ID: nht91-1.45

DATE: February 19, 1991

FROM: Howard "Mac" Dashney -- Pupil Transportation Consultant, State of Michigan, Department of Education

TO: Paul Rice -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Roger L. Lynas; Richard Claflin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Howard "Mac" Dashney (A37; VSA 1391(3); Part 571.3)

TEXT:

During the past 14 months, Michigan has experienced legislative and vehicle sales initiatives that have resulted in confusion among school districts and private fleet operators about vehicles used to transport students. On August 15, 1990, Public Act 187 (PA-187) of the Public Acts of 1990 went into effect. I have included a copy of the act. Section 10(1) states that, "A vehicle for which there are no applicable passenger protection federal motor vehicle safety standards shall not be used to transport passengers to and from school and school related events." Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors officials sent letters to their Michigan dealer networks. I have included a copy of Ford Motor Company's letter. The automobile manufacturers directed their dealers not to lease or sell certain types of vehicles to schools. They are multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events. The Michigan Department of Education, Department, has many questions about the purchase, sale, and use of this type of vehicle.

The Department requests that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration respond to the following questions:

1. Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, FMVSS, apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events?

2. Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events?

3. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

4. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

5. Are FMVSSs in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events?

6. Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events?

7. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

8. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

The passage of PA-187 and a restrictive vehicle sales policy have caused confusion among Michigan's school bus fleet operators. Your timely responses to the above questions will assist the Department prepare an appropriate vehicle use policy.

Please direct your response to Howard "Mac" Dashney, Pupil Transportation Consultant, Michigan Department of Education, P.O. Box 30008, Lansing, Michigan 48909.

Attachment

FORD

K. C. Magee Ford Motor Company General Marketing Manager 300 Renaissance Center P.O. Box 43318 Detroit, Michigan 48243

December 14, 1989

To: All Ford Dealers

Subject: Sale or Lease of Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons for Student Transportation

PURPOSE

This letter is intended to help remedy confusion that apparently exists among some dealers as to what vehicles may be lawfully sold or leased for student transportation. Both Federal and state motor vehicle safety laws and regulations apply to such vehicles.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, and related regulations specify that school buses offered for sale shall meet certain unique requirements.

"School bus" is defined in the regulations as "a bus that is sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include

carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

"Bus," in turn, is defined as "a motor vehicle ... designed for carrying more than 10 persons." 49 Code of Federal Regulations S571.3.

Units Having More Than Ten Seating Positions

Because Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons having more than ten designated seating positions do not comply with the requirements of Federal standards specifically applicable to school buses, they should not be sold or leased for transportation of preprimary, primary, or secondary school students to and from school or related events.

For sells incomplete vehicles (Econoline Vans and Cutaways with School Bus Prep Packages and B-Series Chassis Cowls) to be completed as school buses by specialized school bus manufacturers.

Units Having Ten or Fewer Seating Positions

The Federal school bus standards do not apply to Ford 5, 7 and 8 passenger Club Wagons as these vehicles are not "designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

There may be, however, state or local regulations requiring special equipment or identification that must be satisfied before the lower capacity Club Wagons may be used for student transportation. It is the responsibility of the dealer and the purchaser to determine whether any state or local regulations are applicable.

Units for Transportation of College or University Students

Questions sometimes arise concerning sale or lease of Club Wagons and Super Wagons to colleges and universities to transport students on field trips or athletic events.

An opinion from the Office of the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator indicates that vehicles used for such purposes are not considered to be "school buses" in determining applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, as the opinion points out, individual states are free to regulate vehicles used to transport college and university students if they chose to do so.

Dealer Responsibilities

Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has indicated that it considers the seller of a vehicle to be the person most likely to know its intended use, Ford Motor Company recommends that all dealers who sell or lease a Club Wagon or a Super Wagon as manufactured by Ford Motor Company with more than 10 designed seating positions obtain for his files

a signed statement from the purchaser or lessee that the vehicle is not being purchased or leased for carrying students to and from school or related events.

If a dealer sells or leases such a vehicle and knows or has reason to know that the purchaser or lessee intends to use the vehicle as a school bus, the dealer may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

As stated above, it is the responsibility of the dealer and the purchaser to determine whether any state or local regulations apply to vehicles sold or leased for student transportation.

If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact your district office.

K. C. Magee

ID: nht91-1.46

DATE: February 20, 1991

FROM: Louis F. Wilson -- Instant Traffic Lights

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-90 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA; Also 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)

TEXT:

We are writing this letter in reference to our letters dated September 1, 1989 and February 20, 1990. As of today's date, we have not received any reply from your department.

Along with this letter we will attach the letters dated September 1, 1989 and February 20, 1990 as well as a prototype sample of our product. In light of that what we would like to know is: Would our product meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #108?

Thank you for your time and consideration and we eagerly await your reply.

ID: nht91-1.47

DATE: February 20, 1991

FROM: Saburo Inui -- Corporate Manager, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 -- High Intensity Discharge Headlamps

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Saburo Inui (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This is a request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 108 concerning High Intensity Discharge Headlamps ("HID").

Although in the February 8, 1990 amendment of FMVSS 108 (Docket No. 85-15; Notice 12) NHTSA clarified that HID headlamps are not excluded as integral beam headlamp systems, Toyota has some additional concerns.

1. Configuration:

S5.4, Equipment combinations, provides that "(t)wo or more lamps . . . may be combined if the requirements for each lamp . . . are met . . . ."

S4. Definitions, defines "Integral Beam Headlamp" as "a headlamp comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source, that is neither a standardized sealed beam headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.3 nor a replaceable bulb headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.5."

The Toyota HID headlamp comprises "an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source" (see Figure 1), and although it contains replaceable bulbs (the inexpensive parking lamp and turn signal lamp bulbs are replaceable), it is not a "replaceable bulb headlamp DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO PARAGRAPH S7.5." (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, the Toyota combination HID headlamp system is not precluded by FMVSS 108, provided of course that all other applicable requirements are met. (To suggest otherwise would require the replacement of the entire assembly at substantial cost should only an inexpensive parking lamp or turn signal bulb fail.)

2. Hard-wire connection:

Due to limited space for accommodation of HID headlamps in the vehicle, it may not be practicable to integrate the ballast (starter and converter) into the headlamp enclosure.

In one case, the ballast would be divided into two units -- a starter and a converter -- permanently connected using hard-wire (electrical wire resistant to cutting and abrasion) as depicted in Figure 2.

Such a headlamp configuration would still constitute an integral beam headlamp system, we believe.

3. Hard-wire and connector:

In some cases, vehicle body construction may dictate that the ballast units be installed in the vehicle separately, and then permanently connected electrically.

In such cases, electrical connectors would have to be provided between the starter and the converter as depicted in Figure 3.

To be considered an integral beam headlamp system under FMVSS 108, we believe all three of the following conditions would have to be met by such an HID headlamp:

(1) Connectors would be permanently coupled at vehicle assembly.

(2) Only complete headlamp systems would be available as replacement parts, and not individual parts, such as a starter or converter.

(3) Connectors supplied with replacement parts for use by repair shops and garages would be designed to be fastened permanently after coupling (they would self-destruct if they were subsequently forced apart), and would be described in the shop manuals.

With these three conditions, headlamp replacement would always mean replacement of the entire headlamp system, resulting in consistency with conventional integral beam headlamp systems.

This "hard wire" or "hard wire and self-destruct connector" arrangement is indispensable to enable us to install our HID headlamp system into our U.S. vehicles. We therefore seek NHTSA's confirmation of our interpretations concerning the use of these headlamp systems.

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.

Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Manabu Morisaka of my staff at (202) 775-1707.

Attachments

Figures 1, 2, and 3 (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-1.48

DATE: February 20, 1991

FROM: Gary P. Toth -- Attorney, Legal Staff, General Motors Corporation,

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert A. Rogers; Barry A. Felrice; Robert Hellmuth; Steven R. Kratzke

TITLE: Re FMVSS 209 Compliance of GM Dual-Spring Retractor Designs

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gary P. Toth (A37; Std. 209)

TEXT:

On September 11, 1990, representatives of General Motors Corporation (GM) met with NHTSA personnel to review several seat belt retractor designs planned for future GM products. These retractor designs included comfort features involving dual-spring rates and intentional set slack capability. By letter dated November 2, 1990 (USG 2829), we sent your office copies of the presentation materials, with a request for confidential treatment.

The purpose of this letter is to seek the agency's concurrence that the two dual-spring retractor designs we reviewed with the agency meet the minimum retraction force requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. In connection with this request for interpretation, we also seek the agency's reevaluation of a February, 1984 interpretation, which implies that use of dual-spring retractors planned by GM might be precluded by FMVSS 209. But for that interpretation, GM would have no difficulty in concluding that these designs meet the minimum retraction force requirements of S 4.3(j)(5) and (6) of FMVSS 209, when tested in accordance with S 5.2(j).

Attachments 1 and 2 of this letter contain proprietary information describing in more detail the operation of the systems we reviewed with the agency on September 11. This information is not customarily made public by GM, and contains trade secrets and commercial information within the meaning of Section 1905 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Therefore, it is our position that these attachments are entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to Section 552(b)(4) of Title 5 of the United States Code (Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act) and Section 112(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended and implemented in Part 512 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Accordingly, pursuant to 49 CFR S 512.4, GM requests that Attachments 1 and 2, which have been stamped "G.M. Confidential", be withheld from public disclosure as confidential business information for an indefinite period (except for any information which will ultimately be publicly disclosed by the availability of these designs in production vehicles). Any disclosure of this information before that time is likely to result in substantial competitive harm to GM for the same reasons set forth in USG 2829 and in the certification provided with that letter.

INTRODUCTION

GM has been a strong advocate of safety belt usage and is continuing to evaluate alternative means for improving the comfort and convenience of safety belt systems. During the September 11 meeting, we reviewed two dual-spring retractor systems, both of which are intended to reduce shoulder belt pressure on all sized occupants, which we know to be a significant factor in belt comfort.

The operation of both of these retractor designs is such that when the safety belt is being worn by an occupant, a lower retractor spring rate is, or can be, engaged to minimize the shoulder belt pressure on the occupant. When the belt is removed, a higher force spring rate is engaged to effectively stow the belt webbing. Detailed descriptions of the operation of the two designs are provided in confidential Attachments 1 and 2.

FEBRUARY, 1984 NHTSA INTERPRETATION

By letter dated February 29, 1984, NHTSA issued an interpretation to the United States Testing Company, Inc., of Hoboken, New Jersey. That company sought the agency's evaluation of a retractor design utilizing a tension reducer device (comfort type mechanism), described as a "Type 2 Vehicle Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractor". The tension reducer device was activated by the vehicle door. With the door open, the mechanism operated in a high tension mode. With the door closed, the mechanism operated in a low tension mode.

The company suggested that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort as specified in FMVSS 209. The company also stated its opinion that: (1) the high tension mode should only be tested for minimum retraction force; and (2) the low tension mode be tested for maximum retraction force.

The agency agreed with the company's suggestion that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort, but disagreed with the suggestion that only the high tension mode should be tested for minimum retraction force, and that only the low tension mode should be tested for maximum retraction force. In this regard, the agency stated:

... (B)ecause Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, we interpret the standard to require that all of its requirements must be met in both tension modes. For example, under section S4.3(j)(6), both tension modes must exert a retractive force within the 0.2 to 1.5 pound range.

The agency's interpretation, however, did not consider, or attempt to reconcile its conclusion with, S5.2(j) of FMVSS 209, which identifies the test procedure for evaluating the retractive forces specified in S4.3(j)(5) and (6). Stated differently, the substantive requirements in FMVSS 209 S4.3(j) (5) and (6) are tied directly to the test procedure in S5.2(j), and there is no analysis of how the United States Testing Company device would perform when tested in accordance with S5.2(j). The 1984 interpretation simply states that both tension modes must exert a retractive force within the specified range without reference to the procedure specified for assessing compliance to these requirements.

Factually, the United States Testing Company device is clearly distinguishable from either of the GM retractor designs. It was apparently designed to activate the lower rate spring simply depending upon whether the vehicle door was open or closed. This is not the case with either of the GM systems reviewed with the agency. The first retractor system requires intentional occupant action -- extracting three to five inches of webbing -- to activate the lover rate spring. The lower rate spring in the second system is activated only when lap belt webbing has been extracted a certain length from its stowed position.

The two GM retractor designs can be tested in accordance with the procedure in S5.2(j) without modifying the hardware or the test procedure. When tested in accordance with S5.2(j), both designs meet the minimum retractor force requirements in S4.3(j)(5) and (6). If it were necessary, however, to modify the retractor hardware or test procedure in some way so that the lower rate springs (which would not otherwise be operational) were tested separately, as is suggested by the agency's February, 1984 interpretation, it is unlikely that these springs could meet the minimum retraction force requirements in S4.3(j)(5) and (6). However, such an interpretation would impose a new substantive requirement upon dual-spring retractors divorced from the test procedure in S5.2(j).

CLOSING

In closing, GM requests that NHTSA provide us a new interpretation indicating that the dual-spring retractor designs which we reviewed with the agency on September 11, and which are further described in Attachments 1 and 2, would comply with the minimum retractor force requirements of S4.3(j)(5) and (6) if tested in accordance with S5.2(j) of FMVSS 209 without separately testing the lower rate springs. In addition, to minimize future concerns relative to the meaning or effect of the February, 1984 interpretation, we ask that NHTSA reevaluate that interpretation, and consider limiting its effect to the facts presented in the United States Testing Company letter.

We trust that the information contained in this letter and presented on September 11 will provide a sufficient basis for the agency to concur with GM's determination regarding the compliance of these dual-spring retractor designs with FMVSS 209. However, please contact me if I can be of any further assistance to you in this matter.

ID: nht91-1.49

DATE: February 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Samuel Yk Lau -- Kenwo Industries Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-24-91 from Samuel Yk Lau to NHTSA (OCC 5657)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1991, asking the agency for an opinion with respect to an "additional brake lamp" that you manufacture and intend to export to the United States. You ask "if there are any regulations, standards, or approval for this kind of product", and, further, "does this product need to have any certificate or approval before it can be sold or installed?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, has required the additional stop lamp on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. The Standard specifies performance and minimum lens area requirements for the lamp, and these requirements must be met by any lamp that is used as original equipment on passenger cars, and by any lamp that is intended to replace a lamp originally installed on a car manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. If the lamp is intended as replacement equipment, its manufacturer must provide certification to the distributor or dealer of the lamp that the lamp meets Standard No. 108. For lighting equipment this certifica- tion may be in the form of a DOT symbol on the product, or a written statement on the packaging that the lamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or such other written certification as the lamp manufacturer may choose (e.g., an invoice). In addition, the lamp manufacturer must file an identification Statement with the agency, and a foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States upon which the agency may serve legal process should that be required. However, there is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain approval from the agency before exporting its certified product to the United States and selling it here.

However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to an additional stop lamp that is intended for use in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, and there is no requirement that it be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. Under this circumstance, we advise that the packaging for any such lamp should clearly state that it is not intended to replace an original equipment center lamp so that legal questions regarding its conformity with Federal requirements do not arise. Even though the lamp is not subject to Standard No. 108, its foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

An additional stop lamp for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, is also subject to the laws of the individual States in which the lamp is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, USA.

We enclose a copy of Standard No. 108 and of the SAE standard on supplementary stop lamps that is incorporated by reference. We are also enclosing copies of the Manufacturer Identification and Designation of Agent regulations, and of other materials that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance provides in response to inquiries of this nature. Questions on these materials should be addressed to that Office.

ID: nht91-1.5

DATE: January 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Wiatrak -- Century Products Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-19-90 from Tom Wiatrak to Deidre Fujita (OCC 5360)

TEXT:

This responds to your October 19, 1990 letter asking about the application of the labeling requirements of Safety Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems, to a seat pad you plan to produce for new child safety seats. You state that the pad would cover information that Standard 213 requires to be labeled on a child safety seat. You ask whether the labeling requirements of the standard could be met by directly labeling the seat and by permanently labeling a durable tag (made of "tyvek" material) that would be sewn to the pad.

The answer is yes. Paragraph S5.5 of Standard 213 required each add-on child restraint system to be permanently labeled with specified information. Paragraph S5.5.3 requires a portion of the required information to be located on the add-on child restraint system so that it is visible when the system is installed..." Your suggested tag would satisfy paragraph S5.5.3 if it bears the required information and if that information is visible when the seat is installed in the vehicle.

You should be aware that paragraph S5.7 of standard 213 requires "each material used in a child restraint system" to conform to the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Since the tag would be affixed to the child restraint, the tag would have to comply with 302.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht91-1.50

DATE: February 26, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Holperin -- State Representative, 34th Assembly District

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from Jim Holperin to Taylor Vinson (OCC 5600)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 3, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, on behalf of your constitutent LeRoy E. Mueller. Mr. Mueller is a manufacturer of trailers, and is concerned that if he builds certain tilt deck trailers to specifications they will fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, a stationary ramp "might obscure a clear view of the trailer's tail lights from a 45 degree angle . . . ." You have asked whether his concern "regarding an obstructed view of the tail light" is a legitimate one.

As Mr. Mueller indicates, Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, incorporates by reference SAE Standard J585e, Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps), Sept. 1977, which applies to trailers. This standard requires that "Signal from lamps on both side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right. The SAE standard further specifies that "To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." We note that stop lamps and rear turn signal lamps must also meet this requirement.

You have enclosed a photocopy of a photograph of the rear of a trailer taken from what we assume represents a 45 degree angle to the left of the horizontal centerline of the trailer. Certain lamps, visible from another photocopy of a picture taken on the centerline, appear to be obscured at the 45 degree angle. Thus, it appears that Mr. Mueller's concern to be a legitimate one. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine whether his vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to ensure that it does before affixing a certification of compliance to it upon completion of its manufacture. If this agency has reason to believe that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment has been manufactured and/or certified in violation of the Vehicle Safety Act, this agency conducts an investigation and, if appropriate, an enforcement action.

However, we would like to point out that if trailer equipment prevents compliance of a required lamp, like a tail lamp, with any of Standard No. 108's requirements, paragraph S5.3.1.1 of the standard permits a manufacturer to install an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's requirements.

ID: nht91-1.6

DATE: January 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey P. Henderson -- ACTS Testing Labs, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-10-90 from Jeffrey P. Henderson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 4976)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about paragraph S5.7 of Safety Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies that each material used in a child restraint system must meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302 (Flammability of Interior Materials). You asked whether a "plastic pouch" that contains the installation instructions for the seat is required to meet the requirements.

The answer to your question is yes. A pouch that is provided to store the seat's installation instructions during the life of the seat is required by Standard 213 (S5.6.1.6; S5.6.6) to be located on the seat. Thus, by definition, the pouch would be a physical part of the seat. If a component is made a physical part of the seat (e.g., by affixing the component to the seat), the component is subject to Standard 302. The agency referred to the term "physical part" in a November 7, 1980 letter to J. P. Koziatek. In that letter, the agency determined that installation instructions, which are not a "physical part" of the child seat, need not comply with the flammability requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-1.7

DATE: January 3, 1991

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- NHTSA

TO: Stephen C. Crampton -- Dow, Lohnes & Albertson; Marc J. Fink -- Dow, Lohnes & Albertson

TITLE: Re Request by John A. Rosatti to import a Porsche 959 vehicle into the U.S.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-30-90 to Samuel K. Skinner from Marc J. Fink and Stephen C. Crampton; Also attached to memo dated 10-31-90 to NHTSA from Toni Fargo

TEXT:

Secretary Skinner has asked me to respond to your letters of October 30 and November 9, 1990, which requested a review of this Agency's decision not to permit the proposed importation.

My Chief Counsel and I have carefully reviewed this matter, including the specific provisions of the 1988 statutory amendments governing vehicle importation. We have concluded that the Agency's initial decision was correct. Therefore, the decision is affirmed, for the reasons noted in the enclosed legal memorandum.

We understand your client's interest in having this vehicle available for marketing and display purposes, and we appreciate his stated commitment that it would not be driven on the highways. We also recognize that no single vehicle can have much impact on overall U.S. highway safety. Nonetheless, our decision must be based on the laws governing vehicle importation -- namely, the 1988 statute and our implementing regulations. As noted in our legal memorandum, Congress specifically limited the circumstances under which non-complying vehicles could be imported, and deleted previous authority to such vehicles for "show" purposes (unless they are more than 25 years old). Therefore, consistent with our legal responsibilities, we are unable to approve Mr. Rosatti's proposed importation.

Please contact our Chief Counsel, Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, at (202) 366-9550, for any further clarification you may need on this matter.

ID: nht91-1.8

DATE: January 3, 1991

FROM: S.V. Kaaria

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to S.V. Kaaria (A37; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 1-16-91 from Marvin A. Leach, to S.V. Kaaria (OCC 5648)

TEXT:

I am the designer of the taillights placed near the rear window of passenger cars. In attempting to negotiate a settlement with auto manufacturers, they all point to the law which requires these new placements of elevated brake lights (Standard 108.1.1.27). They claim since you made the requirements you should negotiate with me for 1% of replacement cost of these taillights.

Would you please clarify your position in this matter, and notify me. Thank you.