ID: nht90-1.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 20, 1990

FROM: H. Reese Chappell -- Engineer, Auto Ventshade Company

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rule Making, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 to R. Chappell from P. J. Rice; (A35; Std. 205 VSA S108(a)(1)(A); and photos (text omitted)

TEXT:

Auto Ventshade Company is a manufacturer in the automotive aftermarket business. As per my telephone conversation with your secretary, I am sending you a brochure which shows the application of our product, the Ventvisor.

We would like to know if there are any federal regulations on light transmission or otherwise which govern our product. The smoke-grey tinted Ventvisor has 47.5% light transmission which, as far as we have been able to determine, complies with state-to- state laws. We also manufacture a clear non-tinted part which we sell in California, New Jersey and West Virginia. These states do not allow any tinted products on automobiles at all.

Please send me written notice of any regulations that may exist so that we can be sure that our product complies completely with federal laws.

Thank you very much for your time. Your reply will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht90-1.5

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/90 EST

FROM: Cal Karl -- District 4700, State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, State Patrol

TO: All School Bus LCR II's

TITLE: Re School Bus Vandal Locks

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-27-90 from P.J. Rice to C. Karl (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 12-7-82 from F. Berndt to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 from C. Karl to M. Shaw (OCC 4403); Also attached to lett er dated 1-18-90 from R.E. Meadows; Also attached to letter dated 1-8-90 from R. Marion to C. Karl

TEXT:

Please be aware that some buses are appearing in the inspection process with vandal locks that do not comply with regulations.

49 CFR 571.217 provides for a lock on emergency exits. Effective 7/1/89, State Rule 3520.5010 subp 2 provides for locks on emergency doors and service door if they comply with 217.

571.217 requires the lock to disable the engine starting system if any emergency exit is locked. It further requires the presence of a person with a key or combination to activate such a mechanism.

Do not accept a bus that has a vandal lock that does not comply with this regulation. If there are buses in your area that have such locks, please make every effort to contact the operator and require that the lock be brought into compliance or removed.

Please review the language in 571.217. (Attached)

ID: nht90-1.50

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 20, 1990

FROM: David G. Dick -- Technician, Toy Laboratory, ACTS Testing Labs, Inc.

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to D.G. Dick (A36; Std. 213)

TEXT:

This letter is to request an interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 571.213, S5.2.3 Head Impact Protection requirements.

Section 5.2.3.2(a) of the Standard requires a 25% compression-deflection resistance of not less than 0.5 and not more than 10 pounds per square inch (psi) when tested in accordance with Section 6.3 for the energy absorbing material.

The requirements of not less than 0.5 and no greater than 10 psi are listed in the standard to one significant figure, however, when specimens are tested in accordance with the specified methodology, the results are calculated to more than one significan t figure. Is it acceptable to round off the result to one significant figure as stated in the standard as seen in the below example?

i.e.: 0.47 would be rounded up to O.5 and reported as a Pass.

Additionally, how was the lower limit of 0.5 psi decided upon?

Is there any situation in which an energy absorbing material with a 25% compressiondeflection resistance of less than 0.5 psi acceptable?

Your quick response to these questions would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht90-1.51

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 20, 1990

FROM: Louis F. Wilson -- Instant Traffic Lights

TO: NHTSA, Department of Transportation

TITLE: Re Letter dated September 1, 1989.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-1-89 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Louis F. Wilson (A37; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 2-20-91 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA (OCC 5747)

TEXT:

We sent you a letter concerning the legality of our product, Instant Traffic Lights on September 1, 1989 and as of this date, there has been no reply. With the date of the availability approaching rapidly, we are left pondering about the situation. We would appreciated it if you would take a few moment of your time to review our product. Along with this letter, we will send you a copy of the letter we mailed to you on September 1, 1989. On the attached letter, there are few questions which we would like to know. We would be grateful if you could send us a reply in the near future. Thank you very much.

ID: nht90-1.52

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 21, 1990

FROM: Dipl.-Ing H. Westermann -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TITLE: Request for interpretation - CHMSL unity.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-25-90 To Dipl.-Ing H. Westermann and From Stephen P. Wood; (A35: Std.108); Also attached to letter dated 2-7-90 To Richard van Iderstine and From Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann

TEXT:

Please receive enclosed our request for interpretation, which had accidentally been addressed to Mr. van Iderstine but we were informed that it is yours responsibility. A major uncertainty has arisen with respect to CHMSL unity, where the CHMSL is mounted on the trunk of a convertible (no rear window, appendix 2 of the letter). By ECE unity is defined but SAE and FMVSS 108 yield no such definition. In absence of a clear definition of unity for CHMSL, please let us know, whether the appropriate ECE definition can be applied and whether the designs as shown in the appendices form a CHMSL unity in the sense of FMVSS 108. A soon answer is very much appreciated.

ID: nht90-1.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: RICHARD A. KULICS, ESQ.

TITLE: REQUEST FOR RULING IMPORTED VEHICLES - FTZ

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12-5-89 TO TAYLOR VINSON, NHTSA, FROM RICHARD A. KULICS, ATTACHED.

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 5, 1989, to the attention of Taylor Vinson of this Office, on behalf of your clients Liphardt Associates and Pierre Enterprises, Inc.

You have informed us that Liphardt is an Independent Commercial Importer (ICI) under EPA regulations. The vehicles it imports are modified by Pierre. Both entities have the identical mailing address. This location is within a Foreign Trade Zone. You have also informed us that Liphardt/Pierre (L/Pe) will apply for status as a Registered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592. It is the practice of L/PE to transport its nonconforming vehicles directly from the vessel into the Zone, to perform conformance mod ifications in the Zone, and then file a consumption entry, post bond, and submit conformance documentation to DOT. After DOT and EPA have released the vehicle, it is delivered to its owner.

You have requested that L/Pe "be allowed to submit conformity packets to your agency prior to the submission of the consumption entry package, i.e., upon submission of the FTZ entry [transportation of the vehicle into the Zone], so that it may enter the vehicle as 'conforming.'" Under this plan, the current method of operation would remain much the same, except that L/Pe would prepare an HS-7 Declaration Form at the time the vehicle is transported into the Zone. This Form would be submitted to DOT along with a conformity package, for review and release, if appropriate. Then, when the actual consumption entry is filed, the vehicle would be entered as "conforming" merchandise. The purpose of this request "is to eliminate the costs associated with posti ng a special bond purely for DOT purposes", and to speed "up the process of importation, thus reducing the costs associated with storage." As you state, "What L/Pe proposes is that it be allowed to close out the obligation while the vehicle is still in t he custody of the Customs Service."

In substantiation of your request, you have called our attention to certain provisions of 19 CFR Part 146 Foreign Trade Zones, specifically section 146.2 outlining the obligations of Customs' supervision, section 146.10 providing for examination of merch andise necessary to facilitate the proper administration of any law that Customs is authorized to enforce, and section 146.31 stating that admission of merchandise into a Zone is subject to the regulations of the Federal agency concerned.

Under the facts as stated in your letter, we have concluded that your clients must provide a DOT bond under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 19 88 (P. L. 100-562), but that there is no legal reason why its obligations to DOT may not be satisfied before the conformed vehicle enters the customs territory of the United States.

As we understand it, the Foreign Trade Zone Act of 1934 (19 U.S.C. 81a et seq.) is intended to establish areas into which merchandise may be imported temporarily, "without being subject to the customs laws of the United States", before being sent "into c ustoms territory of the United States" (section 81c(a)). A Zone therefore is a legal fiction established solely for the administration of customs laws. Section 2(a) of the 1988 Act repealed the authority of the Customs Service over the importation of v ehicles subject to the 1966 Act. Accordingly, the new regulation governing the importation of nonconforming motor vehicles on and after January 31, 1990, 49 CFR Part 591, is not a "customs law" (unlike the existing regulation which is a joint regulation with DOT that specifically applies to importation into the customs territory of the United States (19 CFR 12.80(b)).

In pertinent part, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the 1966 Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(10)(A)) prohibits the importation "into the United States" of nonconforming vehicles. Although a Zone is not generally considered customs territory, in this instance they are bot h within the United States, and an arrangement which defines the "United States" as comprising both customs territory and foreign trade zones has been upheld as valid (Klockner, Inc., v. United States (1984) 8 CIT 3, 590 F. Supp. 1266). Under section 10 8(c) (1) of the 1966 Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)(1)), a nonconforming vehicle "shall be refused entry into the United States" unless "an appropriate bond" has been furnished to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into conformity within a reaso nable time after such importation."

Therefore, because 49 CFR Part 591 is not a "customs law", any distinction between a Zone and customs territory is legally irrelevant for purposes of the 1966 Act. Further, because both a Zone and the customs territory are physically within the boundari es of the United States, an importation of a nonconforming vehicle into either a Zone or the customs territory requires an accompanying DOT conformance bond.

Nevertheless, the 1988 Act does not impose any restrictions upon either DOT or your clients that prohibits them from entering conformed vehicles into customs territory. However, we see the procedure a bit differently than the one you discussed. The HS- 7 Form and its accompanying bond must be completed not later than the admission of the vehicle into the Zone. Customs retains its role of sending these documents to DOT. When conformance work is completed, L/Pe provides certification to DOT. Because o f the current low volume of nonconforming imports, we anticipate that our review will be completed within two weeks of receipt of the certification. If the certification is acceptable, the bond is released, and L/Pe may then enter the vehicle as no long er subject to DOT conformance regulations (or, as you express it, "conforming merchandise"). Thus, L/Pe will be able to close out its obligation while the vehicle remains in the custody of Customs, even though it is not freed from the bond requirement.

As a final comment on the time factor, we intend to require complete documentation only for the initial make, model, and model year (assuming that the initial submission is acceptable). Although L/Pe must keep verification records on each vehicle it con forms, certifications subsequent to an initial submission need not be accompanied by documents, and could be transmitted by FAX. As we see it, these simple certifications would not require extensive review, improving our ability to respond in a more tim ely manner.

ID: nht90-1.54

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 22, 1990

FROM: Keith D. Kroll -- Vice President, Engineering., Hehr International. Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-13-90 To Keith D. Kroll and From Stephen P. Wood; (A35; Std.217); Also attached to letter dated 1-26-90 To John G. Sims and From Stephen P. Wood

TEXT:

Hehr International, Inc. manufactures windows and emergency exit windows for buses. We are looking for clarification of the marking of and operating instructions for window emergency exits; specifically, the requirements of paragraphs S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 o f Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Per paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS 217, "...and each push-out window or other emergency exit shall have the designation "Emergency Exit" followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism." We interpret this as two labels; one designating the "Emergency Exit" and the other giving unlatching instructions located 6 inches from the latch/es.

With this interpretation, it follows that the legibility requirements of paragraph S5.5.2 apply only to the "Emergency Exit" marking and not to the unlatching instructions. Additionally, S5.5.2 requires the marking must be legible from the aisle with the seats occupied. Again, we interpret this to apply to the "Emergency Exit" marking only. There are many seating configurations where the latch and unlatching instructions (6 " from the latch) are not visible from the aisle because the "adjacent seat" passenger totally covers them.

Our position has, on numerous occasions, been discussed with NHTSA engineers. The most recent was 23 October 1989 with Jeff Jiusippe who further reviewed this with his supervisor, Mr. Robert Kraus, and called back the same day stating that they (NHTSA) a greed with our position.

We receive numerous calls from our various bus window customers on the legibility of the 'unlatching instructions' to which we respond with our position that the 'unlatching instructions' do not have to meet the legibility requirements of paragraph S5.5. 2; S5.5.2 applies to the exit identification only.

We request your written concurrance with the preceeding interpretation of FMVSS paragraphs S5.5.1 and S5.5.2.

ID: nht90-1.55

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 22, 1990

FROM: Dave Baker -- School Bus Inspector

TO: Bev Wilson

TITLE: Re Buses other than School Buses

ATTACHMT: Attached to a copy of a portion of the Minnesota Statutes (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 3-18-88 from R.C. Rost to Chief Council, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 8-26-88 from E.L. Jones to R.C. Rost; Also attached to letter dated 9-7-90 from P.J. Rice to D.L. Giles (A36; Std. 108; VSA 103(d)); Also attached to letter dated 3-14-90 from D.L. Giles to S.P. Wood; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-90 from D.L. Giles to D. Baker; Also attached to memo dated 3-6-90 from B. Wilson to D. Giles

TEXT:

I hope this helps you understand whats going on. You will have to remove those lights you have on your bus. If you have any more questions - contact me at 389-1172 in Mankato. Box 4187, Mankato, MN 56001. Thanks

Attached is a copy of a portion of the Minnesota Statutes (text omitted).

ID: nht90-1.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JIM EVANS -- QUALITY CONTROL DEPARTMENT, THE BARGMAN COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12-13-89 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, FROM JIM EVANS, THE BARGMAN CO., ATTACHED; [OCC 4250]

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 13, 1989, with respect to whether the installation of "yellow" reflex reflectors on the rear of motor vehicles is permissible under Standard No. 108. Because the standard uses the term "amber" instead of "yell ow", I shall refer to yellow as amber also.

As you note, the standard requires two red reflex reflectors to be mounted on the rear, but is silent as to whether additional reflectors, amber in color, are permitted. One of your customers has asked you to manufacture an amber turn signal lens that w ould have an amber reflex reflector area around the outer edge. The turn signal lamp would be adjacent to a lamp of apparently identical size and shape with a red lens and reflex reflector area, providing stop and tail lamp functions. The State of Mich igan apparently allows only red reflex reflectors on the rear. You have asked whether reflectors of other colors may be mounted on the rear as long as the required red ones are present, and if it is illegal, whether Standard No. 108 may be amended to el iminate the confusion.

Because an amber reflector is not a required item of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 specifies to be installed on the rear of a motor vehicle, its acceptability is subject to the general provisions of section S5.1.3. This states, in pertinent p art, that no additional reflective device may be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. It does not appear to us that an amber taillamp lens with an amber reflector would create an impairment. Under Standard No. 108, amber is a permissible color for rear turn signal lamps, and its presence on a reflector surrounding the lamp should not create confusion. Therefore, manufacture, sale, and installation of an amber taillamp lens with an amber reflecto r would not constitute a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

However, an interpretation by NHTSA that its lighting standard does not forbid the installation of an amber reflex reflector does not mean that a State could not adopt and enforce a law prohibiting such a reflector. Under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a State may impose its own safety requirements covering any aspect of performance that is not covered by Standard No. 108. We construe this provision narrowly, as allowing a State to regulate all lighting equipment that is not specifically required by Standard No. 108. Noting that Section CI 257.691 of the Michigan vehicle lighting code that you enclosed specifies that reflectors "mounted on the rear shall reflect a red color to the rear", the appropriate remedy w ould be to seek an amendment of the Michigan law. This agency presently has no plans to specify yellow as an alternate color for rear reflex reflectors.

ID: nht90-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/27/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: GEORGE F. BALL, ESQ. -- LEGAL STAFF, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1/23/90 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, FROM GEORGE F. BALL, GM, ATTACHED; [OCC 4355]

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 23, 1990 asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201). Specifically, you asked whether the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201, which apply o nly to "interior compartment doors," are applicable to a portion of a new cupholder design now being developed by GM.

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 believe that S3.3 of Standard No. 201 would not apply to your cupholder design, as explained more fully below. In your letter, you stated that General Motors plans to offer a vehicle with a cupholder permanently installed in the co nsole assembly between the driver and right front passenger positions. The cupholder assembly would include a pivot, which would allow the cupholder to recess into the console when it is not needed. When the cupholder is recessed, the bottom face of th e cupholder assembly would be flush with the console

P2

assembly. I concur with your opinion that the bottom face of the cupholder would not appear to be covered by section 3.3 of Standard No. 201, because that bottom face does not appear to be an "interior compartment door" as that term is defined at 49 CFR 571.3.

The term "interior compartment door" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as "any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects." According to your letter, when the bottom of the c upholder is facing the driver and passenger (which you state is the only configuration in which it could be considered a cover), there is no storage space for personal effects.

The agency has made clear that the term "interior compartment door" does not refer to every door that covers a compartment that could potentially be used as a storage space for personal effects. For example, ash trays and spare tire compartment doors in station wagons are capable of being used as a storage space for some personal effects. However, the preamble to the final rule that added S3.3 to Standard No. 201 expressly stated that S3.3 did not apply to the covers for ash trays and spare tire compa rtment doors in the Standard. 33 FR 15794 (October 25, 1968). Additionally, the agency has stated in previous interpretations that S3.3 of Standard No. 201 does not apply to doors in the interior of a vehicle that do not cover a storage space for perso nal effects. Hence, the door to a fuse box in the interior of a vehicle was said not to be subject to S3.3 in a July 3, 1984 letter to Mr. Bruce Henderson, and the outside surface of a fold-down table was said to be not subject to S3.3 in a January 31, 1 986 letter to Mr. Russ Bomhoff.

Applying this reasoning to your new cupholder design, we would tentatively conclude that, when the cupholder is retracted, the bottom face of the cupholder is not an interior compartment door subject to S3.3 of Standard No. 201. I do not believe that th e compartment that would be covered by the bottom face of the cupholder when it is retracted would be a storage space for personal effects. Even if the compartment were capable of being used as a storage space for personal effects, it would not have been installed by the manufacturer for that purpose. Therefore, the bottom face of the cupholder would not be considered an "interior compartment door" within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR 571.3, and would not be subject to the requir ements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201.