ID: 86-6.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger Hagie -- Government Relations Manager, Kawasacki Motors Corp. USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/20/83 letter from F. Berndt to BMW of North America, Inc.

TEXT:

Mr. Roger Hagie Government Relations Manager Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana, CA 92799-5252

Dear Mr. Hagie:

This is in response to your letter of April 26, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

Specifically, you have called our attention to a proposed motorcycle accessory, consisting in part of a "nylon mesh which is stretched in front of the headlamp lens" and intended to protect the "headlamp from damage by stones or other road debris." You have asked whether this accessory would be permissible under paragraph 54.1.3 of Standard No. 108 which in effect allows optional equipment that does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard does require. You have advised us that "the nylon mesh does cause some reduction in the photometric output of the lamp" but that testing of the specific headlamp that the mask is designed to fit "has determined that with the mesh in place, light output is still more than 1208 of the minimums specified by SAE J584.. . " You have quoted a 1983 letter from the former Chief Counsel giving two examples of impairment, one a plastic cover causing a dislocation of beam pattern, or a cover that is subject to accelerated hazing or cracking, but you have stated that it is unclear whether any degree of impairment is unacceptable, or only an impairment that causes light output to fall beneath the minimum photometrics prescribed by Standard No. 108.

Because Federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards, the fact that the mesh causes some reduction in photometric output does not mean that it "impairs" the effectiveness of the headlamp unless it reduces light output below the minimum levels imposed by the standard. You have stated that with the mesh installed light output is still more than 120% of the minimum required. If Kawasaki is satisfied that this output will be met with any original equipment headlamp, then it may certify compliance with Standard No.

108 of any motorcycle on which the mesh is an original equipment accessory.

The question of the permissibility of the mesh as an after market accessory is not easily answered. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits actions by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses that "render operative in whole or in part" equipment which has been installed to comply with a Federal vehicle safety requirement. We would view dealer-installation of the mesh as rendering a headlamp partially inoperative if it resulted in a diminution of headlamp light output below the standard's minimum level. The prohibition does not apply to owner modifications. Whether an owner modification is legal is answerable under the laws of the States where a vehicle is registered and operated.

A further observation is that although an original equipment headlamp-mesh combination may meet or exceed the minimum photometrics, it is possible that a replacement headlamp would fall beneath the threshold of photometric compliance with the mesh in place. We suggest that you consider these safety issues before proceeding to offer the accessory.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 26, 1985

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

RE: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS 108

Dear Sir:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. requests an interpretation of the acceptability of a proposed motorcycle accessory, a device to cover and protect the leading surface of a motorcycle fairing and headlamp from damage by stones or other road debris.

More specifically, the product consists of a vinyl or leather "mask" which fits snugly to the front of the fairing and incorporates a nylon mesh which is stretched in front of the headlamp lens.

Our question relates to the issue of whether this mesh covering over the headlamp lens is permissible according to FMVSS 108. Your attention is directed to the letter of October 20, 1983 from then Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Karl-Heinz Ziwica of BMW North America (file ref. NOA-30), copy attached.

In this letter, Mr. Berndt indicates that NHTSA has "concluded that headlamp covers for motorcycles are not per se prohibited by Standard 108." Mr. Berndt continues to indicate " if they impair the effectiveness of the headlamp." He goes on to describe two examples of impaired effectiveness that the agency would presumably consider contrary to the intent of FMVSS 108: an extreme installation angle of the cover or deterioration of the cover itself.

What remains unclear from Mr. Berndt's letter is whether any degree of impairment of the light output is to be considered unacceptable, or whether the unacceptable level might be reached if the impairment caused light output to drop below the photometric standards applicable to the lamp.

In the case of the mask under consideration by Kawasaki, the nylon mesh does cause some reduction in the photometric output of the lamp. However, testing of the specific headlamp that this mask is designed to fit has determined that with the mesh in place, light output is still more than 120% of the minimums specified by SAEJ584, the applicable standard. Thus, while some "impairment" is acknowledged, performance with the mask in place still exceeds the requirements of FMVSS 108.

In conclusion, Kawasaki seeks NHTSA's opinion whether a mesh headlamp cover which is not subject to hazing, cracking or discoloration, and which does not cause light output to drop below the minimum levels specified by FMVSS 108 would be considered in Compliance with FMVSS 108 if offered for sale on a specific Kawasaki motorcycle.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.

Roger Hagie Government Relations Manager

See 10/20/83 letter from F. Berndt to BMW of North America, Inc.

ID: 86-6.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger C. Fairchild

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Roger C. Fairchild, Esq. Shutler and Low 12030 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 209 Reston, VA 22091

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

This is in reply to your letter of October 7, 1986, asking for an interpretation of the joint DOT-Customs regulations applicable to the importation of motor vehicles and equipment subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. You stated your understanding that under 19 C.F.R. l2.8O(b)(l)(iii), the importer of a nonconforming vehicle must certify that the vehicle will not be sold or offered for sale until the NHTSA Administrator issues an import bond release letter. You asked whether this or any other provision prohibits the lease of a vehicle prior to issuance of the NHTSA bond release letter.

Neither this provision nor any other prohibits the leasing of a vehicle during the period prior to issuance of the bond release letter. A sale is generally understood as a transfer of title and possession, whereas a lease involves transfer only of possession. The purpose for the restrictive language in 12.80(b)(l)(iii) is, as you correctly stated, "to assure that any remedial actions required by NHTSA...could be performed by the importer."

I hope that this answers your question satisfactorily.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

I request an interpretation of the joint DOT-Customs regulations applicable to direct import motor vehicles. Under 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b) (l)(iii), the importer of such a vehicle must certify that the vehicle will not be sold or offered for sale until the NHTSA Administrator issues an Import bond release letter. Does this or any other provision administered by NHTSA prohibit the lease of an imported vehicle prior to issuance of the NHTSA bond release letter? If so, what provision imposes such a restriction?

Under a leasing arrangement, the importer would retain title to the vehicle. By retaining title, the importer would have a degree of control over the vehicle, to assure that any remedial actions required by NHTSA (i.e., further vehicle modifications or submission of additional compliance information) could be performed by the importer. Based on discussions with your staff, it is my understanding that this residual control by the importer should satisfy NHTSA's concerns which form the basis for the sale-before-release prohibition.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Roger C. Fairchild

RCF:hgc

ID: 86-6.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. James R. Mitzenberg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James R. Mitzenberg Product Safety Engineer The Flexible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, OH 13015

Dear Mr. Mitzenberg:

Forgive our delay in replying to your letter of August 21, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, with respect to a deceleration warning system you have been asked to install as original equipment on city transit buses However, on the basis of the information you provided Taylor Vinson of this Office in a phone call on August 13, 1986, we have a better understanding of the system described.

The system as described consists of three amber lamps mounted on the vertical centerline below the rear window. They provide a steady-burning light when the ignition is "on," and when the accelerator is released. They are extinguished when the accelerator is depressed. We have concluded that these aspects of the system are not prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3, which you cited, and which forbids the installation of equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment.

However, there are two further aspects to the system. The amber lights are also extinguished when the brakes are applied and the normal stop lamps are illuminated, but if the brake application continues for at least 3 seconds the amber lamps will flash at a rate of approximately 60 cycles a minute. You have cited paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108 which requires all vehicle lights to be steady-burning, except for turn signals and hazard warning signals, and side marker lamps and headlamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. We have interpreted S4.6 as applying to all lighting equipment on non-emergency vehicles, and not just the equipment required by the standard. This means that the deceleration system must be steady-burning in every mode. There is a good reason for this requirement, as simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and steady-burning (red) lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear of the bus, and impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S4.1.3.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 21, 1985

Mr. Jeffery R. Miller Office or Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

The Flexible Corporation, a manufacturer or city transit buses, has been requested by several city transit authorities to install a rear deceleration warning light system. These customers have demanded factory installation and operational hook-up of this deceleration warning light system. Other bus manufacturers are supplying such systems without question. Due to this, and by our not agreeing to install the system and make it fully operational, we have found ourselves to be at s distinct marketing disadvantage. We are concerned about certifying our vehicle to FMVSS 108 with an OEM installation or this deceleration light system.

The deceleration light system specified for installation on our bus is manufactured by Safety Development Systems, Haines, Oregon and requires installation on the rear centerline of our bus. See Attachment 11 which depicts the proposed installation method. The housing contains three horizontally aligned amber lights. These amber lights would be installed and operated independently from our normal rear lights and reflectors, which are required FMVSS 108 equipment. These three amber lights operate as described below:

A. When the ignition is "on", the amber lights are illuminated, burning.

B. When the accelerator is depressed, the amber lights are extinguished.

C. When the accelerator is released, the amber lights are illuminated, steady burning, and remain illuminated as long as the accelerator is released.

D. When the brake is applied, the amber lights are extinguished and the normal red atop lights are illuminated. If the brake is continually applied /or three seconds or more, the amber deceleration lights will flash (approximately 60 cycles per minute).

E. The normal amber (red color is optional) rear turn signal could then be illuminated simultaneously with the stop lights and the deceleration lights.

Paragraph S4.6 of FMVSS 108 provides that required signaling lamps shall flash when activated and all other lamps shall be steady burning, except that means mar be provided to flash headlights and side marker lights for signaling purposes.

Paragraph S4.1.3 or FMVSS 108 provides that no additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness or lighting equipment required by this standard.

In order that we may be customer responsive, we request an interpretation from NHTSA concerning any non-compliance with FMVSS 108 on an OEM installation of these deceleration warning lights functioning as described above.

Sincerely,

James R. Mitzenberg Product Safety Engineer

ID: 8601

Mr. Steve Reeder
President & General Manager
Trails West Manufacturing
P.O. Box 67
Preston, ID 83263

Dear Mr. Reeder:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, in which you ask questions about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to the livestock trailers that you manufacture.

The trailer box is 78 inches wide, but the overall vehicle width exceeds 80 inches when the fenders are added. You have asked whether such trailers must be equipped with lamps required of vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more (clearance and identification lamps) as they will be installed on the trailer box. In an interpretation published in l976 which remains valid today, the agency stated that "overall width" refers to "the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle . . . exclusive of flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps . . . ." The trailers you manufacture do not appear to be equipped with "flexible fender extensions", according to the literature that you supplied, and therefore the fenders would be included in determining the overall width. Accordingly, they would be required to be equipped with clearance and identification lamps. Although the clearance lamps will be located on the box, they should be placed, as nearly as possible, to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and as near the top as practicable, as Table II of Standard No. 108 requires. Thus, to answer your second question, side marker lamps would be located as required by Table II rather than Table IV.

In determining whether the overall length of the trailer is 30 feet or more for purposes of installation of intermediate side marker lamps and reflectors, you ask whether "the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer which extends over the tow vehicle" should be included. The agency has not adopted a definition of "overall length." However, with respect to a trailer that is less than 6 feet in overall length, paragraph S5.1.1.15 requires that "the trailer tongue" be included in the measurement. Therefore we believe that the calculation of overall length for longer trailers should also include the trailer tongue or equivalent connector to the towing vehicle.

You have also asked if "front clearance lights [would] be required where the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer extends over the tow vehicle." The answer is yes. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that amber clearance lamps be located "on the front" and as near the top as practicable, which we interpret to be the foremost, highest part of the trailer.

Your final question relates to regulations for "safety chains" for your products. We are unaware of any Federal requirements that apply to this item of equipment. States may have adopted specifications such as VESC Regulation V5, or SAE Recommended Practice J697 MAY88, which would apply to vehicles operated within their borders. However, we are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you contact, for an opinion, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/28/93

ID: 8602

Wayne Ferguson, Research Manager
Transportation Research Council
Department of Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
Box 8317 University Station
Charlottesville, VA 22903

Dear Mr. Ferguson:

Thank you for your letter of April 23, 1993, enclosing a copy of a joint resolution of the Virginia General Assembly to study the use of deceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth, with the goal of allowing use of these lamps. The Transportation Research Council has been asked to evaluate potential legal problems regarding state regulation of deceleration lights, especially as they may relate to Federal preemption in the area of vehicle safety equipment.

You would like to know whether "the current federal regulations and standards dealing with various vehicle safety devices pre-empt Virginia's proposal to permit deceleration lights on trucks in the Commonwealth?" If the answer is affirmative, you request advice on "the proper course of action to obtain federal approval of the use of deceleration lights." The answer to these questions is dependent upon the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act (Act) (l5 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and the characteristics of any specific warning system.

The Act does not permit a State to impose a safety requirement upon a motor vehicle that differs from a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in any area of performance that is covered by the Federal standard (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The applicable Federal standard in this instance is 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. We understand that a deceleration warning system is intended to inform a following driver that the vehicle ahead is slowing. Such a system can consist of one or more lamps, red or amber in color, and either flashing or steady-burning in use. Further, such a system can be original motor vehicle equipment or aftermarket equipment.

The Federal requirements of Standard No. 108 apply to original equipment in all instances. Two provisions are important with respect to supplementary lighting equipment such as a deceleration warning system. Under S5.5.10(d), unless otherwise provided by S5.5.10, all original motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether or not required by Standard No. 108, must be steady burning in use. It is for this reason that we informed The Flxible Corporation on December 8, 1986, that we had interpreted Standard No. 108 as applying to all lighting equipment on non-emergency vehicles and not just the equipment required by Standard No. 108. Thus, the amber-lamp deceleration warning system that Flxible had been asked to install on transit buses was acceptable to NHTSA in a steady- burning mode but not a flashing one.

Similarly, we advised Norman H. Dankert on June 3, 1990, and Bob Abernethy on September 7, 1990, that if a deceleration warning system is one that does not consist of additional lamps but one that operates through the tail or stop lamp system, it must also be steady burning.

The second relevant provision is that of S5.1.3; original lighting equipment of a supplementary nature must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. We also informed Flxible that simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and steady-burning (red) lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear of the bus and impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S5.1.3. On the other hand, the simultaneous use of the Flxible amber and red rear lamps in a steady burning mode would not be precluded by this section.

In summary, we conclude that Virginia could permit the use of a red or amber original equipment deceleration warning system operating in a steady burning mode through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones.

A system that is not permissible as original equipment would also not be permissible as an aftermarket system. Although the preemption provisions and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, the Act also provides, for both new and used vehicles, that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed . . . in compliance" with Standard No. 108 or any other Federal safety standard (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). An action which created an adverse effect upon lamp performance would partially render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with Standard No. 108. In our view, flashing deceleration lamps would "render inoperative" the compliant lamps installed by the vehicle manufacturer by potentially confusing following drivers. For this reason, it is our opinion that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed a deceleration warning system on a truck in Virginia would be in violation of section 1397(a)(2)(A) if that system consisted of flashing lights, or operated in a flashing mode through lamps that are normally steady burning in use. Since a State may not legitimize conduct that is illegal under Federal law, Virginia could not permit such businesses to install deceleration lamps on vehicles. However, the Act does not prohibit installation of a flashing light system by a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business.

For this reason, section 1397(a)(2)(A) does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, we believe that it would be inappropriate for Virginia to encourage such modifications, in view of the potential adverse safety consequences of unexpected flashing lamps. Moreover, because it appears that the many of the vehicles will be operated in interstate commerce, we suggest that you also obtain the views of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to determine whether that agency's regulations affect trucks with deceleration lights. You should direct your inquiry to James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3404, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

You also asked about the proper course of action to obtain Federal approval of the use of deceleration lights. The agency does not "approve" or "disapprove" safety systems but will advise, as we do here, whether such systems are permitted or prohibited under Federal law. There appear to be certain types of deceleration warning systems that would not be prohibited under existing Federal law. With respect to systems that would not be allowable under Standard No. l08, these systems could only be permitted if NHTSA were to amend Standard No. 108 through rulemaking. Any person who believes that the standard should be amended may submit a petition for rulemaking. The agency's procedures for petitions for rulemaking are set forth at 49 CFR Part 552.

If we can be of further help, our Office of Research and Development may be able to assist you, and I suggest you contact Michael Perel for copies of pertinent research contracts on deceleration warning systems. Mr. Perel may be reached at 202-366-5675.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:7/30/93

ID: 8624

Mr. Daniel L. Kokal
Champagne Imports
506 Stonehurst Court
Gainesville, VA 22065

Dear Mr. Kokal:

This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1993, requesting use of continuous surety bonding for importation of nonconforming vehicles under the Registered Importer program.

As you have informed us, "[c]urrently, single entry bonds are filed with each [nonconforming] vehicle at 150% of the vehicle's value . . . .", and that this is expensive for the importer of Canadian vehicles which "rarely, if ever, require safety modifications to meet U.S. standards." You propose a continuous bond which would cover more than one vehicle, with the same level of value. The example you give is that of a continuous bond of $150,000 which would cover 10 vehicles imported together, each with a value of $10,000 as determined by the U.S. Customs Service, rather than individual bonds for 10 vehicles of $10,000 value, each bond at $15,000. Your specific suggestion is for "the ability to import no more than 15 vehicles under a given continuous bond at 150% total vehicle value."

We are unable to implement your suggestion at present. Under 49 CFR 591.8(a), the safety compliance bond's coverage is restricted to "only one motor vehicle." Thus, rulemaking is required to amend paragraph 591.8(a) to permit a bond that covers more than one vehicle. In addition, Appendix A to Part 591 will have to be modified; this sets forth the terms of the bond, presently expressed in single-entry terms. As NHTSA is required to reimburse Customs for its costs in processing safety compliance bonds, that agency must necessarily be consulted to determine the impact of such a change on its operations, with a possible change in the bond processing fee imposed under Part 594. However, the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will consider the feasibility of rulemaking on this subject.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:591 d:6/4/93

ID: 8626

St. F. Steiner
Consultant
AET Network
2190 3rd Street
San Francisco, CA 94107

Dear Sir or Madam:

We have received your "Dear Mr. Van Orden" letter of May 4, 1993, which was addressed to me. You wish to import 3- and 4- wheeled vehicles from Europe "for research and exploration", and have asked several questions relating to U.S. laws and D.O.T. requirements.

Your first question is: "Are there any safety standards and regulations for the above mentioned automobiles?"

The answer is yes. All 3-wheeled motor vehicles are considered "motorcycles" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motorcycles. Depending upon their configuration, but not upon their weight, 4-wheeled vehicles are either "passenger cars", "multipurpose passenger vehicles", "trucks", or "buses" for purposes of the safety standards.

However, motor vehicles intended solely for purposes of research may be imported without the necessity of conforming them to the safety standards under the terms and conditions that the agency has set out in 49 CFR Part 591.

Your second and third questions are whether there is a minimum speed standard regulation or weight limitations for the vehicles you wish to import. The answer is no. However, a motorcycle with 5-horsepower or less is considered a "motor- driven cycle", and some of the motorcycle standards impose lesser requirements for motor-driven cycles, and motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in l mile is 30 mph or less.

Your fourth question relates to the conversions required to meet U.S. specifications and standards. As indicated previously, no conversion is required when the importation is solely for the purpose of research. If you wish to import vehicles that have been originally manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, the manufacturer will find those standards at 49 CFR Parts 571, 581, and 541, respectively. If you wish to import nonconforming vehicles for conversion after importation, then the agency must determine that the vehicles are eligible for entry pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593, and importation and conversion accomplished through a Registered Importer pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592.

Your final question is whether the vehicles will be permitted on highways. This is a question that is not answerable under Federal law. Each State determines the criteria for licensing motor vehicles for use on the roads under its jurisdiction. If a State does not license a vehicle for on-road use (all terrain vehicles, minibikes, golf carts are examples), a basis exists for a manufacturer to determine that its vehicles are not "motor vehicles." If a vehicle is not a motor vehicle, i.e. one manufactured primarily for on-road use, then no Federal safety standards apply to it.

If you have any further questions about the importation process, you should refer them to Mr. Van Orden at our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Office of Enforcement.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:5/17/93

ID: 8627

Vincent Schulze, Chief
Motor Carrier Inspection and Investigation
State of New Jersey
Department of Transportation
1035 Parkway Avenue
CN 600
Trenton, NJ 08625

Dear Mr. Schulze:

This responds to your February 26, 1993 letter to Mr. Ron Havelar of the Federal Highway Administration. Because your question concerns a safety standard issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), it has been referred to my office for reply. You ask whether a bus can comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, particularly S5.4, if it is equipped with side exit windows which slide open.

NHTSA's longstanding position is that sliding windows are not prohibited by Standard No. 217, as long as they comply with all of the standard's requirements. The requirement in S5.4 that the emergency exit must be "manually extendable" refers to the ability to open the exit manually, i.e., even when the bus's power is off. Sliding windows must also be capable of complying when the window is in either the opened or the closed position.

While sliding windows are not prohibited, NHTSA believes it is difficult for sliding windows to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217. For example, S5.3 of Standard No. 217 specifies release requirements for emergency exits. Section S5.3.2 states, in part,

The release mechanism or mechanisms shall require for release one or two force applications, at least one of which differs by a 90 to 180 from the direction of the initial push-out motion of the emergency exit (outward and perpendicular to the exit surface).

Thus it appears that the initial motion to open an exit window must be outward and perpendicular to the exit surface, even if it is a sliding window.

You should be aware that on February 25, 1992, the Blue Bird Body Company petitioned the agency to amend Standard No. 217. One issue raised by this petition is the installation of sliding exit windows. This petition has been granted and the agency is proceeding with rulemaking on this issue.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:6/2/93

ID: 8639

Mr. John Rhein
Fisher-Price, Inc.
636 Girard Ave.
East Aurora, NY 14052

Dear Mr. Rhein:

This responds to your letter about the consumer registration card required by Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask about three features of a registration card you wish to produce, and enclosed a sample card setting forth a "proposed format." You first ask whether you may specify "Please Print" on the card. The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting this feature, in an October 20, 1993 letter to Mr. Richard Glover of the Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company.

You also ask whether you may use "open box spaces" for the consumer's name and address, to encourage consumers to print the information clearer (one character per box space). The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting "blocked squares" for the consumer's name and address in a June 14, 1993 notice (copy enclosed) denying Evenflo's petition for reconsideration of the rule that established the registration card requirement.

Finally, you ask whether you may enlarge the consumer name and address space of the card, to provide consumers more space to print the information and thus increase the likelihood the information will be legible. The answer, with reference to the sample card you provided, is yes. Under S5.8 of Standard 213, the registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). The figures specify a minimum size for the card. Moreover, in the enclosed June 1993 notice, NHTSA explained that "(f)ormat refers to the general appearance of the form and to aspects such as type size, size and placement of margins, size and placement of the spaces for the consumer's name and address, and overall organization of the printed material."

The sample card you provided meets the minimum size requirement specified in the standard, and the general appearance and overall organization of the card is the same as that depicted in the standard (figure 9a). While the consumer name and address space is slightly larger than depicted in the standard, we conclude that this slight deviation is consistent with the standard's format requirements. This conclusion is based on the fact that this slight change does not affect the general appearance or overall organization of the card, and because the change provides consumers more space to print the information, i.e., it will not detract from the utility of the card.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:213 d:4/14/94

ID: 9891-2

Mr. Fred Benford
100+ Motoring Accessories
2220 East Orangewood Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92806-61100

Dear Mr. Benford:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps. You wrote that your company manufactures aluminum wheel covers without "protruding objects." You requested confirmation that the wheel covers do not violate any FMVSS. Our response is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles, or of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to ensure that its equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 211 regulates wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. Since "wheel discs" encompasses wheel covers, your company's wheel covers are subject to Standard No. 211. S4. Requirements of Standard No. 211 states in part:

As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections ...

In your letter, you stated that your wheel covers do not have any "protruding objects." Since Standard No. 211 prohibits wheel discs (covers) with "winged projections," if your company's wheel covers do not incorporate "winged projections," the wheel covers would satisfy Standard No. 211. "Winged projection" is defined at S3.2 of Standard No. 211 as an exposed cantilevered appendage that projects radially from a wheel disc and that typically has front, edge, and/or rear surfaces which are not in contact with the wheel when the wheel disc is installed on the axle.

You also asked whether wheel covers made of aluminum violate any FMVSS. The answer is no, because Standard No. 211 does not specify materials for use in wheel covers. However, since wheel covers are "motor vehicle equipment," your company must ensure that the wheel covers are free of safety-related defects under the Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that your company or NHTSA determines that the wheel covers have a safety-related defect, your company would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective wheel covers and remedying the problem free of charge.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:211 NCC20:DNakama:mar:62992:apr/22/94;OCC#9891 cc: NCC-20 Subj/chron, DN NEF-01, NRM-01 [U:\NCC20\INTERP\211\9891.DRN] Interps: Std. No. 211, Redbook (2)