ID: nht93-3.4

DATE: April 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Greg Hixson -- President, Hixson and Netherton Distributing

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-93 from Greg Hixson to NHTSA (OCC 8514)

TEXT: This responds to your March 30, 1993, letter asking for information on any regulations concerning aftermarket airbags.

I am enclosing two letters dated March 26, 1993, to Mr. Steven C. Friedman and Mr. Jay Lee that explain the operation of Federal law with respect to aftermarket airbags. I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in both letters.

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.

ID: nht93-3.40

DATE: May 8, 1993

FROM: Daniel L. Kokal -- Champagne Importers

TO: Johnathan Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Joe Marino -- Champagne Imports; Clive Van Orden -- OVSC

TITLE: RE: Request for Use of Continuous Surety Bonding for Importation of Non-Conforming Vehicles Under the Registered Importer Program

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-4-93 from John Womack to Daniel L. Kokal (A41; Part 591)

TEXT: On April 29th, 1993, Joe Marino of Champagne Imports and myself met with Clive Van Orden and Ted Bayler of OVSC, and Taylor Vinson of Chief Counsel's office, to review and discuss various aspects of the Registered Importer program as they relate to vehicle entries from Canada.

Champagne Imports is the largest Registered Importer processing entries from Canada. At the April 29th meeting, we raised the possibility of providing a continuous bond that would provide surety on the compliance obligations on these vehicles. Currently, single entry bonds are filed with each vehicle at 150% of the vehicle's declared value to ensure the vehicle meets, or will be modified to meet U.S. safety standards.

This type of bonding, currently the practice with non-conforming vehicles from Europe, is expensive for the importer, especially considering that Canadian vehicles rarely, if ever, require safety modifications to meet U.S. standards.

Continuous bonding would allow the Registered Importer to bundle a group of vehicles under a given bond and conserve costs to the importer while maintaining the SAME LEVEL OF LIABILITY for compliance to OVSC.

For example

10 vehicles at a value of $1O,000/vehicle would require 10 single entry bonds at a total bond value of $150,000 liability for compliance.

Alternatively, a continuous bond, valued at $150,000, would be posted to cover all 10 vehicles. The importer would be saved the costs of issuing 10 bonds, but the level of liability for compliance of these vehicles would remain the same. In fact, the $150,000 liability would remain until ALL vehicles are released.

It has been suggested that use of a continuous bond might create additional administrative burden on OVSC by requiring constant monitoring of the number of cars imported under a given bond. This burden can be obviated by establishing a discreet number of vehicles for each continuous bond used.

We are requesting the ability to import no more than 15 vehicles under a given continuous bond at 150% total vehicle value. These vehicles will all be imported together, and, when all vehicles are released, the bond itself is liquidated. The next 15 vehicles imported would require a new bond.

It is widely accepted that the Registered Importer requirements, as written. failed to consider the special case of Canadian vehicles. OVSC has moved to

mollify the unusual burden on Canadian vehicles by recognizing manufacturers letters of compliance as evidence of U.S. certification. As Registered Importers, we see many importers who cannot obtain these letters, yet still have vehicle that rarely, if ever, require modification, and are forced to cope with extreme bonding costs.

Fulfilling the enclosed request will enable us to lower these costs to the importer, while maintaining the same level of surety to OVSC that compliance will be demonstrated. There will be no burden on OVSC to "track" the vehicles under a given continuous bond, as each bond will hold a discreet number of vehicles (our request is 15 vehicles), after which the bond is liquidated, and a new bond is issued for subsequent vehicles.

Please review the enclosed request at your earliest convenience, and inform us as to its applicability under the Safety Act and the Registered Importer program. Comments received during the April 29th meeting seemed to indicate that there is no reason why this method could not be employed.

Cost cutting and paperwork reduction is imperative to our remaining in service as an importer of Canadian vehicles, and we believe use of continuous bonds will achieve cost reduction without limiting in any way our responsibilities as a Registered Importer.

We greatly appreciate your time and attention to this matter. Please contact me at 703-349-1166 with any questions, or to discuss this matter further.

ID: nht93-3.41

DATE: May 10, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Margret Schmock von Ohr -- Robert Bosch GmbH, BOSCH Reutlingen

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to rapifax/fax dated 3-5-93 from Margaret Schmock von Ohr to Tylor Vinson

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of May 3, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to reflex reflectors.

Under Standard No. 108, the front side marker reflex reflector must be amber in color. You have asked whether it is permissible to have an amber painted reflex reflector lens, and the conditions under which it is permissible to have it painted.

Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J594f REFLEX REFLECTORS, January 1977. Neither J594f nor the text of Standard No. 108 itself prohibit an amber painted reflex reflector lens. As with any item of motor vehicle equipment subject to Standard No. 108, its manufacturer must ensure that the product as manufactured has been designed to comply with applicable Federal requirements. Thus, the amber painted reflex reflector lens is permissible provided that the front reflex reflector assembly meets all requirements of Standard No. 108 including the referenced SAE J594f.

ID: nht93-3.42

DATE: May 12, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Bryan D. Patton -- International Automobile Enterprises, Inc., ERA Replica Automobile

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-16-92 from Bryan D. Patton to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 8200)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information on Federal regulations for "tubing" you use for hydraulic brake lines in replica cars. I apologize for the delay in responding. We understand that you informed Mr. John Messera of NHTSA's Enforcement Office by telephone that the tubing is steel tubing.

The answer to your inquiry is that there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that applies to metal brake tubing. FMVSS No. 106, "Brake Hoses" applies to new motor vehicles and to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. "Brake hose" is defined in S4 of the standard as "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." NHTSA's longstanding position is that the term "flexible" used in the definition excludes steel tubing. (SEE, E.G., NHTSA's response to petitions for reconsideration, 39 FR 7425, February 26, 1974.) Thus, based on the information you provided by telephone, Standard No. 106 does not appear to apply to the tubing you use in manufacturing your replica cars.

You should be aware, however, that under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in SS 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your steel tubing contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You also ask whether "(t)he SAE standard would be used to determine such suitability in the absence of a specific federal code or regulation." Since there is no FMVSS that applies to your tubing, under federal law you are only responsible under the Safety Act for ensuring that your product is free from safety-related defects. As to your potential liability under State law, we suggest that you consult a private attorney for questions about this matter. A private attorney would also be able to answer your query as to whether, under State law, an SAE standard could be used to determine the suitability of your product.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-3.43

DATE: May 13, 1993 EST

FROM: Shawn Shieh -- Ventures International USA

TO: Office Enforcement -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-8-93 from John Womack to Shawn Shieh (A41; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 8-17-89 from Stephen P. Wood to Alan S. Eldahr (Std. 108)

TEXT: My name if Shau Shieh. My company has a patent pending emergency communication product. It is intended for use inside automobils. It is needs to be mounted in the back window of an automobile permanently. I would like to find out what are the restrictions and specifications I have to follow.

The product uses Light Emitting Diodes to form any emergency messages and intend from drivers from behind to read. It is to promote safe driving and to call for speedy help. I know it cannot be read or yellow in color. But I am not sure what is the maximum size of a permanent structure to be installed in an automobil. What about the matterial of the base support and wiring restrictions. Can you please help me? Where can I find these information: What other government agency I have to go through? Are these information available in local central library? I hope to hear from soon. Thank you very much?

ID: nht93-3.44

DATE: May 15, 1993

FROM: Lillie Rene Erwin -- 365089, TDC Mt View Unit H-1

TO: Andrew H. Card -- Secretary of Transportation

COPYEE: Illegible

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/21/93 from John Womack to Lillie Rene Erwin (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I AM PRESENTLY INCARCERATEO IN THE TDCJ-ID PRISON SYSTEM AT GATESVILLE, TX. THE STATE OF TEXAS IS TRANSPORTING PRISONERS IN A MANNER DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR HEALTH. NAMELY PRISONERS ARE RENDERED VIRTUALLY HELPLESS EQUAL TO AN INFANT DUE TO BEING HANDCUFFED TOGETHER AND HAVING NO SAFETY DEVICES TO PREVENT INJURY IN CASE OF AN ACCIDENT. I AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN INJURED IN THIS MANNER. WE ARE MADE TO SIT ON A METAL SEAT THAT IS EIGHT TO TEN INCHES AND WE ARE THROWN ABOUT IN THE VAN AGAINST A METAL GUARD RAIL. THIS MAKES US VIRTUAL FLYING OBJECTS WHEN A NEGLIGENT DRIVER IS SPEEDING (OFTEN HAPPENS) AND WHEN THERE IS AN ACCIDENT.

I VERY MUCH NEED TO FIND OUT WHO TO CONTACT ME IN VOICING MY COMPLAINT. ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU CAN GIVE ME IS WELCOMED. THANK YOU.

ID: nht93-3.45

DATE: May 17, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA (Signature by Stephen P. Wood)

TO: St. F. Steiner -- Consultant, AET Network

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-4-93 from St. F. Steiner to John Womack (OCC 8626)

TEXT: 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 "motordriven cycle", and some of the motorcycle standards impose lesser requirements for motor-driven cycles, and motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 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.

ID: nht93-3.46

DATE: May 17, 1993

FROM: Ray Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, Ltd.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/2/93 from John Womack to Ray Kesler (A41; Std. 111)

TEXT:

Mr. Hufstedler and I would like to thank you for your letter of April 27, 1993. It clarified many things for us which heretofore we had been unsure of, however, there is still one area which is not clear to us.

The enclosure you included in your letter was the Federal Register (in part) of September 2, 1982, which addresses FMVSS 111 rear-view mirrors. Section s571.111 states that a deviation of 12.5 percent, plus or minus, from the average radius of curvature, is allowable.

Although a method of calculating the radius of curvature is specified in section s12.1 - s12.8, it is not clear how the average radius of curvature is arrived at.

We would greatly appreciate it if your office could tell us the maximum amount of deviation we would be a owed from the bottom end of the standard (i.e.: 35" ROC), as well as perhaps explain the method by which the average radius of curvature is arrived at.

This information would be of great help to us in our continuing effort to save lives and property damage through the installation and use of our mirror.

ID: nht93-3.47

DATE: May 17, 1993

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: REFERENCE: 49 CFR Part 571.217; Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release; Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 212, Monday, November 2,1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A41; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Section S5.5.3(c) of the referenced final rule requires that:

"Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1."

1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21; Notice No.2 proposed the of "one inch wide" retro-reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a "minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape." The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a "minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape." Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro-reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that "each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter...." The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening.

In addition, Blue Bird requests that appropriate NHTSA officials and staff review the enclosed photographs and advise if the retro-reflective tape installations shown would be in compliance with the subject requirement of Section S5.5.3(c).

Although the final rule does not become effective until May 2, 1994, several states have mandated conformance to the new standard in advance of the FMVSS effective date. Blue Bird must therefore complete the Engineering work and release final designs to Production in the very near future. We, therefore, request that prompt and favorable responses to our requests for interpretations be provided.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht93-3.48

DATE: May 17, 1993

FROM: Ray Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, Ltd.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Lawrence Hufstedler

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/2/93 from John Womack to Ray Kesler (A41; Std. 111)

TEXT:

Mr. Hufstedler and I would like to thank you for your letter of April 27, 1993. It clarified many things for us which heretofore we had been unsure of, however, there is still one area which is not clear to us.

The enclosure you included in your letter was the Federal Register (in part) of September 2, 1982, which addresses FMVSS 111 rear-view mirrors. Section s571.111 states that a deviation of 12.5 percent, plus or minus, from the average radius of curvature, is allowable.

Although a method of calculating the radius of curvature is specified in section s12.1 - s12.8, it is not clear how the average radius of curvature is arrived at.

We would greatly appreciate it if your office could tell us the maximum amount of deviation we would be a owed from the bottom end of the standard (i.e.: 35" ROC), as well as perhaps explain the method by which the average radius of curvature is arrived at.

This information would be of great help to us in our continuing effort to save lives and property damage through the installation and use of our mirror.