ID: nht90-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

FROM: CHARLES M.A. SAEDT

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4-25-90 LETTER TO CHARLES M.A. SAEDT FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; IMPORT) TEXT:

I am a nonresident who stays temporary in Maryland (from may 88 till June 1991).

I am a member of the Dutch Armed forces.

It is my intention to buy a Volkswagen Jetta diesel (European specification) straight from the factory in Germany and then ship this car to the USA.

I will not sell the car and I will take this car back to The Netherlands in June 1991.

I understand that I need to get some kind of exemption to do so when I import this car temporary to the USA.

Please inform me about the exact steps that I have to undertake to import this vehicle temporary to the USA without any problems.

I hope I will hear from you soon.

ID: nht90-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/05/90

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

TO: C. COLEMAN BIRD -- PEPPER, HAMILTON & SCHEETZ

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/14/89 FROM C. COLEMAN BIRD -- PEPPER HAMILTON AND SCHEETZ TO ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA ENTITLED REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION REGARDING STATUS OF PORTABLE BACK MASSAGER UNDER NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1966, AS AME NDED

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation by this office as to whether a portable back massage device capable of being used in an automobile and powered by the vehicle's electrical system constitutes a piece of motor vehicle equipment as that t erm is used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act). I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

The product you described in your letter consists of an inflatable cushion that conforms to the user's back and contains two electric massage units capable of massaging the upper and lower portions of the user's back. The device can also provide heat. It is designed for use either indoors or in a vehicle by means of an adapter which plugs into the cigarette lighter. When the device is used in a vehicle, it is simply placed on the seat, and does not require any additional installation, other than conn ection to a power supply. You have asked three questions about this device, which I have discussed below.

Your first question was whether this device would be considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act? Section 102(4) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines, in part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part of component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle. . . (Emphasis added.)

Since the portable back massage device is not original equipment or sold for replacement or improvement of any original equipment, it would be included within this definition only if it were an "accessory." In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory," the agency considers the following two criteria:

First, when a substantial portion of the expected uses of a product are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, the product should be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the Safety Act. Second, if the p roduct is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of such motor vehicles, we would consider it to be an accessory.

Based on the limited information you have provided, I am unable to reach a conclusion as to whether the back massage device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. However, I will explain the considerations the agency focuses upon when a pplying the above criteria to specific products.

We would determine the expected uses of a product by considering the product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store which retails the product, as well as any available information about the actual use of the product. We anticipate that pro ducts found to satisfy the first criterion will ordinarily, although not necessarily, be ones that are carried in a vehicle. For example, if the device is portrayed in advertising as being in used in motor vehicles, includes as a standard feature a 12 v olt adapter enabling its use in a vehicle, and is sold through retail outlets specializing in automotive equipment and accessories, it would be more likely to be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment than a product which did not have these charac teristics. In evaluating the second criteria, the agency looks at whether the product is intended primarily for the use of consumers, rather than by professionals such as automotive repair and service personnel.

Your second question concerned whether the back massager would be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the device is not determined to be an item of motor vehicle equipment, it is beyond the scope of the agency's authority t o regulate it. Even if it is determined to be motor vehicle equipment, and therefore subject to other provisions of the Safety Act, there is no Standard applicable to this type of device.

With regard to your final question, we do not generally provide advice about the authority of other Federal agencies. However, if it is not considered motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission may have requirem ents governing such a device. It is also possible the Food and Drug Administration might consider it to be a medical device subject to that agency's regulation. In addition, some States may choose to regulate such devices.

I am enclosing an information sheet which describes the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards program, and how to get copies of the standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have further questions, please contact this office.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/07/90

FROM: JOHN W. GARRINGER

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 6/18/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO JOHN W. GARRINGER; A35; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 02/01/90 FROM JOHN W. GARRINGER TO TERRY M. GERNSTEIN

TEXT: I am writing this letter to find out if the item that I am in the process of patenting is against the law. It is put on the inside, bottom part of the windshield, on any type vehicle that has a windshield.

It is made only for safety, so that you can see better when you are driving on sunny days. It is made to cover the hood area that the driver sees only. It stops the suns glare which is reflected from the hood, from coming into the drivers eyes. This i tem makes it better for the driver to see to drive. I also think it would help to prevent a lot of daytime accidents.

The material is four times the darkness of the plastic that is enclosed. This is to perform a better job reflecting the glare. I have also enclosed all items that I have pertaining to this product.

If this product is against the law, Federal or State, please send me a copy of the law. Also, please send me a list of the states that it is legal and a list of states that it is illegal in.

Please let me know what it is that I would have to do to get it so that this product is legal.

ID: nht90-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/90

FROM: JACK RADEMACHER -- CHIEF ENGINEER, POLAR TANK TRAILER, INC.

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD--NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-22-90 TO J. RADEMACHER FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 108)

TEXT:

Recently you released an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which stated that rear turn, stop and tail lamps mounted 27 inches from the rear edge of the vehicle are not mounted "on the rear." In this interpretation, it was al so obvious that the 45 degree visibility requirements were not met.

It has long been the practice of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) and its members to interpret standard No. 108 as meaning that if the 45 degree visibility requirements of these lights were met "on the rear" of the trailer both inboard and outboard, the manufacturer met the intent of the standard. The liquid bulk transport industry is especially affected by your interpretation. Over the years thousands of tank transports have been built with rear lights mounted as far as 36 inches fo rward from the rear of the bumper. These tankers still maintain the 45 degree visibility requirements.

The following are some of the reasons for this type of high and set back type of lighting:

1.) Eliminating clutter in an area where hazardous materials are being dispensed. 2.) Better visibility because of high mounting. 3.) Protection of lens from chemical vapors and/or drips from hose tubes. 4.) Accident damage protection. 5.) Protection of lens from road dirt.

We (especially the cargo tank transport industry), therefore, request reconsideration of your interpretation allowing set back rear lights if 45 degree visibility requirements are met.

If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at the above listed number.

ID: nht90-2.43

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 10, 1990

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

TO: Phil Gramm -- U.S. Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 0-0-0 To John Cerisano and From Phil Gramm; Also attached to letter dated 2-12-90 To Phil Gramm and From Johannah Bonewald; Also attached to letter dated January 29, 1990 To All Ford Rent-A-Car System Members and From W .A. Jacques

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation on behalf of your constituent, Johannah Bonewald of Voskamp Motors in Hallettsville, Texas. Ms. Bonewald enclosed a bulletin from the Ford Rent-A-Car System to all System members setting out F ord's policy concerning the rental of Ford vans with more than 10 designated seating positions. Ms. Bonewald questions the basis under Federal law for Ford's policy with regard to using these vans to transport students, and asked for additional informati on about the Federal law in this area. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you with the following information.

Ford's policy described in the bulletin is that dealers should not rent vans with more than 10 seating positions to customers, if the dealer knows or has reason to know that the vehicle will be used to transport students. The bulletin also recommends tha t dealers renting these vans should obtain a signed statement from the customer to the effect that the vehicle is not being used to carry students to and from school or related events. While Ford's policy is consistent with Federal requirements and this agency's safety recommendations, rental companies are not actually required by Federal law to take the actions recommended by Ford.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equi pment. Several of our standards set forth requirements for new "school buses," which are defined as vehicles designed for carrying more than 10 persons that are sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events., Thus, it is the vehicle's anticipated use, determined at the time of the new vehicle's first sale, that indicates whether it is a "school bus" for the purposes of the safety standards.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the safety Act specifies 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"

2

any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable safety

standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms with all such standards. Thus, every person that manufactures a bus that it knows will have the purpose of carrying students must certify that it complies with all school bus safety standards. Similarly, if a dealer sells or offers to sell to a school district or school bus contract operator a bus that will be used as a school bus, the Safety Act makes the dealer responsible for ensuring that the vehicle it sells is certified as complying with all applic able school bus standards.

The agency has previously stated, in the enclosed December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice that accompanied the adoption of the regulatory definition of "school bus," that if a seller has reason to believe that a bus will be used for student transportat ion, the seller can clarify the intentions of the purchaser by requesting a written statement of purpose from the purchaser. If that statment indicates that the vehicle will be used for student transportation, the seller can only provide a certified scho ol bus.

Pursuant to section 108 (b) (1) of the Safety Act, however, the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. In a typical rental situation, t he person offering the vehicle for rent has already purchased the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, i.e., in order to offer the vehicle to the public for rent. Thus, a dealer wishing to offer vehicles for rent for the purposes of carrying students is not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to offer vehicles that fully comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses. Further, once a vehicle has been sold and delivered to the person who plans to rent the vehicle to the public, the vehicl e is no longer considered to be new and therefore is not required to remain in compliance with all applicable safety standards.

Having said this, I would like to emphasize some additional points. First, a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that sells a new vehicle to a rental company that the seller knows or has reason to know intends to rent it to customers for the purpose of carrying students to or from school or related events is required by Federal law to sell that rental company only a vehicle certified as complying with the school bus standards. In Ms. Bonewald's letter to you, she indicates that the schools in the area are "probably the biggest customer" Voskamp Motors has for the rental of its 15-passenger vans. Any person that knows or has reason to know of this fact must either:

a. sell Voskamp Motors only certified school buses for use in Voskamp's rental fleet, or b. obtain assurance from Voskamp Motors that the vans it purchases that are not so certified will not be rented to customers that will use them for student transportation. Second, although NHTSA does not have authority to regulate the use of vehicles as school buses, the State of Texas does have such authority, and has exercised that authority. Your constituent may wish to contact

3

the State government to learn more about any State requirements applicable to

vehicles used as school buses.

Third, we strongly endorse the use of certified school buses as the vehicles rented for the purposes of transporting school children, because the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest way to transport students. Based on these safety consid erations, NHTSA endorses Ford's recommendation that its dealers rent only certified school buses for student transportation purposes.

I hope this information is helpful in responding to your constituent. I have also forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the Ford Rent-A-Car System. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need some additional inform ation.

ID: nht90-2.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 11, 1990

FROM: Stephen R. Darling -- C.E.T., Presvac Systems (Burlington) Limited

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re 49CRF575 - "Vehicle Owners Manual"

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-31-90 from S.P. Wood to S. Nishibori (Part 575.6); Also attached to Federal Register, 49 CFR Part 575, (11-27-89 Edition), pages 48745-48749 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 10-1-90 from P.J. Rice to S.R. Darling (A36; Std. 567; Std. 568)

TEXT:

Upon reviewing the recent publication of "Trailer/Body Builder", I noticed the article concerning manufactures statement in owners manual for N.H.T.S.A. notification in case of vehicle defects, as covered in 49CFR575.

As a Liquid Cargo Vessel Trailer manufacturer, we acknowledge our obligations in complying with this regulation by September 1, 1990.

However, in our other area of manufacturing, namely fabricating and installing Liquid Cargo Tanks onto existing or modified truck chassis, we question our obligations.

Could you please advise us of our obligations, if any with regards to 49CFR575 and our truck mounted cargo vessels.

Thanking you in advance; we remain,

Yours very truly

ID: nht90-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/90

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

TO: DAVID R. MARTIN -- TOMOKA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: HANDWRITTEN LETTER DATED 01/01/90 (EST); FROM DAVID R. MARTIN TO NHTSA (OCC 4221)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to this agency's Public Affairs Office asking about the application of Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to a van used by a correctional institution to transport inmates. Your letter has been referred t o me for reply. I regret the delay in responding.

As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA issued Standard No. 301 to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from fuel spillage in crashes. The standard applies to new vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, if the vans in your letter were manufactured on or after Se ptember 1, 1976, the van manufacturer was required to certify their compliance with Standard No. 301. However, even if the vans did not comply with that standard, the Act does not place any responsibility for that noncompliance on the first purchasers a nd subsequent owners of the vans. Since some states do require that vehicles used for certain purposes comply with our standards, you may wish to address your question to appropriate State authorities in Tallahassee.

We regret we cannot provide the testing you seek. NHTSA obtains and tests new vehicles for compliance with FMVSS No. 301. However, since the standard applies only to new vehicles, NHTSA does not conduct compliance tests on vehicles that have already be en sold to a consumer. The agency also cannot test every new type or model of vehicle, since it would be impracticable to do so.

For your information, Safety Standard No. 217 specifies emergency exit requirements for vans designed to carry 11 or more persons. However, the standard excludes vans purchased for transporting prison inmates. This exclusion resulted from a determinati on that the standard's requirements were incompatible with the necessity that buses used for transporting inmates be able to confine their occupants in transit. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 217 for your information.

You also asked whether we require roll bars on vehicles used to transport 12, 13 or 14 passengers. The answer is no. However, NHTSA does have a standard for roof crush protection (Standard No. 216) which requires the roof over the front seating area of cars to meet certain strength requirements. NHTSA has proposed to extend the standard to light trucks and buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). I have enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-2.46

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1990

FROM: Ron Boucher -- Energy Savings System

TO: Miss Carnes -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-27-90 to R. Boucher from P. J. Rice; (A35; VSA 102(4)); also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel from R. Boucher; (OCC 4837) TEXT:

Regarding our conversation this morning, you requested me to fax you this information about the item that I'm wanting to know and be sure that the product is OK to use for vehicle breakdowns and also for bicycling identification.

If you need more information, please call me.

Just want to be certain that I am in compliance with the laws of the land.

Miss Carnes, thanks again for your help in this matter.

ID: nht90-2.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1990

FROM: David W. Holscher -- General Sales Manager, Dreyer & Reinbold, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-31-90 from P.J. Rice to D. Holscher (Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2); A36)

TEXT:

I am writing to you from Dreyer & Reinbold Infiniti in Indianapolis, IN. I am General Sales Manager here and one of our customers has requested a factory design rear spoiler on their new Infiniti. The rear spoiler contains a 3rd brake light which will i lluminate during brake application. This would be an addition to the existing rear window brake light. The rear window brake light is not removable because of damage to the interior of the car which would cost a large amount of money to repair.

I need something in writing in regard to standard 108 to allow me to understand that by installing this spoiler, I am not violating any federal NHTSA regulations. I had talked on the phone to one of your people and they suggested that I write you for fi nal verification of this fact.

Your help is greatly appreciated and you can contact me at this phone number 317-573-0222. Enclosed please find an addressed stamped envelope.

ID: nht90-2.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1990

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

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-22-90 To Stephen P. Wood and From Keith D. Kroll; (OCC 4481); Also attached to letter dated 1-26-90 To John G. Sims and From Stephen P. Wood

TEXT:

This is in response to your request for an interpretation of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR S571.217). More specifically, I understand your request to refer to buses that are not school buses and that have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, S5.5.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that: "... each emergency door shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit' ... followed by concise operating instructions d escribing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit,located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. S5.5.2 requires that emergency exit "markings" be visible to occupants in specified locations, under lighting and occupant visual acuity condit ions set forth in S5.5.2.

You suggested that S5.5.1 requires only the operating instructions, and not the emergency exit designation, to be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. Similarly, you suggested that the legibility requirements applicable to emergency exit "ma rkings" per S5.5.2 refer only to the emergency exit designation, and not to the operating instructions for that emergency exit.

We disagree with your suggested interpretation. I have recently discussed NHTSA's official interpretation of these provisions in Standard No. 217 in a January 26, 1990 letter to Mr. John G. Sims. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information.

Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information concerning this subject.