ID: nht93-2.38

DATE: March 30, 1993

FROM: Greg Hixson -- President, Hixson and Netherton Distributing

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-16-93 from John Womack to Greg Hixson (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT: Hixson and Netherton Distributing a corporation in Dallas, Texas wishes to import an "Aftermarket Airbag" for automobiles to be sold in the United States.

We have been unable to obtain any specifications, standards or regulations regarding Airbags or importing of such an item.

If your office has any of this information we would certainly appreciate you forwarding it to our office as soon as possible.

We can be reached by phone or by mail at the following:

Hixson and Netherton Distributing P.O. Box 28995 Dallas, Texas 75228 (214) 682-9836

A prompt reply would be very much appreciated.

ID: nht93-2.39

DATE: March 31, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: W. C. Burke -- Captain, Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-7-92 from W. C. Burke to Paul Rice (OCC 8125)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of FMVSS No. 205, GLAZING MATERIALS (49 CFR S571.205). This interpretation is based on my understanding of the statements in your letter as well as statements made by Mr. Greg Bragg of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in a telephone conversation with Mr. Clarke Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff.

You ask about the marking responsibilities of glass installers who put replacement glass in school buses. CHP personnel have found school buses with replacement glass that is not marked. You ask whether an installer who cuts sections of glass from a larger, marked section is required by S6.4 of FMVSS No. 205 to mark each individual smaller section (if not already marked) prior to installing them as replacement windows. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes.

The person who cuts a section of glazing to size for installation in a motor vehicle is considered a manufacturer of the glazing. This is because the item of glazing is not considered manufactured until it is in the form that it will actually be sold for installation into a motor vehicle. This position that the person cutting the glazing is a manufacturer was stated early in the history of Standard No. 205, in a letter to Donald Counihan (May 9, 1968). The agency has stated frequently since then that persons cutting sections of glazing are manufacturers, most notably in a preamble for a 1972 rule on Standard No. 205 adopting the requirements of S6.4. (37 FR 24035, November 11, 1972) NHTSA stated that S6.4 requires "persons who cut glazing" to include the markings required by Standard No. 205 "on each cut piece."

S6.4 requires each person who cuts glazing to mark the piece with the markings required by section 6 of American National Standard (ANS) Z26. Section 6, ANS Z26 requires the following information: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. Section S6.5 of Standard No. 205 also requires that person to certify the material in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

While your letter refers to persons cutting sections of glazing from larger sections, we note that it is possible that an item of replacement glazing was designed for a specific vehicle by a "prime glazing material manufacturer" (i.e., "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material," see S6.1 of Standard No. 205). If the item was so designed by such a manufacturer, the item must be marked and certified in accordance with S6.1 and 6.2 of Standard No. 205. A person other than a prime glazing material manufacturer installing the glazing without cutting it would have no marking requirement

under Standard No. 205. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Shaw at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-2.4

DATE: 03/03/93

FROM: BARRY FRELRICE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA

TO: RON MARION -- SALES ENGINEER, THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-4-92 FROM RON MARION TO BARRY FELRICE (OCC 8073)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether there has been any consideration given to excluding "non-route-type" school buses from Standard No. 131's requirement that school buses be equipped with a stop signal arm. You stated that, as a manufacturer of school bus bodies, you are getting numerous questions regarding the installation of stop arms on school buses not used on route service. According to your letter, a number of schools across the U.S. purchase school buses, paint them a color other than yellow, and use them exclusively for athletic trips. You stated that these buses pick up at the school and travel to another school to unload, and do not make stops for loading or unloading along the way and in no way attempt to control traffic. You stated that the purchasers of these school buses are concerned about paying for stop arms which are never used.

As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, is a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard which requires all new school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the bus.

To answer your specific question, this agency has not considered whether "non-route-type" school buses should be excluded from Standard No. 131's requirement for a stop signal arm. I note that this issue was not raised in the comments on our notice of proposed rulemaking.

We do appreciate the concern of a purchaser about paying for safety equipment that he or she believes will never be used. However, the limited information provided in your letter does not provide a basis for concluding that we should consider changing the standard.

We do not know how many school buses are used exclusively or primarily for "non-route-type" service, although we assume the number is small. Further, it would appear that there would be occasion to use signal arms for some school buses used for such service. For example, these safety devices might be used while loading and unloading students when the school bus is parked on a school driveway or a road near a school, if the school bus is used to transport students to activities at locations other than schools, or if the school bus is sometimes used as a replacement for out-of-service regular route school buses. T also note that, assuming that there is occasion to use stop signal arms or some school buses which are primarily used for non-route service, it is not clear how the agency would distinguish, for purposes of a regulation, which school buses should be excluded from the requirement for stop arms.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht93-2.40

DATE: March 31, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Samuel Kimmelman

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-11-93 from Samuel Kimmelman to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8407); Also attached to letter dated 11-1-89 from Stephen P. Wood to Samuel Kimmelman

TEXT: In reply to your letter of March 11, 1993, I confirm that Mr. Wood's letter to you of November 1, 1989, remains in force as an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. When the hazard warning lamp system is activated, the front lamps in the system must continue to operate when the stop lamps are activated and override the rear lamps in the system.

ID: nht93-2.41

DATE: March 31, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Philip Trupiano --Auto Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-18-93 from Philip Trupiano to Taylor Vinson (OCC 8417)

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of March 18, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You seek an interpretation of provisions of 49 CFR Parts 591 and 592. You have supplemented your letter by FAXing us on March 23, 1993, a letter from Ford Motor Company dated September 17, 1992, and a copy of a work order from the Louisville Truck Centre in Canada dated September 30, 1992.

Auto Enterprises is a Registered Importer (RI) under Part 592. It has contracted to represent a person who wishes to import a 1984 Ford 9000 heavy duty truck of Canadian manufacture. The truck would be imported across the border shared by North Dakota and Manitoba. The truck appears to have been manufactured as a chassis cab in the United States, and subsequently completed as a truck in Canada. Ford's letter states that the completed vehicle will comply with 18 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, that it "was designed to meet FMVSS 108 as fully as possible for the vehicle configuration as delivered at the assembly plant", and that to comply "with FMVSS 121 it may be necessary to do the following: Add a quick release valve. Eliminate the control line to the limiting valve. Use 6 or 8 hose from foot control to quick release valve." The work order from Louisville Truck Centre states that "(t)he necessary changes have been made to comply with safety standard FMVSS 121" in accordance with Ford's letter." We assume, of course, that Ford's letter identifies the truck in question as your letter did not convey the VIN of the vehicle. You wish to proceed as follows and ask for our concurrence under Parts 591 and 592. Because of the distance involved in driving the truck to Michigan and back (approximately 4,000 miles), you wish to facilitate entry by mailing Auto Enterprise's RI certification label to its customs broker at the contemplated port of entry to be affixed there. Appropriate photographs of the certification would be taken and submitted to NHTSA as part of the RI conformance package required for bond release. During the period before release of the bond, the truck would be in the custody of the importer. However, because the truck cannot be registered in North Dakota without a copy of the bond release letter, the importer would be effectively prohibited from licensing it for use.

The truck involved was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It may not have been completed to meet the lighting standard. In addition, modifications were recently made with the intent of conforming it to the U.S. standard on air brakes for trucks. While Ford's letter is informative, it falls short of a manufacturer's certification of compliance. Although the vehicle could in fact now conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, that fact must be verified by Auto Enterprises as the applicable RI, and its certification of that fact provided to NHTSA. This agency's initial interpretation of The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 was that it forbade conformance work to be performed outside the United States, but that conformance work could be

performed in the United States either by the RI or its agent. However, Part 592 as adopted reflects a modified view. It allows conformance work outside the U.S. subject to verification by the RI. As NHTSA stated in the preamble to the final rule (54 FR at 40084) a principal obligation of the RI is "(1) to bring those vehicles into compliance, or to demonstrate that they have been brought into compliance before importation." Further, as NHTSA noted at 40086, after consideration of comments it did not adopt "those aspects of the proposal that countenanced delegation of conformance responsibilities to an agent." In light of the above, we do not believe that Auto Enterprises can, in good faith, affix its certification of compliance to the Canadian truck without verifying its compliance, and we do not believe that it can delegate that task to the Customs Broker who would thereby become its agent for this purpose.

With respect to whether the importer may have custody of its vehicle, The Safety Compliance Act appears to require that it is the RI who has custody, for it clearly states that RIs shall not release custody of any motor vehicle for which they have responsibility (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)(3)(E)(i)) until after they certify approval and have been notified by NHTSA that the conformance bond is released.

Given the possibility that the truck in question may be in de facto compliance with the safety standards, and in recognition of the practical problems involved, we suggest that Auto Enterprises send an employee to inspect the vehicle on the day that it is entered under bond. If your employee concludes that the truck apparently now conforms to Standards Nos. 108 and 121, as well as remaining in compliance with the 18 other applicable standards, (s)he may then affix the certification of compliance. When this is done, your employee may complete and FAX the compliance documentation to NHTSA. We will endeavor to accord this submission priority treatment so that, if it is in order, we can release the bond without delay, probably within one workday. In the interim, the truck would be in the custody of your employee. We believe that this course of action would meet both the law and your practical concerns.

ID: nht93-2.42

DATE: March 31, 1993

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-93 from John Womack to Michael Love (A41; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210; Part 571)

TEXT:

Under provisions of 49 CFR 571.208 S 4.1.4.2, integral Type seat belts are required at rear outboard seating positions of passenger cars. "Designated seating position" is defined in 571.3(b) as a location capable of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female. In certain instances, rear seats can at certain times meet the definition of designated seating position and other times not. For example, a seat with a folding seat back may be a seating position with the seat back in the up position and not with the seat back folded forward over the seat base. Another example of this could be if a platform or other device has several positions, one of which covers the seat so as to remove the necessary room to meet the designated seated position criteria.

Porsche's interpretation of such situations where a seat sometimes meets the designated seating position criteria is as follows:

- When the seat meets the criteria, then seat belts must be provided according to the requirements of 571.208. In addition, those belts, since required by 571.208, must also meet the requirements of 571.209 and 571.210.

- When the seat does not meet the criteria, then seat belts are no longer required by 571.208. Any seat belts provided in this situation must no longer meet requirements of 571.208, 209 or 210.

Porsche requests NHTSA's concurrence with this interpretation. If you should have any questions, please contact me at 702/3483198.

ID: nht93-2.43

DATE: April 2, 1993

FROM: T. Kouchi -- Director, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: Automotive Tail & Stop Lamps Using Light Emitting-diodes (LEDs)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-93 from John Womack to T. Kouchi (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: Thank you for your answer to our questions regarding the above subject by your letter of December 30, 1992.

In your answer, there is your view that any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

According to your view, we consider that the lamps having three lighted sections described in the attached drawing No. 1 & No. 2 need only comply with the photometric requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

So, we would like to have your opinion if our idea is appropriate.

Your kind answer will be highly appreciated.

Attached to Drawings No. 1 and No. 2 of LEDs. (Drawings omitted.)

ID: nht93-2.44

DATE: April 5, 1993 EST

FROM: :Linda Roberson -- President, Body Safety Kids Club, Inc.

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-93 from John Womack to Linda Roberson (A41; Std. 213; VSA 102); Also attached to letter dated 2-25-92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Phil Gray (VSA 108(a)(2)(A)); Also attached to letter dated 9-6-84 from Frank Berndt to Phillip Ables.

TEXT: Dr. Jeff Michael has talked with me this morning, and has very kindly given me your name and information to ask you to consider. I have enclosed two safety harness that I have two patents on. One is to the safety of tethering the child and one is a divisional patent to a safety club and ID system for children. There are several things here that I need information about and I enclosed some information for you to see what the safety club, in the future will evolve into, I hope.

My main concern with your council is for safety also when the child is riding in the car. I would like for these children to have a safety device when they are out with their guardian, and also when they are going to or returning from outings, etc. I have also enclosed a little hanging tag which is to be redone for the harness and to hang on for information. I have corrected some mistakes, and I also want to know what I can say when marketing these little harness. For my older grandson, I use the blue harness and I take the shoulder strap and go down through diagonally to keep it out of his hands and to keep it out of his face area. I would like very much for this to be tested. I have used it on him, but thankfully have never had any accident, or quick stops and I wondered if your testing lab and dummy could test this aspect. For the pink harness I have stapled or pinned a replica of a lap seat belt and how it passes through my harness for the 3 year old, before that age, they are in car seats. I say 35 pounds for this age, and approximately 34-40 pounds for the previous shoulder strap. Using the seat belt, I think this harness could also be labeled as an accessory to the seat belt; because when it is so threaded through the child cannot stand up and come out of their position. So many times they just slip out since the seat belt just goes across the lap and you turn around and the child is standing up. A very unsafe situation.

I have designed these harness so the child can't remove them, so they can grow with them, and so there is at least an inch on either side of the child waist band allowing for your seat belts and for growth.

The pink is a stronger webbing, and this was designed for blind children and hyperactive children and children who need extra strength. The regular harness in the summer material is the manufacturers. I have not started to manufacture the harness for the blind, as I have an improvement patent that is going in and it has lots of accessories on the harness for their needs.

I am going to try and write and find out the association where I could get my product tested for the high chair and my accessory belt in conjunction with the harness. If you know of any association on a federal level, please advise me. I also wanted to know if I could get approval from the council on new products

to get my harness tested, but I don't know how to do that. I am a nurse anesthetist and I work full time and also for the past two years part time in addition, but I have obtained 3 patents and have been trying to market and get manufacturing, etc. I am so tired and so broke, I just need help, assistance, or guidance. I am going to do a booth with the Governors Hwy. Safety in Asheville 14-16 of this month and I gave them harness (6) for door prices, but only for tethering children in crowds.

I do know this works for me and my grandson, but unfortunately they are in Fla. and I can't get their pictures with seat belts. I did some shading and drawings and they are attached, and tried to run a prototype of a shoulder strap and seat belt through the harness to show you how I threaded them. I just don't want to advertise wrong, or to do anything unsafe, or to be sued. I have just been selling these to two little stores and a lot of acquaintances.

I have given these little things I printed up, but I put the size 50 lbs. Truly it should be 35-40 lbs. Because the child starts to use these two devices by themselves at this age and weight. Age 3 1/2-4.

I also wanted you to look at my little paper that I will be including later for children as a service. My grandson got lost at Disneyworld 3 1/2 year ago for several hours and he had been wearing a wrist harness and he took it off. The lost and found was not for kids so I developed a safety emblem and an ID code and registration card for kids. Right now I am not using the club for record keeping as I can't afford it and I am using the information only as a warranty for the parent for the harness, but someday I would like to help the hwy. and local police to ID children, just from the harness number. My main aspect is to keep them from being lost, or keep them from getting hurt in cars in travel.

I would greatly appreciate any help you may give me or direction. Mr. Michael did not advise me to send the harness, but since I am the only employee of this business and I have to do everything, I just don't have the time to keep duplicating myself, and I certainly need help quickly, as I have told people this is something I do. I do not want to advise people wrongly, or harm anyone. Can you put these harness on dummies and try the seat belt and shoulder strap. Then, does this look like the harness can meet these standards you have an accessory to the existing seat belt and or shoulder strap for kids a certain age. What age, or weight do your standards allow children to use the two items mentioned without a car seat?

These items go over clothing so they do not have to be fire repellent as they are just like clothes. I always have one side cotton and the other water repellent or nylon to give strength and protection to chest area.

I am sure I must meet some sort of performance standards as a safety harness and for you as a safety belt accessory. The harness is better and safer for kids than any existing harness, and I have a patent readying for disabled kids of all kinds.

Isn't there anybody who can give me information on a grant or something as I have a very good patent for the existing seat belts, they are not right for children and I just can't afford to pay out anymore or work anymore to get this

accomplished. It would certainly help children in travel, we could also eliminate many devices that are sold in conjunction with safety in the high chair, and car to make children more comfortable and safer.

I have enclosed some information for your review, I have not yet sent Good Morning America any harness and I certainly did not want to go on the air and say anything about a seat belt and be incorrect. The second letter is from a woman who my sister sold a harness to when she was in London last year because the child kept leaving the parents side at the airport.

You see I am in a dilemma and I work on this stuff most of my off time from work. I also think having proof that this was indeed safe would greatly help me to market, not to mention the additional safety of kids; running out into moving cars, getting lost or missing; in cars to keep them in position, and even in high chairs in conjunction with little belts. We have a coloring booklet I am doing now and waiting for pictures to give children and parents instructions on safety and use of the harness. I would greatly appreciate any help you can give me, my phone number is on page one.

Any additional information you can think of I would appreciate. I am thanking you most sincerely.

P.S. On that sheet for the Safety Club and my club number, if and when I can ever afford to dot this as a service, how will law enforcement personnel know this is available, I still don't have a computer. Maybe this portion could be not for profit???

Attachments: - Body Safety Kids Club, Inc. Sales Brochure and Instruction/Direction Sheet - Diagram of Body Safety Kids Club Vest - Letter dated 3-2-93 from R. T. Sawyer, Director, Biopharm Limited to Liz Davies, Buying Director, MotherCare

(Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-2.45

DATE: April 6, 1993

FROM: Dale Moore -- CIC, Hagan Hamilton Insurance & Financial Services

TO: Walter Myers -- Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/2/93 from John Womack to Dale Moore (A41; VSA 103(14); Part 571.3)

TEXT:

I am an insurance broker representing a local college. We presently provide insurance coverage for their automobiles which are used for transportation of students.

One such program involves transportation of high school age students from their homes to the campus and on field trips. This is done with 15 passenger vans which we are told may have to meet federal requirements in order to be leased or purchased from an automobile dealer.

We are of the opinion that since this program is not affiliated with the local high school, nor is it strictly academic, that the "school bus" 10 passenger rule does not apply. I should add that the college is privately owned.

We will appreciate a ruling as soon as possible because of the financial commitment which has to be made to continue this program. I have enclosed course information to assist you in making your decision.

Attachment

Course information on Linfield College and Upward Bound (text omitted).

ID: nht93-2.46

DATE: April 7, 1993

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President, Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: Dorothy Nakama -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Vehicle Identification Number (VIN)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-29-93 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (A41; Std. 115; Part 567).

TEXT: Section 4.6 of TTMA's Recommended Practice Number 56-91, "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number," states the following:

4.6 Rebuilt Trailers

If a rebuilt trailer meets the requirements of 49 CFR 571.7(f) as being newly manufactured, the rebuilder must furnish a new VIN. If the rebuilt trailer is considered not new by this requirement, the VIN of the original trailer shall be used in the legal paperwork, but there is no legal requirement to physically retain the VIN on the trailer.

A person has questioned whether the statement that "there is no legal requirement to physically retain the VIN on the trailer" is correct. Please inform us as to whether this statement is correct. It is my understanding that an owner of a motor vehicle is not prohibited from removing a VIN label from his motor vehicle.