ID: nht90-3.1

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1990

FROM: John Durant -- Commercial Rulings Division, Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-1-90 from J. Laderberg to J.H. Heinrich; Also attached to letter dated 9-14-90 from P.J. Rice to J. Durant (A36; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated June 26, 1989 from S.P. Wood to M. Turner

TEXT:

On June 26, 1990, Marvin Amernick of my staff spoke to Dorothy Nakama of your staff concerning the markings which appear on automotive glass. She was extremely helpful. Mr. Amernick explained that this office issued a ruling letter on May 1, 1990, to t he Customs office in Los Angeles, in which we determined that the automobile owner who needs to replace automotive glass is the ultimate purchaser of the replacement glass. As such, in accordance with section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S. C. 1304), and Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), if the automative glass is imported, the automobile owner must be made aware of the country of origin of the imported glass. Noting that automotive glass is already required by the Departmen t of Transportation to be permanently marked with certain information, we referred to 19 CFR 134.41(a) which states that generally, the country of origin marking is best met by marking worked into articles at the time of manufacture. In the ruling we di d not prescribe any particular method of marking automotive glass. However, we stated that the marking must be permanent enough to insure that in any reasonably foreseeable circumstance, the marking shall remain on the article until it reaches the ultima te purchaser, unless it is deliberately removed. A copy of the ruling is enclosed for your information.

We have now been asked to reconsider the ruling. Various issues are being raised as part of this request and we are looking into several on our own initiative. One of these is the marking requirements imposed on manufacturers of automotive glass by the Department of Transportation. We would appreciate your views on whether a Customs requirement that all imported automotive glass for the replacement market be permanently marked with the name of the country of origin would in any way impact on the mark ing requirements of your agency.

Your prompt review of this issue and response would be appreciated inasmuch as we need to advise the affected industry and our field staff as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please call me on 566-5868 or Mr. Amernick on 566-5765.

ID: nht90-3.10

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1990

FROM: John D. Dingell -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-9-90 from Mehdi Rowghani to Taylor Vinson; Also attached to letter dated 4-9-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Mehdi Rowghani; Also attached to letter dated 2-15-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John D. Dingell (A37; Std. 214)

TEXT:

Enclosed are two letters provided to the Subcommittee regarding the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214. If the reply of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is accurate, it is troubling. I request your review. Does the law now prohibit or prevent its application to replacement parts of foreign and domestic vehicles? If not, could it be interpreted to apply? Please explain.

I request your reply within 30 days after receipt of this letter.

ID: nht90-3.100

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1990

FROM: George C. Shifflett -- Safety Compliance Specialist, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TO: Oscar W. Harell (Harrell) Jr. -- Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Facilities Management, Department of Mental Retardation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-86 from Erika Z. Jones to Vincent Foster; Also attached to letter dated 11-26-79 from Frank Berndt to W.G. Milby; Also attached to letter dated 1-4-91 from Paul J. Rice to Richard Cahalan (A37; Part 567); Also attached to 49 CFR Chapter V (10-1-89 Edition) Part 567 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 8-2-90 from O.W. Harrell, Jr. to Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC 5073)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1990 in which you ask for a note of edification regarding two letters prepared by our legal staff that I sent to you having to do with transportation of the handicapped.

Regretfully I am not authorized to provide edification in this regard. Request for interpretations or edification should be sent to:

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Best of luck in your field of aiding the handicapped.

ID: nht90-3.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 11, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 4-10-90 to Z. Taylor Vinson and Stephen P. Wood from Lawrence A. Beyer TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 10, 1990, on behalf of your client, Cantab Motors, requesting "official notification" by DOT that Cantab "is considered to be a manufacturer by your agency", and stating that counsel for Isis Imports received such a letter from us on July 10, 1986.

A review of our letter to Isis discloses that that company sought to import Morgans as "incomplete motor vehicles", and we informed it that it could not do so. However, we stated that a Morgan lacking major components of the fuel system such as fuel tan k, fuel lines, and carburetor could be imported as an "assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, with the package or container labelled as equipment items", and that individual items of equipment covered by the safety standards would have to bear the certif ication of their manufacturer. The result of this interpretation, that is to say, subsequent events occurring outside the letter, is that Isis has imported the assemblage pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(ii), as equipment, rather than as a vehicle under 1 2.80(b)(1)(iii), and has added the propane fuel system components in the United States. The completed motor vehicle has then been certified by Isis as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

It appears from the petition for temporary exemption that you submitted on behalf of Cantab, that the facts are essentially similar to those of the Isis case. To the extent that Cantab's actions duplicate those of Isis, it, too, would appear eligible to import its assemblages of Morgans under the equipment conformance declaration. Although conforming and certified equipment items are no longer imported pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(ii), the corresponding provision of the new regulation that allows im portation of such equipment is 49 CFR 591.5(b).

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

ID: nht90-3.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 11, 1990

FROM: Nelson Behar -- National Marketing Director, LooPo

TO: Steven Kratzke -- Office of Chief Consul, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-18-90 from P.J. Rice to N. Behar (A36; Std. 208); Also attached to information sheet dated 9-85 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations (text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for the time you recently spent with me on the phone discussing NHTSA guidelines. As I explained, LooPo is a seatbelt slacking device available to motorists across the country.

Additionally, we have received and are in the process of responding to several state highway/safety agencies, that have asked whether the product falls within the current guidelines of NHTSA.

At your earliest convenience, may I have a letter from you stating that LooPo does keep within those guidelines? And in the future, would it be possible to keep me updated on any changes or alterations the committee might make regarding the NHTSA guidel ines?

ID: nht90-3.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1990

FROM: M. Michael Mascho -- Safety & Compliance Specialist, Kenworth Truck Company

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 from P.J. Rice to M.M. Mascho (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. My concern is with Identification and Clearance Lamps listed in Table I, Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment O ther Than Headlamps; and Table II, Location of Required Equipment. I have attached three (3) photos to better explain my concern.

Kenworth Truck Company is a manufacturer of Class 7 & 8 trucks that are over 80" in overall width, thus falling into the requirements of the above mentioned tables. We manufacture a conventional model truck with a Aerodynes sleeper. The Clearance and I dentification Lamps are mounted on the top of the cab. (see the right hand truck in photo 1).

We have been asked to build trucks that also include an extra set of Clearance and Identification Lamps on top of the sleeper. (see left hand truck in photo 1, and photos 2 & 3). The requirements of Tables I & II for Identification Lamps are three (3) amber lamps mounted as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, or alternatively as close as practicable to the top of the cab. Identification Lamps are to be two (2) amber lamps mounted as near the top as practicable to indicate overall width.

By mounting the extra lamps on top of the sleeper, we now have six (6) Identification Lamps and four (4) Clearance Lamps. This vehicle when viewed from the front at night would resemble a typical Class 8 truck pulling a trailer with front mounted Cleara nce and Identification Lamps.

Would this vehicle be considered to be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108?

Photographs attached to letter (graphics omitted).

ID: nht90-3.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1990

FROM: Robert B. Roden -- Roden & Hayes

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #114

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-19-90 from P.J. Rice to R. Roden (A36; Std. 114; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)); Also attached to 55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990 (text omitted)

TEXT:

I am writing to request your opinion on the following matter pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Standard #114, Theft Protection:

1) Does the Standard #114, Section S4.2(b) require that the key locking systems not allow an ignition key to be removed other than in the "park" position. In other words, does the requirement that the system prevent the vehicle from moving forward on it s own require that the key not be removed except in the "park" position.

2) If the key locking system is replaced for an existing system, is the replacement system required to comply with Standard #114 and particularly, Section S4.2(b)?

3) In addition, how long is the key and/or key locking system required to perform under Section S4.2(b) of the Standard?

We appreciate your opinions with respect to these Standards.

ID: nht90-3.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1990

FROM: Michael L. Hayes

TO: General Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Petition for the Establishment of Transport Safety Standards Regarding Incubators Used to Transport New Born Infants

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-12-90 from Michael L. Hayes to James Gilkey (OCC 5046); Also attached to letter dated 1-15-91 from Paul J. Rice to Michael L. Hayes (A37; Std. 213; FMVSS 102(4))

TEXT:

This petition prays that transport safety standards be established to provide the new born infant, institutionally transported for medical reasons, with the same basic protection (per F.M.V.S.S. 213) as that of a privately transported infant.

The transport incubators currently in use needlessly endanger the new born due to the lack of occupant protection, proper construction methods, and adequate anchoring systems. The principal reason given by some of the companies involved for the lack of compliance with child transport safety standards was due to the belief that the fragile nature of the new born renders known restraint techniques useless in providing the infant with a reasonable chance of survival. This is no longer the case.

The development of the moldable air-bag can provide even the most frail infant with a reasonable chance of survival as well as meet the special needs associated with the new born while under medical care. This is accomplished by providing the infant wit h a non-constricting pouch made of small air-bags that can be positioned within a larger bag and the air removed from same, thus locking into a customized shape (pouch). This system of restraint is more clearly described in the attached engineering anal ysis and patent disclosure.

As this is a well established industry, resistance to change by the manufacturers is substantial and is the principal reason for this petition. The medical personnel directly responsible for the new born, however, greatly support the upgrading of the sa fety standards and equipment. The manufacturers belief that this upgrading would not be profitable enough has placed transport safety as a low or non-existent priority. It is believed that the only way to insure that transport safety for the medically distressed infant is to receive the needed priority by the manufacturers is though the establishment of safety standards or the enforcement of F.M.V.S.S. 213 in this area.

Marginalia: Checked w/ Hayes 7/20 is submitting separate petition to administration

ID: nht90-3.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1990

FROM: Michael L. Hayes

TO: James Gilkey -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Non Compliance to Standard 213 in the Transport Incubator

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-15-91 from Paul J. Rice to Michael L. Hayes (A37; Std. 213; FMVSS 102(4)); Also attached to letter dated 7-12-90 from Michael L. Hayes to General Curry

TEXT:

In our resent phone conversation regarding transport safety for the new born infant which is transported in incubators, I brought to your attention that the child restraint equipment used in this area does not meet Standard 213. I have enclosed a sales brochure to illustrate my point. It is anticipated that the companies involved will claim that, due to the special circumstances involved in this type of transport, Standard 213 cannot be met and, thus, is not applicable to transport incubators. In view of this objection, I have included a copy of an engineering analysis of a restraint technique showing a design that can meet Standard 213 and meet the special needs of this type of transport as well.

It is estimated that close to 100,000 infants are transported in this type of equipment each year. If only one half of one percent of these infants are injured due to the lack of proper protection, this represents hundreds of needless injuries and possi bly scores of deaths.

The companies involved are aware of the moldable air-bag restraint technique and its ability to vastly improve the safety of the infant. However, the belief that it would not be profitable "enough" to up grade the transport incubator with proper occupant protection has lead to the continued sales of substandard equipment. This equipment is designed and sold specifically as a "transport" incubator in that its principal purpose is the transport of the infant. It is clear that if this equipment is capabl e of meeting child transport safety standards through specifically designed occupant protection systems the compliance should be halted.

I would like to ask that you take up this project on behalf of the infant and enforce Standard 213 as it applies to "car bed" type restraints.

Attachment

Air-Shields Vickers sales brochure entitled TI-100 Infant Transport Incubator (Text omitted)

Attachment

An Engineering Analysis of a Developmental Transport Restraint System for the Neonate by Michael L. Hayes and Dr. Brent Coleman (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-3.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1990

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Brian Gill -- Senior Manager, Certification Department, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 3-16-90 to B. A. Kurtz from B. Gill with enclosure

TEXT:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 Honda Acura NS-X car line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting o f a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Acura NS-X vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption.

As you are aware, the Acura NS-X car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Honda showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts ma rking. This exemption was issued on February 5, 1990, and appeared in the Federal Register on February 9, 1990 (55 FR 4746).

The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is "likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)." In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6 (a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durabili ty of the device.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Honda plans improvements in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Acura NS-X in two ways: First, the new antitheft system would be armed by using the auto door lock system contr ol to lock either door. Honda states that in the system that was the subject of the exemption from the theft prevention system, it was necessary to use the control on the driver's door in order to arm the system. According to the attachment provided in your letter, this change would make it possible to arm the theft deterrent system by locking either door even if the other door is left unlocked. Second, the radio would now be included in the alarm system. Thus, the alarm system will be activated if the radio terminal or the coupler is disconnected, or if the radio's wiring is cut.

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspec ts of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of

performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Honda to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If Honda does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Honda notify the agency of such decisions.

It is my understanding that, in a May 16, 1990, telephone conversation between Brian Tinkler of Honda and Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, Mr. Tinkler confirmed that Honda was not requesting confidential treatment of any information pro vided in your letter. Therefore, a copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket.