ID: nht93-3.37

DATE: May 6, 1993

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

TO: Bob Brinton -- Friction Advisory Service

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-16-93 from Bob Brinton to NHTSA (OCC 8436); Also attached to letter dated 12-9-76 from Frank A. Berndt to Leon W. Steenbock (Std. 121)

TEXT: This responds to your letter inquiring about the legality of an auxiliary parking system in addition to the spring parking brake system. According to your letter, you are familiar with certain refuse type vehicles with right hand side drive that are equipped with an I.C.C. flip switch valve or a push pull valve. These valves permit a driver to temporarily park the vehicle while the driver leaves the vehicle and picks up trash. You explained that while the auxiliary brake system is applied, the spring brakes are not applied to help the spring avoid extreme wear cycles.

You asked whether the auxiliary brake system is legal under Standard No. 121. In your letter, you indicate your view that these auxiliary systems do not comply with the parking brake requirements in S5.6.3 of Standard No. 121, AIR BRAKE SYSTEM. Based on our understanding of the brake system you describe, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") requires this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Standard No. 121, which establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions.

A vehicle equipped with air brakes is required to comply with the requirements set forth in Standard No. 121. Among other things, S5.6 of the Standard requires air-braked vehicles to be equipped with a parking brake system that meets specified performance requirements. The requirements in standard No. 121, however, do not preclude the installation of a braking system in addition to the systems installed to comply with the Standard's requirements. Accordingly, the agency would not consider the requirements of S5.6 to prohibit an auxiliary parking brake system in addition to the brake systems required to comply with Standard No. 121.

Nevertheless, as an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety, an auxiliary parking brake system should be built in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of injury that might occur as a result of its design, construction, or performance.

Please note that this interpretation is consistent with the agency's

long-standing view about the use of auxiliary parking brake systems. I am enclosing a December 9, 1976 interpretation letter to Mr. Leon Steenbock which addressed this issue.

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

ID: nht93-3.38

DATE: May 6, 1993

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

TO: Jim Keizer

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-13-93 from Jim Keizer to NHTSA (OCC 8557); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-93 from John Womack to Jay Lee (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-93 from John Womack to Steven C. Friedman (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 6-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stephen Mamakas (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 5-13-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stephen Mamakas (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 1-19-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 13, 1993, requesting information on the legal responsibilities of businesses that repack or replace air bags in automobiles.

I am enclosing copies of five letters which address various issues related to replacement or repair of air bags. The January 19, 1990, letter to Ms. Linda L. Conrad addresses the issue of possible legal obligations to repair a deployed air bag following a collision. The May 13, 1991, and June 11, 1991, letters to Mr. Stephen Mamakas address issues specifically related to the repair of deployed air bags. The March 26, 1993, letters to Mr. Steven C. Friedman and Mr. Jay Lee address issues related to retrofit or replacement air bags.

I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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: nht93-3.39

DATE: May 7, 1993

FROM: John W. Schumann -- Manager of Research and Development, Department of Water and Power, The City of Los Angeles

TO: All Interested Parties

COPYEE: Jeffrey S. Silverstone

TITLE: Attachment A -- Request for Proposal (RFP) for Acquisition of Electric Vehicles

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/11/94 from John Womack to Richard J. Dessert (A42; Part 555) and letter dated 5/28/93 from Richard J. Dessert to NHTSA Administrator (OCC-8731)

TEXT:

Enclosed for your information and potential response is an RFP for acquisition of electric vehicles. The response deadline for this RFP is June 1, 1993.

If it is your intention to respond to this RFP, please provide five copies of your response and deliver to:

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Mr. Jeffrey S. Silverstone Attn: Electric Vehicle RFP 111 North Hope Street, Room 1129 Los Angeles, California 90012-2694

Or mail to:

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Mr. Jeffrey S. Silverstone Attn: Electric Vehicle RFP P.O. Box 111, Room 1129 Los Angeles, California 90051-0100

If additional information is needed, please contact Mr. Jeffrey S. Silverstone at (213) 580-3725.

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.