ID: nht90-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

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

TO: MICHAEL S. KMIECIK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-21-89 FROM MICHAEL S. KMIECIK ATTACHED;

(OCC 4169); GRAPHICS OMITTED. TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to vehicle modification kits you wish to purchase, to be used in conversion of Datsun 240-280Z cars from closed to open vehicles. You have asked for the safety standards that apply to 1974-78 convertibles, and whether the conversion kit meets these standards. I regret the delay in responding.

We appreciate your efforts to meet the requirements of the National Traffic and motor Vehicle Safety Act. As you appear to realize, the Act requires, in essence, that vehicle alterations by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business must not render wholly or partially inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a vehicle at the end of its conversion process must continue to meet the standards that applied at the time that it was first manufactured. This does not preclude conversions that render compliance with a standard physically impossible; obviously an open car cannot meet, for example, the standard for roof crush resistance (Standard No. 216), and convertibles, are, in fact, exempt from it. Such a conversion would allow substitution of a two-point (lap belt) restraint system in a convertible for a three-point (lap-shoulder belt) restraint system that may have been installed when it was a closed car (Standard No. 208).

After the vehicle alterations are complete, the vehicle must conform to the barrier tests specified in several standards. We note that the items that comprise the kit are intended to add rigidity to the body and frame after removal of the top, but are unable to advise you of the effect these modifications would have upon the safety performance of the vehicle as converted.

There are no Federal safety standards that apply to the individual items in your kit. The standards that apply to motor vehicles, including convertibles, manufactured from October 1, 1973, through September 30, 1978, will be found at Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. Specifically, the standards appear in volumes titled 49 CFR Parts 200 to 999, revised as of October 1, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1977. Originally, these volumes were available through the U.S. Government Printing office (which may have an Omaha outlet). If they are no longer available through the GPO, we recommend that you consult a local law library.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht90-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 16, 1990

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

TO: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MGR., REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE, VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTERS DATED 4-18-89 AND 7-11-88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM SHAPIRO ATTACHED; (OCC-3422).

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. Specifically, you indicated that Volvo is currently designing a Type 2 seat belt assembly (lap/shoulder belt) that has an anchorage for the upper end of the shoulder belt located within the area specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. Volvo also would like to install an additional anchorage for the upper end of the shoulder belt outside of the area specified in S4.3.2. The purpose of this additional anchorage was said to be to "increase the stability of the mounting." You stated your belief that this additional anchorage would be permitted even though it does not satisfy the location requirements specified in S4.3.2, because the additional anchorage "is not required for the seat belt assembly to comply with the strength requirements" of Standard No. 210. The answer to your question depends upon whether the lap/shoulder safety belt is required to be installed at the particular seating position.

My response assumes that this additional anchorage is not an anchorage for an automatic or dynamically tested manual safety belt that meets the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Anchorages for those belts are explicitly exempted from the anchorage location requirements by S4.3 of Standard No. 210.

If the seating position in question is one that is required by Standard No. 208 to be equipped with a lap/shoulder belt, the additional anchorage described in your letter would appear not to comply with Standard No. 210. Section S3 of Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." As I understand your letter, both the anchorage that satisfies the location requirements of Standard No. 210 and the addi- tional anchorage would transfer seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure. Therefore, both of these points would be the "seat belt anchorage," per S3 of Standard No. 210, and both points would have to comply with the location requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210.

Since your letter states that the additional anchorage would not comply with the anchorage location requirements of standard No. 210, each vehicle that used this additional anchorage point at seating positions required to be equipped with a lap/shoulder safety belt would appear not to comply with Standard No. 210.

On the other hand, if the seating position is one that is not required by

Standard No. 208 to be equipped with a lap/shoulder safety belt (such as the rear center seating position in passenger cars), Standard No. 210 might not prohibit the use of an additional anchorage point that did not comply with the location requirements of the standard. At seating positions where a lap/shoulder safety belt is not required, section S4.1.2 of standard No. 210 gives manufacturers the option of installing either anchorages for a Type I (lap-only) or Type 2 seat belt assembly. Hence, at these seating positions, Volvo could satisfy all requirements of the safety standards by installing lap-only belts at these seating positions. Accordingly, Volvo's decision to install lap/shoulder belts and an additional anchorage point at these seating positions would be purely voluntary, not a response to any regulatory requirement.

NHTSA has long said that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with Federal safety standards, provided that the additional systems or components do not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards. In a December 1, 1986 letter to Mr. Francois Louis, this agency stated that manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorages for voluntarily installed lap-only belts outside of the area specified in Standard No. 210 for lap belts required to be installed by Standard No. 208, provided that the voluntarily installed lap-only belts do not destroy the ability of the required belt systems to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. The same reasoning would apply in this situation. That is, if Standard No. 208 does not require a lap/shoulder belt to be installed at a seating position, the upper anchorage for a shoulder belt (in Volvo's case, both anchorage points for the upper end of the shoulder belt) may be located outside of the area specified in S4.3.2 of standard No. 210, provided that the voluntarily installed anchorages and shoulder belts do not destroy the ability of the required anchorages for lap-only belts and the lap-only belts themselves to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. I would like to note, however, that NHTSA believes that shoulder belt anchorages located within the area specified in S4.3.2 of standard No. 210 offer the greatest safety benefits, even though the anchorages of voluntarily-installed shoulder belts are not required to be located within that area.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions or need further information, please let me know.

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