ID: nht90-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/14/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KARL-HEINZ FABER -- SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/19/90 FROM KARL HEINZ FABER TO BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA; RE ARMREST STORAGE COMPARTMENT; OCC 4699

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1990 to Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR @ 571.201). More specifically, yo u stated in your letter that future Mercedes-Benz vehicles will come equipped with new armrests between the two front and, where applicable, two rear seating position. The new design will have a built-in compartment that can accommodate car phone storag e. It will be covered by a lift-up lid that will afford easy access to the phone.

Your letter indicated that your company believes the lift-up lid on this armrest would not be subject to the provisions of S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 for "interior compartment doors," since those provisions do not apply to doors incorporated in center armrests. However, your letter indicated your company's belief that the new armrests would be subject to the requirements of S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, which applies to folding armrests. As explained more fully below, these beliefs appear to be correct applications of the standard.

At the outset, I would like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1403) makes a vehicle's manufacturer responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable provisions of the F ederal motor vehicle safety standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any vehicle designs or features. NHTSA will, however, tentatively state our opinion of how the safety standards wo uld apply to a vehicle design or feature. It is important that the manufacturer be aware that these tentative statements of agency opinion are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by the manufacturer, and that the agency opinions may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information.

With those caveats, I agree with you that sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 do not appear to apply to the lift-up lid on your armrest design. Section S3.3 of Standard No. 201 requires that interior compartment doors "located in an instrument p anel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position" remain closed when tested in accordance with the demonstration procedures in section S3.3.1 of the Standard. It is not clear if the lift-up lid on your armrest de sign would qualify as an "interior compartment door" within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR @ 571.3 "(any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effec ts"). If the armrest is not designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid on the armrest would be considered an "interior compartment door." If the armrest is not designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid would not be an "int erior compartment door" and S3.3 and S3.3.1 would not apply to it. Even if the lift-up lid were considered an interior compartment door, it would not appear to be subject to sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of the Standard. This is because those sections apply only to interior compartment doors "located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position. . . ." Only interior compartment doors located in the listed components must comply with S3.3 and S3 .3.1. Since an armrest is not among the listed components, interior compartment doors located in an armrest are not subject to S3.3 and S3.3.1.

You also discussed the applicability of section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201 to your armrest design. Section S3.5.2 applies to armrests that folds into the seat back or between two seat backs. Based on the information supplied in your letter, we agree th at your armrest design would be subject to section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, because it is a folding armrest between two seat backs. We also agree with your suggestion that Mercedes-Benz may comply with section S3.5.2 by ensuring that this armrest des ign is "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material."

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or need some additional information on this subject.

ID: nht90-2.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/14/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOSEPH R. WHEELER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/08/90 FROM JOSEPH R. WHEELER TO KEN WEINSTEIN -- NHTSA

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to Kenneth Weinstein of my staff requesting information about actions by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). More spe cifically, you noted that S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 states that, "Except as provided in S4.1.5 [and another section not relevant to your inquiry], each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 shall comply with the [automatic restraint requirements]." S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and tha t are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., [the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect]." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars.

This letter expresses no opinion about the implications under Tennessee law of the absence of a determination by the Secretary of Transportation regarding any State's safety belt law.

ID: nht90-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Normand Laurendeau, Esq. -- Guy And Gilbert

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEREL M. SACHS (A43; STD. 205; REDBOOK 2); ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/26/95 LETTER FROM JEREL M. SACHS TO CLARKE HARPER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 8/4/86 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO HENRY A. GORRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6 /10/87 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO DAVID C. MAROON

TEXT: Dear Mr. Laurendeau:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your client, who distributes auto glass parts in Canada. You had two questions regarding your client's status as an "intermediate" in the motor vehicle industry.

Before I address your specific questions, I believe some background information about this agency may be of assistance to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safe ty Act (Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and al so investigates other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes each of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the Safety Act. The information sheet also explains how a company offering an item of mot or vehicle equipment for importation into the United States must designate an agent within this country for service of process.

Your letter describes your client as "one of the major distributors of auto glass parts in all of Canada." Your letter states that your client's customers demand that your client "certifies all glasses shipped with D.O.T. number AS1 or AS2 for domestic a nd export purposes in all countries." I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter.

Your first question was whether your client, as a distributor of automotive safety glass, needs a D.O.T. number to operate in the United States. The answer to this question depends on what role your client has in the process that results in glazing bein g sold to the customer.

The agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR $ 571.205) which specifies performance requirements for glazing for use in motor vehicles. S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and d istributors of glazing materials.

The marking and certification requirements differ, depending upon whether your client is a "prime glazing material manufacturer" or simply a manufacturer or distributor. A "prime glazing material manufacturer" is defined in S6.1 of Standard No. 205 as " one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." If your client performs any of these operations, it must comply with the marking and certification requirements set forth in S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205. S6.1 requires every prim e glazing material manufacturer to mark all glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways". Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "ANS Z26). S6.2 of Standard No. 205 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper by adding to the mark required by S6.1 the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by this agency. S6.3 requires each prime glazing manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehi cles pursuant to the requirements of section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403).

Assuming that your client would not be considered a "prime glazing material manufacturer," but is simply a distributor, it would not need to be assigned a DOT number pursuant to S6.2 of Standard No. 205. In your letter, however, you incorrectly identifi ed the codes AS1 and AS2 as DOT numbers. Those codes are required on glazing materials by section 6 of ANS Z26. As explained below, your client may be required to add such markings to glazing materials, even if your client is only considered a distribu tor for the purposes of Standard No. 205.

Each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies, for use in a motor vehicle or camper, must comply with the requirements set forth in S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. For sections of glazing th at are cut by the manufacturer or distributor, the manufacturer or distributor must mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 (S6.4) and certify it in accordance with section 114 of the Safety Act (S6.5).

Your second question asked about the potential liability of a distributor for the certification of automotive safety glazing for importation into the United States.

If your client is required to certify glazing it distributes pursuant to the provisions in either S6.2, S6.3, or S6.5 of Standard No. 205, the failure to so certify would be a violation of the standard. Section

108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that:

No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any appl icable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . .

Thus, if your client is required by Standard No. 205 to certify some glazing it distributes, the failure to make such a certification would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act. Even if your client is not required to certify the glaz ing it distributes pursuant to Standard No. 205, section 114 of the Safety Act requires every distributor of motor vehicle equipment (such as glazing) to furnish a certification. Section 114 provides: Every manufacturer or distributor of . . . motor veh icle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such . . . equipment by such . . . distributor the certification that each such . . . item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle sa fety standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.

Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act provides that no person shall fail to issue a certificate required by section 114, or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable safety stand ards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) provides that any violations of section 108 subject the violator to a civil penalty of not to exceed $ 1,000 for each such violation, up to a maximum penalty of $ 800,000.

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

ID: nht90-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/90

FROM: NORMAN B. SCOTT, JR.,-- SNUG SEAT, INC.

TO: ERIKA T. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-15-90 TO N. B. SCOTT, JR., FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 213); ALSO ATTACHED--PHOTOGRAPH (OMITTED)

TEXT:

During a meeting held at NHTSA offices on June 13, 1990, 1 presented a new product being introduced to the market in the next 60 days which will transport "Low Birth Weight" (LBW) infants in a supine or prone position.

This "LBW" car bed is to be called the Mini-Swinger and will be represented as appropriate for infants no longer than twenty (20) inches and no more than eight to ten (8-10) pounds in weight. The Mini-Swinger was developed as a safer means of transporta tion for the "LBW" population of infants that do not have the skeletal/muscular structure required for safe transportation in the standard rear facing six (6) month old car seats. The Mini-Swinger is protected by patent number 4,113,306 issued to Mr. vo n Wimmersperg and owned by the West German firm, Romer-Britax.

As FMVSS 213 does not deal directly with infants of this size we would like an opinion on the following:

In order to certify to FMVSS 213 we are required to place the six (6) month old seventeen (17) pound dummy in the Mini-Swinger. The six (6) month old dummy's torso fits in the Mini-Swinger; however, the legs do not. A dynamic crash test showed the dumm y staying in the shell and the shell maintaining its integrity.

Given that FMVSS 213 does not address the comfort of the occupant of a car seat, we need to know if you accept our testing as adequate relative to the present standard.

On July 8, 1988, you wrote a six (6) page letter to Donald Friedman, Liability Research, Inc., relative to a similar issue. During review of this letter, it seems evident to me the testing we have done is an acceptable test for compliance to FMVSS 213.

Would you please review our request and let me know your thoughts at the earliest convenience?

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.

ID: nht91-2.48

DATE: March 25, 1991

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

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dan P. Strauser (A37; VSA 102(3)

TEXT:

I would ask that you review the enclosed literature on Elgin Sweeper model Whirlwind, Crosswind and Eagle 4-wheel street sweepers, along with Pelican "SE" and Pelican "P", 3-wheel street sweepers. I am also enclosing literature from our sister division Ravo, Models 4000 and 5000 street sweepers.

I would like a letter of interpretation on the above models.

We would also be interested in determining what the criteria is for sweepers classified as falling under the FMVSS requirements.

If additional information is required, please call me at (708) 741-5370.