ID: nht91-2.34

DATE: March 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George Smyth -- Municipal/Refuse Fleet Sales, Palm Peterbilt-GMC Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-30-75 from Richard B. Dyson (signed by Z. Taylor Vinson) to Byron A. Crampton; Also attached to letter dated 8-27-68 from Eugene B. Laskin to Barry G. Seitz (Std. 203; Std. 204); Also attached to letter dated 3-4-68 from George C. Nield to Earl Allgaier; Also attached to letter from Joseph R. O'Gorman to Nathan Darby

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an opinion on the legality of modifying left-hand drive trucks by adding right-hand drive. I apologize for the delay in our response.

We assume that your question is directed towards municipal refuse trucks. Because of budget constraints, we understand that refuse trucks with dual controls are increasing in popularity because they allow one-man trash collection, rather than the two or three man crews on older trucks, and that 3,000 to 4,000 such trucks are manufactured annually. We also understand that about 80% of these trucks are equipped with a fold-down seat at the auxiliary driving position, and that the right hand driving position is used in start-stop slow speed operation in residential neighborhoods, while the left hand position is used in driving to and from work sites.

According to your letter, the trucks are manufactured with left-hand drive only, and are then modified by body companies for the end user. The modification, as we understand it, is to add a steering wheel to the right-hand side, along with an accelerator, brake pedal, horn, hazard warning, and turn signals. This indicates that the vehicle may be operated from both sides. You commented that "the unsafe part of the conversion, as we see it, is that the windshield wiper controls, parking brake, start and stop switch, along with all gauges are on the lefthand side out of reach when the driver is in the drivers position." The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, specifies requirements in relation to the driver. It requires that if certain controls are furnished, they must be operable by the driver, and that if certain displays are furnished, they must be visible to the driver. See section S5.1. (Since your letter concerns trucks, it should be noted that Standard No. 101's display requirements do not apply to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or higher.) However, Standard No. 101 does not require that the driver's position be on a particular side of a vehicle. Thus, it permits a vehicle to be either left-hand or right-hand drive. The issue raised by your letter is how our standards apply when a vehicle is both left-hand drive and right-hand drive, i.e., the vehicle has two driver positions.

The term "driver" is defined as "the occupant of a motor vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system." See section 571.3. It is our opinion that the providing of a steering control system is ordinarily sufficient to create a driver's position, but that for vehicles with two driver's positions, the requirements specified in relation to the driver need be met only from the position intended by the original manufacturer as the primary driving position. However, if that manufacturer, or a subsequent converter, intends the driving positions to be used interchangeably under similar driving conditions so that neither driving position could be considered as primary over the other, then all Federal requirements would have to be met, e.g., the requirement in Standard No. 207 Seating Systems that a seat be provided for the driver.

We addressed this issue previously in a letter sent July 30, 1975 to Byron A. Crampton of the Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., in which the agency informed Mr. Crampton that a dual-control garbage truck that contained an auxiliary driver's position on the right side of the vehicle, with a separate set of controls, need not have a seat at the auxiliary position, and that access to such controls as the heater, wipers, and lights from this position was not required. Earlier, in an interpretation issued in 1968, with respect to driver education cars with dual controls, the agency considered the "driver, of such a vehicle to be the person seated behind the primary controls.

We appreciate your concern with safety that occasioned your letter. You may be reassured to know that the National Truck Equipment Association has had no reports of accidents or injuries due to the dual control feature of refuse trucks. However, it is possible that the agency could institute rulemaking in the future that would require a full set of controls and seats in dual control vehicles.

Your second question relates to noise standards. The in-cab noise standard is administered by the Department's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). We have forwarded a copy of your letter to that agency's Office of Motor Carrier Safety so that they can respond to your question.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

ID: nht91-2.35

DATE: March 14, 1991

FROM: David E. McAllister -- Manufacturers Representative

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David E. McAllister (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

As a supplier to the U.S. Postal Service for lights, I have been asked about the legality of the High Mount Stop Light on the new Long-Life Vehicles. The only time this light comes on is when the driver steps on the brakes. Since the vehicle makes numerous stops, would it be legal for this light to flash and make drivers behind the vehicle more aware?

Thank you for a ruling on this request.

ID: nht91-2.36

DATE: March 18, 1991

FROM: George Ziolo

TO: Administrator, US DOT/NHTSA

TITLE: Re Petition for Rectification of an Error, FMVSS 208

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to George Ziolo (A37; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I advise clients of NHTSA's requirements.

It is my understanding that the seat belt warning system furnished with manual belts need be activated only by the driver's belt in vehicles manufactured between 1-1-72 and 8-31-89 inclusive, in accordance with S7.3.

However, your 49 CFR, revised as of October 1990, requires that a seat belt warning system furnished with manual belts need be activated not only by the driver's belt but also by

the front outboard passenger's belt in vehicles manufactured between 1-1-72 thru 8-31-73 inclusive (S4.1.1.3.1(a) and S4.1.1.3.2); and by

the front outboard and front center passenger's belt, in vehicles manufactured 9-1-73 thru 8-31-89 (S4.1.2.3.1(a), S4.1.2.3.1(b), and S4.1.2.3.2).

In view of the fact that the above represents a more severe requirement than the original one in effect on 1-1-72, and the fact that NHTSA has not in the past retroactively tightened its requirements, the above appears to be an inadvertent error, particularly because S7.3 makes no mention of seating positions other than the one for the driver.

If the above is an error, please confirm this to me for my record and use.

If the above is not an error, please advise me as to when you published this change in the Federal Register. If you have not published it in the Federal Register, I request that you do, including the effective dates of the changed requirement for compliance purposes.

I make this request as a petition under provisions you find applicable. If you wish that I resubmit this petition in another format, please advise me which format is appropriate.

This matter is very important to me and my clients for reasons of both compliance and product liability.

ID: nht91-2.37

DATE: March 18, 1991

FROM: Arthur H. Neill -- Chief, Crash Avoidance Division, Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TO: Anthony J. Lalikos -- Project Engineer, Titeflex Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/12/94 from John Womack to Nicholas S. Copass (A42; Std. 106), letter dated 9/29/93 from Nicholas S. Copass to David Elias (OCC-9161), and letter dated 3/6/91 from Anthony J. Lalikos to Vernon G. Bloom

TEXT:

The designation that you recently submitted in accordance with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, BRAKE HOSES,

(x) Has become accepted and recorded. Thank you. (Reference: Your letter dated March 6, 1991; your symbol "Stylized Logo" (=T with hose tail)).

( ) Cannot be recorded because another company has previously submitted the same or a very similar designation. Please submit a different one.

ID: nht91-2.38

DATE: March 19, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry Tassan

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to a telephone inquiry in which you explained to Mr. Stephen Wood, the Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, that your truck rental company is considering lowering the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of some of its used trucks so that a renter need not have a commercial driver's license to operate them. You asked how the regulations of this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), would apply to such an action. As explained below, because only a manufacturer can assign a GVWR, any modification of a vehicle's GVWR by parties that are not manufacturers would have no legal effect.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The Certification requirements in 49 CFR Part 567 require each manufacturer to affix to the vehicle a label containing, among other things, the vehicle's GVWR. Under Part 567, the only parties that can assign or modify a vehicle's GVWR are the original manufacturer (S567.4(g)(3)), a final stage manufacturer (S567.5(c)(5)), or an alterer (S567.7(b)). Modifications of GVWR by any other parties would have no legal effect under Part 567. Accordingly, a vehicle owner that performs no manufacturing operations on a vehicle cannot modify the GVWR of the vehicle.

You should also be aware that another Federal authority - the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Office of Motor Carrier Standards - may regulate your attempts to lower a vehicle's GVWR. The FHWA regulates the licensing of operators of "commercial motor vehicles" under the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. I recommend you contact Mr. James Scapellato, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, KCS-1, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590 if you have any further questions about driver licensing.

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

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.