ID: nht90-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/14/90

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

TO: DIANA L. D. REGAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-14-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD, NHTSA, FROM DIANA L. REGAN ATTACHED; OCC 4152

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of how our laws and regulations would apply to a product you have invented. Your product is designed to alter the alignment of the webbing of a lap/shoulder safety belt to improve the fit of the saf ety belt on children weighing between 40 and 85 pounds. According to your letter, the product is designed to be firmly attached to the webbing of both the lap belt portion and the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt. When the product is attached, it pulls down the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt so that it will pass across the child's chest and shoulder, instead of the neck. You asked whether this product would be considered a safety belt or a child restraint system for the purposes of our safety standards. The answer is that your product would not be considered to be either for the purposes of our standards, as explained below.

Section S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209) defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including al l necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." (Emphasis added). Your device is not itself designed to secure a child in a motor vehicle. Instead, your device is designed t o alter the alignment of the existing safety belt in the vehicle, so that the existing safety belt system in the vehicle can be adjusted to better fit a child occupant. Therefore, your device would not be a "seat belt assembly" within the meaning of Sta ndard No. 209.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR @ 571.213) defines a "child restraint system" as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (Emphasis added). As explained above, your device is not a Type I or Type II seat belt. Additionally, for the reasons explained above, your device is not itself designed to restrain, seat, or position children. The restraining of the child would be a ccomplished entirely by the safety belt system already installed in the vehicle. Your device would simply alter the alignment

of that safety belt system for the child. Therefore, your device would not be a "child restraint system" within the meaning of Standard No. 213.

You also asked for information regarding your responsibilities as the manufacturer and seller of this product. I have enclosed an information sheet we have prepared for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. I have also enclosed copies of a Febr uary 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick A. Boutin and a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven. These two letters describe how products intended to enhance the comfort of safety belt wearers could be affected by our laws and regulations. The informa tion sheet explains how to obtain copies of our laws and regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLS.

ID: nht90-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/15/90

FROM: SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- VICE PRESIDENT INDUSTRY/GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS NISSAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- NISSAN RESEARCH; REDBOOK A35; VSA 102[5]; PART 575.6

TEXT: This letter is to request your interpretation regarding the recent amendment to NHTSA's Consumer Information regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 575. This amendment, published on November 27, 1989, requires that vehicle Owner's Manuals contain specifie d information regarding NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline.

Section 575.6(a)(2)(i) of the regulations specifies a statement that must appear in Owner's Manuals effective September 1, 1990. In two locations within the statement, the "name of manufacturer" must be inserted. We request your opinion as to whethe r we may, consistent with the regulations, use the name "Infiniti" in these spaces, for manuals used with our new Infiniti line of vehicles.

Infiniti is a Division within Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., the importer of Nissan and Infiniti vehicles. The Infiniti vehicles will be assembled by Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., the parent corporation, in Japan. Vehicles sold through the Infinit i Division will be designated by the Infiniti nameplate, and we expect that consumers will identify the vehicles specifically with that name. The process is similar to that used with the Cadillac or Lincoln Divisions of General Motors Corporation or For d Motor Company, respectively.

We would provide an address and telephone number for the Infiniti Division adjacent to the required Hotline information, to facilitate consumers contacting Infiniti. This toll free number would be unique to the Infiniti Division, and calls would be a nswered by a staff separate from that of the Nissan Division. We believe that this approach would not confuse consumers and would, in fact, improve their ability to contact quickly the appropriate officials who are authorized to respond to any questions on defect or compliance matters concerning Infiniti models.

We would greatly appreciate your earliest possible response on this matter, so that we can arrange our printing schedules to meet the September 1 effective date. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

ID: nht90-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1990

FROM: ANTHONY T. GREENISH -- U.N.D.P.

TO: U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-25-90 TO ANTHONY P. GREENISH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; PART 591) TEXT:

I am presently contemplating purchasing a car in Europe and importing it when I return to the United States in July 1990. The two models I have in mind are:

1. The BMW model 324 d Diesel

2. The Honda model Accord 1.6 Ix

Any information you can provide as to how these cars rate as to motor vehicle safety standards would be very welcome.

ID: nht90-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1990

FROM: BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH -- HARTLEY ASSOCIATES INC.

TO: HENRY J. NOWAK -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-2-90 TO GEN. JERRY RALPH CURRY, NHTSA, FROM CONGRESSMAN HENRY J. NOWAK; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-22-89 TO DEIRDRE FUJITA, OFC. OF CHIEF COUNSEL FROM BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH, HARTLEY ASSOCS. INC. AND LETTER DA TED 3-16-90 TO BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; STD.213]

TEXT: Hartley Associates, Inc. is a woman-owned small business enterprise (WBE), certified by the State of New York, which is located in your Congressional District at 48 Heritage Court, Cheektowaga, NY 14225. The corporation was formed in 1986 for the purpos e of performing research, development, testing and evaluation in the field of automotive transportation safety and to provide consulting services to manufacturers of automotive restraint devices, both for children and adults.

In July 1989, Hartley Associates, Inc. was retained by Century Products Co., 9600 Valley View Road, Macedonia, Ohio 44056 for consulting services. Century Products Co. had recently developed an infant automotive restraint system equipped with a canopy s un visor (Model 580) and their concern was whether or not this design would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213 (FMVSS 213) - Child Restraints. We were requested to determine the FMVSS 213 requirements relevant to s un visors, perform whatever tests were deemed necessary and provide documentation ensuring that the Model 580 infant restraint complied with FMVSS 213.

Subsequently, we received two interpretations of FMVSS 213 regarding the use of sun visors which had been issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Chief Counsel (Mr. Dan Wilinsky, 12-31-86 and Mr. Bruce Smith, 6/4/8 7). Both of these interpretations stated that a sun visor attached to an infant restraint system must comply with FMVSS 213, Section 5.2.3.2. Two dynamic sled tests were performed according to the requirements of FMVSS 213 in August of 1989. The resul ts of these tests showed that the Model 580 infant restraint complied with FMVSS 213, Section 5.2.3.2.

On August 22, 1989, Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel was requested to issue an interpretation of S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS 213 with regard to the Century 580 infant restraint system with sun visor. A informed me that a meeting between NHTSA and Hartl ey Associates, Inc. was not necessary and that she would issue a letter of interpretation based on the information and test results provided by Hartley Associates, Inc.. During this seven month period, I have contacted Ms. Fujita five times by phone and once in person. She has informed me that the letter of interpretation was issued shortly after receipt of our letter but has been 'held up' by the approval process and she cannot anticipate a date for issuance.

I would sincerely appreciate any assistance you can provide in expediting this letter of interpretation. The lack of timeliness of the receipt of this interpretation is having a negative impact on the reputation of Hartley Associates, Inc. to provide a timely response to the requests of a customer.

If you have any questions I can be reached by telephone at (716) 892-6313 of by telefax at (716) 897-0515.

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.