ID: nht91-4.39

DATE: July 5, 1991

FROM: Debby Funk

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-30-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Debby Funk (A38; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

Thank you for your thorough and informative response to my inquiry regarding regulations governing the display of lighted signs in vehicles in my letter to you June 4, 1991.

Since you kindly offered to answer any further questions I might have, your response did leave me unclear on one point in particular.

In your letter you state that "the Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles in any manner they choose, even if the modification creates a noncompliance." And then you went on to say that "Our regulations do prohibit combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or device such as a lighted display sign."

Does this mean that it would be illegal for the owner of a vehicle that has a center highmounted stop lamp to install an additional rear window brake light? (Anywhere in the back window?)

I have one additional question if you would be so kind to answer as I have been unsuccessful in finding the answer in the Federal Code book at my local library. What is F.M.S.S. 108?

Thank you again for your time and considerate help in this endeavor.

ID: nht91-4.4

DATE: May 23, 1991

FROM: Allen I. Swenson -- The Compliance Group, Inc.

TO: Robert F. Helmuth -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-16-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Allen I. Swenson (A38; Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter is in response to our telephone conversation of May 9, 1991 regarding a past agency decision to amend 49 CFR Part 571, para. S4.1.4.2.2.

In a ruling published in the Federal Register, Volume 55, No. 146 dated July 30, 1990, the requirement to install lap/shoulder harnesses in rear outboard DSP's where the seat is readily removable was delayed, to become effective in September 1, 1992. This implies that if the seat were not readily removable, the requirement to install lap/shoulder harnesses on rear outboard DSP's as required by Standard 208 is effective on September 1, 1991.

This ruling seemed to be caused by the need to develop a new type of harness release latch mechanism that was not a pushbutton release. The purpose of this mechanism is to allow the lap/shoulder harness to be detachable with the seat.

In our telephone discussion, you defined a "readily removable seat" to be one that easily releases from its mounting by means of a easily operated unlocking mechanism installed by the manufacturer and does not require tools, wrenches, etc.

This ruling introduces an opportunity to evade the intent of Part 208 which enhances occupant safety through the use of lap/shoulder harnesses on rear outboard DSP's. In the van conversion industry, it has been common practice to install "readily removable" seat systems in the rear of the vehicle. These systems are available from several manufacturers such as FlexSteel, Adnick Recreational, Goshen Cushion, Boss Manufacturing, etc. At a cost of approximately $10.00 per vehicle, the regulatory intent to improve occupant safety is completely contravened. Undoubtedly, numerous converters, given this loophole, will follow this path.

From the discussion in the Federal Register, it appears that this ruling was the result of an agency determination to eliminate the use of an easily released push-button buckle at a harness attachment point which would allow the user to "easily release either the lap or shoulder belt portion and use only the unreleased portion."

The intention of this letter is to determine if the purpose of the amendment was to delay the implementation of the lap/shoulder harness in rear outboard DSP's or to ensure that installed lap/shoulder harnesses would not allow the user to "easily release either the lap or shoulder belt portion and use only the unreleased portion."

An argument can be made that installation of any release mechanism for a detachment point can be installed so that it cannot be easily released by the user. An additional argument can also be made that a release mechanism even if so used is no less safe than a seat with a lap belt only.

As you know, the van conversion industry has had great difficulty with finding ways to comply with Standard 208 and meeting Standards 207 and 210. Several industry suppliers including The Compliance Group have invested substantial funds to develop solutions to these needs. If we are to continue investing development funds to help converters meet these standards it is important that we fully understand the true intent of this ruling.

As you know, The Compliance Group has already developed a system to allow converters to meet the requirements of standards 208, 207, and 210 for rear shoulder/lap seat harnesses and seating installation. This system includes the installation of readily removable seat mechanisms and upper harness release mechanisms using unique end release buckles.

Your interpretation of this amendment will certainly help clarify what additions or modifications may be necessary to help our product development efforts and the industry.

I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht91-4.40

DATE: July 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown & Platt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-9-91 from Erika Z. Jones to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6038)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. More specifically, you asked whether NHTSA's regulations would prohibit or otherwise affect the ability of a foreign subsidiary of an American company from obtaining a special world manufacturer identifier (WMI) code from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in the subsidiary's name for use on vehicles to be offered for sale outside of the United States. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter posed the following hypothetical situation. The XYZ Company manufactures motor vehicles for sale in the United States and Europe. XYZ certifies that the motor vehicles offered for sale in the United States comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), and accepts full responsibility as a manufacturer of the U.S. vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. XYZ has two wholly-owned subsidiaries: ABC Company, which performs "assembly and marketing functions" solely for vehicles sold in the United States for the U.S.-certified vehicles manufactured by XYZ, and the DEF Corporation, which performs "assembly and marketing functions" solely for vehicles sold outside the United States.

Your first question was whether "there would be any implications under NHTSA rules" if wholly-owned subsidiary DEF were to obtain a WMI from the SAE in its own name, for use solely on vehicles assembled and sold outside of the United States. The WMI, which serves to uniquely identify the vehicle manufacturer, consists of the first three digits of the vehicle identification number assigned to the vehicle in accordance with Standard No. 115 and Part 565.

To answer your question, we must consider the scope of NHTSA's authority. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA administers Federal regulations, including Part 565, relating to the manufacture, sale, introduction into interstate commerce, and/or importation of motor vehicles into the United States. In your hypothetical, wholly-owned subsidiary DEF is not engaged in any activities with respect to vehicles offered for sale in the United States. In that case, the Federal regulations administered by NHTSA would not apply to the activities of wholly-owned subsidiary DEF.

As you may be aware, NHTSA has entered into a contract with SAE under which SAE coordinates the assignment of WMI's pursuant to 49 CFR S565.5. NHTSA's contract with SAE is naturally limited by NHTSA's statutory authority. That is, NHTSA's contract with SAE relates to coordinating the assignment of WMI's to manufacturers that manufacture motor vehicles sold

or offered for sale in the United States. SAE has no contractual obligation to NHTSA with respect to the assignment of WMI's to manufacturers whose vehicles are not offered for sale in the United States. So long as such assignments do not confuse or obscure the meaning of the WMI's assigned for vehicles offered for sale in the United States, SAE is free to exercise its judgment as to the appropriateness of any such assignments.

Your second question was whether NHTSA would object if XYZ were to ask the SAE to include in its next directory of WMI's a simple notation indicating that XYZ had authorized its subsidiary, ABC, to use one of XYZ's world manufacturer identification codes on vehicles assembled or marketed by ABC. The purpose of the WMI is to ensure that the vehicle manufacturer is uniquely identified. So long as the parent corporation agrees to be treated as the "manufacturer," for the purposes of the Safety Act, for the vehicles produced by its wholly-owned subsidiary, nothing in Part 565 prohibits the wholly-owned subsidiary from identifying the vehicles with a WMI assigned to the parent corporation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-4.41

DATE: July 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven M. Healy; Morris G. Healy

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-5-91 from Steven M. Healy and Morris G. Healy to Richard Van Eiderstein (OCC 6147)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 5, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, asking for an opinion as to the legality of your device that attaches monitoring lights to bug deflectors "and/or to other appropriate mounting areas on vehicles."

As you state it, the primary purpose of the device is to "bring indicator lights up and into the line of vision of the vehicle operator." You specifically mention the turn signal and upper beam indicators ("or other appropriate applications desired by the operator)." You mention that the existing indicator lights on the dashboard are left undisturbed.

As bug deflectors or shields are accessory equipment sold in the aftermarket, it is clear that you do not intend your device to be original equipment offered by the vehicle manufacturer. The Federal statute governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. There is no regulation or standard under this Act that relates to the manufacture and sale of your device.

We must, however, add a cautionary note relating to the use of your device by its purchaser. The Act prohibits any "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from rendering "inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in accordance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." You have assured us that the existing indicator lamps are not affected. However, one of the requirements of the lighting standard (Standard No. 108) that applies to motor vehicles is that accessory equipment not "impair the effectiveness" of the lighting equipment required by the standard. We regard the potential to create confusion as the potential to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment. It does not appear that the turn signal indicator portion of your device, operating in tandem with the turn signals, would create confusion. Likewise, the upper beam indicator would be too small to be perceived by an oncoming car at any great distance. However, you have added qualifications to your letter ("other appropriate mounting areas on vehicles" and "other appropriate applications desired by the operator") that require us to advise you of the statutory prohibition.

The prohibition does not affect vehicle owners, and if you intend the device to be installed by them, you may disregard the foregoing. However, in any event, the use of the device is also subject to the laws of any

State in which it will be used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht91-4.42

DATE: July 8, 1991

FROM: Ken Hanna -- Lectric Limited Inc.

TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ken Hanna (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

In reference to our last conversation regarding the manufacturing of sealed beam bulbs for antique cars. As per your suggestion, we are gathering data so that we may submit a comprehensive petition with all pertinent information included requesting reinstatement of SAE J579A.

Since it may take up to two years to reinstate SAE J579A and we are anxious to get our sealed beam headlight project underway, we would like to manufacture bulbs in the interim which meet J579C specifications in terms of candlepower and photometrics. However, since these bulbs will lack various identification nomenclature on the face of the lenses which are required by SAE J579C we would like to market these bulbs with clear identification on the packaging identifying them "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use". I discussed this possibility with you in our last conversation and as I recall you felt that NHTSA had no jurisdiction over products which are not intended for highway use and do not fall under the same regulations and specifications required of products which are intended for highway use.

Please let me know as soon as possible whether or not we will be violating any NHTSA restrictions by manufacturing and marketing these bulbs in this manner.

ID: nht91-4.43

DATE: July 8, 1991

FROM: Charles Saunders-White

TO: Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Counsil, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Charles Saunders-White (A38; VSA 103)

TEXT:

I am building a 50's style streetrod. I am using an original manufactured body and frame from a 1929 ford roadster.

The state of Wisconsin will title this car as a 'Reconstructed Vehicle'. It must conform to all 1929 state and federal laws as to required equipment.

I have two questions. First, in 1929 were there any federal standards, laws, or requirements that automobiles must be equipped with: 1) Fenders, 2) Bumpers, 3) hoods, 4) Doors, 5) windshield wipers (powered or manual).

My second question is, between 1920 and 1934 were there any federal laws requiring the above items on any autos in addition to my question about 1929 cars?

ID: nht91-4.44

DATE: July 9, 1991

FROM: William J. Lewandowski -- National Accounts Manager, Wheels/RV Products, Kelsey-Hayes

TO: Robert Helluth (Hellmuth) -- Director of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

COPYEE: M. McGrath; E. Kowalski

TITLE: Stop Lamp Activation - Tekonsha Electric Brake Controllers

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter 5-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Bill Lewandoski; Also attached to letter dated 4-30-91 from Bill Lewandowski to Taylor Vinson; Also attached to letter dated 11-22-91 Paul Jackson Rice to William J. Lewandoski (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Since receiving the May 23, 1991 letter from Paul Jackson Rice regarding trailer stop lamp activation, we have received a CHP (California Highway Patrol) Management Memorandum # 91-80 on the legality of the Tekonsha electric brake controllers and compliance with stop lamps. Evidently, NHTSA has issued more than one ruling on brake controller compliance to regulations regarding trailer stop lamp activation.

We are enclosing the NHTSA letter dated 5-23-91 and the CHP memo dated 5-30-91.

Please provide clarification regarding compliance and/or non-compliance. We will supply any information you require and look forward to your response to this subject.

ATTACHMENT

Management Memorandum No. 91-80 (Expires 11-29-91

To: All Commanders

"TEKONSHA COMMANDER" ELECTRIC TRAILER BRAKES

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a ruling regarding the legality of the "Tekonsha Commander" electric trailer brake. Under NHTSA preemption authority in Title 15, Section 1395(D) U.S. Code, the device and its use are legal.

Department personnel are to consider the Tekonsha Commander electric trailer brake and all similarity designed electric brakes to be in compliance with 24603 VC (stop lamps) and 26458(D) VC (single control exemption) provided that the devices are properly installed and all components are functioning correctly.

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER

ID: nht91-4.45

DATE: July 11, 1991

FROM: David A. McClaughry -- Harness, Dickey & Pierce

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Richard L. Carlson

TITLE: Re Our Ref.: 0364-50108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David A. McClaughry (A38; Part 571.7(c))

TEXT:

I am writing to request an interpretation of the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to a sale of motor vehicles to the United States Navy.

A client that we represent is interested in bidding on a zero-emission vehicle contract. The design according to the proposed specifications may not meet some FMVSS. In order to accurately bid the project, an estimate of the required testing to certify the vehicle design is needed.

We are aware of the waiver provisions for the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle in 15 U.S.C. S1410(a)(1)(C). In addition, the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 C.F.R. S571.7, provides a military vehicle exemption:

(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

I am interested in understanding the scope of this exclusion. What is your interpretation of the definition of a "military vehicle?" Is a "military vehicle" confined to vehicles used in combat, vehicles that remain on military bases or any vehicle which the military purchases? Does this exclusion extend only for FMVSS or all safety standards? Are there other military safety standards that the vehicles must satisfy? Should the client attempt to obtain a certification exemption under 15 U.S.C. S1410(a)(1)(c)?

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and assistance.

ID: nht91-4.46

DATE: July 11, 1991

FROM: Jack Garbo -- President/General Counsel, AVM Products, Inc.

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jack Garbo (A38; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Per our recent telephone conversation, I am writing to get clarification on the issue of whether the three-point seatbelt is required in all middle and rear outboard seating positions in the multipurpose vehicles after September 1, 1991.

My understanding is that the revised FMVSS 208 pertains only to forward facing chairs and sofas, and specifically excludes rearward facing furniture.

My company manufactures a small sofa which is mounted on a quick release track system. This sofa faces rearward and is equipped with two lap seatbelts.

Please let me know if I am interpreting the language of the regulation properly.

Thank you very much for assistance in helping us with this question.

ID: nht91-4.47

DATE: July 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by other (name illegible)

TO: Roddy Williams -- Container Enterprise

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-28-91 from Roddy Williams to Paul J. Rice (OCC 609?)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter that asked whether your company is permitted to assign its own Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements (49 CFR S571.115) to trailers that it "remanufactures" from previously used trailers. The answer is that a company that performs the remanufacturing operations described in your letter may assign a new VIN to its remanufactured trailers. By doing so, however, the trailers would be treated as newly manufactured trailers for the purposes of this agency's safety standards and regulations. Among other things, this would mean that your company would be required to certify that the trailers comply with all applicable safety standards in effect as of the date of the remanufacturing operations, including the lighting, tire, and brake standards applicable to new trailers.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your company, Container Enterprise, works on trailers that were used to carry cargo containers. You stated that approximately 90% of the trailers that Container Enterprise works on were originally built between 1974 and 1979. Container Enterprise takes used container chassis that are 23 feet long and removes the axles and half of the crossmembers on the original frame. Container Enterprise then manufactures a 12 foot subframe and reinstalls the used axles on this subframe. The subframe is then attached to the container chassis, extending its chassis length to 27 feet. The conversion allows the chassis to slide open or closed. You stated that upon completion of this process, Container Enterprise will issue "a new manufacturer plate with a new VIN number" and date of remanufacture.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 115, which applies to all new vehicles. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that vehicles manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the vehicle manufacturer and S4.5 specifies that the assigned VIN shall appear clearly and indelibly on the vehicle.

Thus, the only person that can assign a VIN to a vehicle is the vehicle's manufacturer. The question then is whether your company's "remanufacturing" operations are substantial enough that the remanufactured trailers should be considered to be new vehicles and the manufacturer of those vehicles would be your company, instead of the original manufacturer of the trailer.

NHTSA's regulations specifically address the question of when trailers produced by combining new components (the subframe fabricated by your company) and used components (the parts of the used container chassis) are considered to be new trailers. 49 CFR S571.7(f) states that when new and used components are used in trailer manufacture, the trailer will be considered "newly manufactured" unless the following three conditions are met. First, the trailer running gear assembly, which includes the axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension, is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer. Second, the existing trailer's identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number. Third, the existing trailer is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

You have stated that your company would assign new VINs to the trailers it remanufactures. Upon doing so, the second condition in S571.7(f), continuing use of the original VIN, would not be met. Therefore, the trailers "remanufactured" by your company would be considered to be newly manufactured. Your company, as the manufacturer, must certify that these trailers comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of the remanufacture. This means that, in addition to complying with the 1991 requirements of Standard No. 115, your company would be required to certify that the trailers comply with the 1991 versions of the lighting standard (Standard No. 108), the tire and rim standard (Standard No. 120), and the air brake standard (Standard No. 121), to name a few examples of applicable standards. To assist you in making any such certifications, I am enclosing a brochure that briefly describes each of the safety standards and an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles that explains how to get copies of our standards and regulations.

Your letter also referred to U. S. Department of the Treasury Publication 510 on Excise Taxes. We can only tell you that your remanufactured trailers with new VINs would be considered new vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you have any questions about the trailers for purposes of excise taxes, you should contact the Internal Revenue Service. Their District Office for Louisiana it located at 500 Camp Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

Information sheet from NHTSA dated September 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. (Text omitted)

Attachment

Information sheet from NHTSA dated September 1985 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. (Text omitted)