior-mounted electronic sign board, our conclusion would not be changed were the device to be mounted on the outside of the rear of the vehicle. In that location, and as an item of original equipment, we believe that it would impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting equipment by its potential to distract following drivers from the signals sent by the rear lamps when they and the sign board are operated simultaneously. Although the considerations for aftermarket devices are expressed differently, as explained in the August 1989 letter, the potential for distraction would appear to create a partial inoperability of the rear lamps within the meaning of the prohibition.

ID: nht91-2.43

DATE: March 22, 1991

FROM: H. George Johannessen, P.E. -- Chairman, Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC) Seat Belt Technical Committee

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice -- NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; Dan Cohen -- NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards; Clarke Harper -- NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards; S.R. Kratzke -- NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel; Alfred J. Fisher, III -- Chairman, AORC Board of Directors; Charles H. Pulley -- President, AORC; Donald P. Reed -- Reed Technical Relations

TITLE: Subject: Request for Interpretation; Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209; Seat Belt Assemblies - S4.1(b)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to H. George Johannessen, P.E. (A38; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210)

TEXT:

The primary purpose of the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (formerly the American Seat Belt Council, organized in 1961) is to reduce highway traffic accident fatalities and injuries by providing the motoring public with the most reliable and effective occupant crash protection systems; and beyond this, by conducting a continuous education program, to promote public acceptance and use of such systems. The membership of the AORC represents 90% of the total domestic seat belt industry and domestic inflatable restraints industry.

Member companies of AORC supply seat belt assemblies produced in compliance with applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 209; Seat Belt Assemblies. A portion of Paragraph S4.1 (b) of FMVSS 209 states that ". . . the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle."

The cited statement first appeared in SAE Standard J4c developed by the SAE Seat Belt Committee and issued in 1965. This SAE standard served as the basis for seat belt standards issued subsequently by the Department of Commerce (National Bureau of Standards) in 15 CFR 9 in 1966 and FMVSS No. 209, issued by the National Highway Safety Bureau in 1967. The SAE Committee included the cited statement as a design goal to alert seat belt designers to give full consideration to this aspect of performance. The committee members were aware that they had no objective test procedure to confirm compliance with this design goal. Also, they were aware that the seat belt would not necessarily remain on the pelvis during the entire collision event in all of the varied collisions encountered in the field. The writer was an active member of the cognizant SAE committee and agreed with the committee's decision to include the cited statement as a design goal despite the lack of an objective test protocol to confirm compliance and the recognition that the design goal would not be realized in some collision events. Furthermore, the committee members were aware that there could be no guarantee that the goal would not be thwarted by the vehicle occupant by non-use or misuse of the seat belt or by abnormal position of the belted occupant.

Unfortunately, positioning of the seat belt off the pelvis, for whatever reason, has been cited in recent litigation as prima facie evidence that the seat belt does not comply with the federal standard and the seat belt design is defective. The need to refute the allegations of design defect and non-compliance with applicable standards leads to unnecessary expenditure of time and effort and unconscionable societal costs.

The AORC requests the NHTSA to provide an interpretation that recognizes that off-pelvis location of a Type 1 lap belt or the lap belt portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly before, during or after a real world collision does not per se constitute noncompliance of the seat belt with the federal standard nor does this render the seat belt design defective. Such a formal interpretation is necessary to mitigate unnecessary costs in litigation and the resultant societal costs.

The AORC considers that time is of the essence and requests NHTSA to act as quickly as possible on this request. Personnel from the AORC staff or member companies will be pleased to provide any additional available information that the agency may need.

ID: nht91-2.44

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Nancy J. Hunt -- Bankston & McDowell

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-24-91 from Nancy J. Hunt to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information about test conditions in Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity (49 CFR 571.301; copy enclosed). In particular, you asked whether the spare tire must be in its proper place inside a vehicle at the time of testing. You also asked whether the spare tire must be in the vehicle during other types of vehicle testing. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

Before addressing your specific question, it might be helpful to begin with some general background information. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard.

In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the safety standards themselves, the agency has provided guidelines to the test facilities that the agency enters into contracts with to conduct compliance tests for the agency. These guidelines are called compliance test procedures and are available through the NHTSA Technical Reference Library. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between the various testing facilities.

The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, specify procedures and conditions that go beyond what is set forth in the relevant standard. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. The test procedures are subject to change and do not always directly reflect all of the requirements of the particular standard for which they are written.

With that background, I will now address your specific question. A manufacturer must certify that its vehicles will comply with the requirements of Standard No. 301 when they are tested in accordance with the test conditions set forth in section S7 of the standard. This section specifies the general test conditions under Standard No. 301. However, this section does not specify whether a spare tire must be included during the testing. Accordingly, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 301 may be based on tests with or without the spare tire, provided that all applicable conditions in Standard No. 301 are

satisfied.

You should be aware that NHTSA's compliance test procedures currently specify that if the spare tire is standard equipment, it should be inflated to the vehicle manufacturer's specifications and be in the vehicle during the agency's compliance testing (see page 27 of the "OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures," copy enclosed). Please note that, although a manufacturer is not required to include a spare tire that is standard equipment, absence of a spare tire might not provide an adequate basis for certifying that the tested vehicle complies with the requirements of Standard No. 301.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, you should feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-2.45

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Saburo Inui -- Corporate Manager, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-91 from Saburo Inui to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 20, 1991, with respect to an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it relates to High Intensity Discharge Headlamp (HID) designs contemplated by Toyota. You explained these designs in greater detail to NHTSA staff members in a meeting with them on February 20.

Standard No. 108 defines an "integral beam headlamp" as one which is neither a sealed beam headlamp nor one equipped with a standardized replaceable light source, but one which is a "headlamp comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly, including lens, reflector, and light source." You have presented two HID headlamp designs, and have asked whether these lamps are "integral beam headlamps" as defined by Standard No. 108.

These lamps differ from conventional headlamps by having ballast, consisting of a "starter" affixed to the rear of the headlamp, connected to a "converter," which is separated from the headlamp-starter unit. Because of space limitations, it may not be feasible to integrate the ballast into the headlamp enclosure. On one of these headlamps (Figure 2) the starter and converter are directly connected to each other by a "hard wire" while in the other (Figure 3), the starter and converter are connected by "hard wires" that meet at a connector between the two. In this design, the ballast units would be installed separately, then permanently joined by a connector, which could not be separated without destroying the connector. You believe that both designs are "integral beam headlamps."

The phrase "optical assembly" in the definition of "integral beam headlamp", in our view, encompasses all lamp components other than the power source which are required for illumination of the headlamp. This means that an "optical assembly includes the ballast. Although the lamp, starter, and converter may be permanently attached to each other, and could be considered "indivisible," and the starter could be considered to be "integral" with the lamp body, the positioning of the converter at some distance from the starter, as shown in your Figure 2 and Figure 3, does not render it "integral" within the meaning of the definition, unless it is permanently attached to the starter.

However, a design which had a connector as in your Figure 3 and described in your letter, would be considered both "integral" and "indivisible" if its individual components were not permanently attached to each other until the installation of the device in a motor vehicle, providing that

any portion of the device could not be subsequently detached without damage sufficient that the entire device would have to be replaced. This would apply to either original or replacement equipment.

ID: nht91-2.46

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles A. Schue, Jr.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-27-91 from Charles A. Schue, Jr. to DOT/NHTSA Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OCC 5782)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 27, 1991, to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with respect to your prospective importation of a 1979 Mercedes-Benz 300D. You have requested a "waiver of purchase date requirement" as outlined in the DOT "Guide for Complying with Regulations on Imported Motor Vehicles", and, if this cannot be granted, information of "other provisions under which I may request approval to import this vehicle into the U.S.A."

We are happy to provide you with an interpretation of the importation regulations (49 CFR Part 591). One of its provisions will apply to your situation. A vehicle is admitted after its importer has executed a Form HS-7 at the port of entry. As one of its provisions will apply to you, there is no need to obtain written approval in advance from us.

First, there is no restriction upon importation if the vehicle, in fact, complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You report that the Mercedes has had two previous American owners in Turkey. If the car was originally bought by an American, even though in Turkey, there is the possibility that the vehicle was originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Conformance with the standards at time of manufacture may be verified by the manufacturer's label certifying compliance, usually placed in the driver's door post area. If your Mercedes has such a label, then it may be imported without the necessity of demonstrating conformance.

An importer who is a nonresident of the United States may import a nonconforming vehicle temporarily without the necessity of conforming it to the standards. The fact that you have been employed in Turkey since June 1986 raises the possibility that you may not intend a permanent importation of the Mercedes. If you intend to seek employment again outside the United States, and if the Mercedes will be in the United States for less than a year, you would appear eligible to import the car under the nonresident provisions.

However, if you intend permanent importation and if your Mercedes lacks the certification label, the car is subject to the importation provisions affecting nonconforming vehicles. You have asked about your eligibility to import a vehicle under the provisions set forth in the Guide. The "purchase date" provision to which you refer is 49 CFR 591.5(g)(3). This requirement was mandated by 15 U.S.C. 1397(g)(3). Subsection (g) contains conditions, all of which must be fulfilled in order to import nonconforming vehicles under the more liberal provisions that were in effect before January 31, 1990. One of these conditions, as set forth in section 1397(g)(3), is that the importer "had acquired (or had entered

into a binding contract to acquire) (the motor) vehicle before the date of enactment of this subsection (October 31, 1988)." In establishing this requirement, Congress provided no authority to exempt anyone from its terms. Thus, unless you had a binding contract as of October 31, 1988, to acquire the Mercedes that you purchased on May 15, 1989, you are not eligible to import the vehicle under section 591.5(g).

The requirements under which you may be eligible to permanently import your Mercedes are set forth in section 591.5(f). Unfortunately, these are not explained in the DOT Guide that you have. For your information, I enclose a current copy of 49 CFR Part 591. In brief, two events must occur before you may import your noncomplying vehicle into the United States pursuant to this section. First, this agency must have made a determination that the vehicle is capable of being converted to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Second, after such a determination, the vehicle may be imported only by a "registered importer" (essentially an entity that the agency has recognized as capable of converting the vehicle to comply with the standards), or by the vehicle owner who has a contractual relationship with a registered importer to perform conversion work.

You will be pleased to know that the agency has already determined that noncomplying 1979 Mercedes-Benz 300D passenger cars are eligible for importation. I enclose a copy of our Final Determination on this and other cars that was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 1990. The agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance can furnish you a list of registered importers, and I suggest that you contact them shortly before you intend to import the car, so that the list will be current.

Attachments

Copy of Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 219, 11-30-90; Final Determinations That Certain Nonconforming Vehicles Are Eligible For Importation. (Text omitted)

Copy of 49 CFR Part 591, Importation of Vehicles & Equipment Subject To Federal Safety, Bumper & Theft Protection Standards (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-2.47

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Jerald L. Mikesell, Ed.D. -- Assistant Superintendent, Sierra Vista Public Schools

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Chief Counsel, U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jerald L. Mikesell (A37; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

We would like to request a copy of the federal regulations regarding school vans being used for transporting of students. We are especially interested in the number of students which can be transported before a van is considered a school bus.

We appreciate your help in this matter as an answer to this question is needed as soon as possible. Thank you for your time.