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: 8640

Mr. Shawn Shieh
Ventures International USA
1141 N. Columbus Ave., Suite 303
Glendale, CA 91202

Dear Mr. Shieh:

This replies to your undated letter to the Office of Enforcement, NHTSA, asking questions about an emergency communication product intended to be permanently mounted in the back window of an automobile. The product uses light emitting diodes to form messages for the drivers of following cars to read.

I enclose a copy of a letter dated August 17, 1989, that the agency sent to Alan S. Eldahr who asked for our comments on a similar device. The same advice applies to your product. As you will see, our opinion is that the product is of doubtful legality under Federal law when used on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, which are equipped with center highmounted stoplamps.

In addition, the product must not create a noncompliance with the Federal field of view requirements for interior rear view mirrors. Thus, we cannot answer your question about the maximum size of a permanent structure to be installed in an automobile because that will vary from car to car. With respect to your other questions, there are no Federal specifications for the material of the base support. The "restriction" on the product's wiring is that it must not interfere with the functioning of any Federally required lamp on the vehicle. This agency is the only government agency you have to consult on the product.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:6/8/93

ID: 8660

Mr. Ray Kesler
Kesler Research Enterprises
5508 Cahuenga Blvd.
North Hollywood, CA 91601

Dear Mr. Kesler:

This responds to your follow-up letter to the agency in which you request further interpretation of the requirements in Standard No. 111 relating to convex mirrors. Specifically, you asked about how section S5.4.1, which limits the radii of curvature's permissible variance, relates to S12, which specifies the procedures for determining a convex mirror's average radius of curvature. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your request.

As Marvin Shaw of my staff informed your associate Lawrence Hufstedler in a telephone conversation, section S12 sets forth a detailed multi-step procedure for calculating a convex mirror's average radius of curvature. The first step is to take ten readings on the mirror surface with a 3-point linear spherometer as specified in Figure 1 of the Standard. (See S12.1.) The second step is to convert each of the ten readings to a "radius of curvature calculation" using Table 1. (See S12.5.) The third step is to calculate the "average radius of curvature" by adding all 10 radius of curvature calculations and dividing by 10. (See S12.6.)

Mr. Hufstedler asked how S5.4.1 affects the calculations. That section states "none of the radii of curvature readings shall deviate from the average radius of curvature by more than 12.5 percent." This means that some of the radii of curvature readings may be up to 12.5 percent different than the average radius of curvature. In numerical terms, this means that if a mirror had an average radius of curvature of 36 inches a given radii of curvature reading could be as low as 31.5 inches and as high as 40.5.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:#111 dL7/2/93

ID: 8668

Mr. Richard Muraski
President/CEO
Equa-Brake, Inc.
1105 Terminal Way, Suite 202
Reno, NV 89502

Dear Mr. Muraski:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation about the use of your product, the Equa-Brake mechanical auxiliary air brake system. You stated that this product "increases brake force and improves brake performance on all vehicles that are equipped with air brakes." You were concerned about whether the use of your product would be affected by an agency decision to deny a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Washington Company. That petition had requested the agency to require a device that regulates air pressure differential between the two wheels on each axle (57 FR 29459, July 2, 1992).

As explained below, neither the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems nor those of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), under which the standard was issued, prohibit the installation of your product in most situations. The one exception is that if your product is installed on a vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, dealer, or repair business, neither the act of installation nor the operation of the device may render inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle.

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

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about auxiliary brake systems. However, since this device is tied to a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If the Equa-Brake is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR 567.7.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A).

Your letter expressed concern about the effect of the agency's decision to deny the rulemaking petition submitted by the Washington Corporation. Please note that the Washington petition requested that the agency amend Standard No. 121 to require a device that regulates a brake system's air pressure differential between two wheels on each axle. In denying the petitioner's request to require such a device, the agency emphasized that its decision not to require a product in no way prohibited the optional installation of the device provided the vehicle continued to comply with the applicable standards.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:121 d:8/5/93

ID: 8679

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica
General Manager, Environmental Engineering
BMW of North America, Inc.
BMW Plaza
Montvale, NJ 07645-1866

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, with respect to a new design for a door lock and latch mechanism that BMW is planning to introduce in the United States. It appears that your proposed door lock and latch mechanism would comply with FMVSS No. 206.

Based on information provided in your letter, the new locking mechanism will be placed on side rear doors, and will consist of a door handle that serves the dual function of acting as a door locking mechanism and door latch release. When the side door is locked, a rear seat passenger would pull the door handle once to disengage the locking mechanism. The passenger would have to pull the door handle a second time to open the side rear door.

Based on additional information received from a demonstration given to David Elias of my office, I understand that the side rear doors, themselves, cannot be individually locked by the rear passengers. The doors can be locked only when the driver or front seat passenger lock all the car doors via the vehicle's electronic locking mechanism. The internal mechanisms are located at the rear part of the driver's and front seat passenger's armrests located on the front doors, which are reached fairly easily by belted rear seat passengers. The door handle on the side rear door, as noted above, is the mechanism by which the locking mechanism is disengaged.

S4.1.3 requires that each door be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Your proposed operating means for engaging the locking mechanism in each door is inside the vehicle, even though the four individual door locking mechanisms are controlled by the two operating means located on the armrest on the side front doors. S4.1.3 requires only that the

operating means for the locking mechanisms be located inside the vehicle, and does not require that each door have its own, independent operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. Thus, it would seem that your proposed locking mechanism complies with S4.1.3.

S4.1.3.2 requires that inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. An issue concerning your system is whether the inside door handle is "inoperative" even though it can operate to disengage the door locking mechanism when the locking mechanism is engaged. We conclude the answer is yes. S4.1.3.2 is intended, in part, to reduce inadvertant door openings in a crash due to impact on or movement of inside door handles. Thus, "inoperative," as used in S4.1.3.2, refers to the operation of opening the door. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the door handle cannot open the door, which meets the requirement of S4.1.3.2.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:206 d:10/7/93

ID: 8680

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Both questions relate to S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, which was added by the final rule to read as follows:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective 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.

Your two questions and the answer to each follows.

1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 2 proposed the use 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.

Based on your description, the conversion of 1 inch in S5.5.3(c) to 3 centimeters (cm) resulted in a .46 cm increase in the minimum size retroreflective tape which must be used. You also note that 3 cm retroreflective tape is not commercially available.

You are correct that there is a discrepancy between the NPRM and the final rule about the size of the tape. Pursuant to Executive Order 12770 (56 FR 35801; July 29, 1991), the agency converted U.S. units of weights and measurements to "metric equivalents" in the November 2, 1992 final rule (57 FR 49413, 49422). The term "metric equivalents" was used by the agency because the metric conversion was not intended to result in a substantive change of the final requirements. The .46 cm increase in the tape size was thus inadvertent. In light of the issues raised by your letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

2. 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 a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retroreflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape. You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape, and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retroreflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear push out window or rear door), for two reasons. First, you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivets, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off.

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six inches. When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:7/7/93

ID: 8692

Ms. Laura J. Platter
6662 Mohawk Court
Columbia, MD 21046

Dear Ms. Platter:

This responds to your letter to Senator Barbara Mikulski about the Federal government's classification of minivans for safety purposes. You were concerned that classifying minivans as trucks rather than passenger vehicles would permit these vehicles to be equipped with fewer safety features.

Congress has authorized this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. In the last few years, NHTSA has extended nearly all the passenger car safety standards to cover light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). (Minivans are typically considered to be MPVs under our safety standards.)

The only significant safety requirement for passenger cars that the agency has not extended to light trucks and MPVs is dynamic side impact protection. This is a new requirement that is being phased in for passenger cars beginning this September. NHTSA is currently in rulemaking to consider whether the dynamic side impact protection requirements should be extended to light trucks and MPV's, and published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in June 1992.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator

cc: The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski

ref:571 d:6/11/93

ID: 8693

Ms. Lillie Rene Erwin 365089
TDC Mt View Unit H-1
Rt. 4 Box 800
Gatesville, TX 76528-9399

Dear Ms. Erwin:

This responds to your May 15, 1993, letter to former Secretary Card. Because your letter concerns motor vehicle safety, it has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for response. You are concerned with vehicles used by the State of Texas to transport prisoners because these vehicles have metal seats and no occupant restraints for the prisoners and asked who you should contact to voice your complaint.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish a standard which requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. In addition, different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which you were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. In addition, your concerns about the State of Texas' use of the vehicle are not addressed by Federal law, which addresses only the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, not their subsequent use.

Because your questions concern the safety of the State of Texas' vehicles used to transport prisoners, you may wish to contact the Governor's Office, the head of the Texas prison system, or your state representative.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208 d:7/21/93