ID: nht93-2.47

DATE: April 8, 1993

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

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-5-93 from Jane L. Dawson to Walter Myers (OCC 8418)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 5, 1993 asking if an exterior handle is required for emergency exit windows under the recent final rule amending Standard No. 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE (November 2, 1992; 57 FR 49413). As explained below, the answer is no.

The final rule added a new section S5.3.3.2 to Standard No. 217 which reads:

each school bus emergency exit window shall allow manual release of the exit by a single person, FROM INSIDE THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT (emphasis added).

Thus, unlike doors and roof exits, a release mechanism is not required on the outside of emergency exit windows.

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: nht93-2.48

DATE: April 9, 1993

FROM: Lawrence Hufstedler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD.; Raymond Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD.

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-27-93 from John Womack to Lawrence Hufstedler and Raymond Kesler (A41; VSA 108(a)(2)(A); FMVSS 111)

TEXT: We would like to thank you for the meeting of April 8, 1993, concerning the Advanced Technology Rear View Mirror Concept. We have been researching and developing this product since 1986. It was indeed a pleasure to come in to your office and introduce you to the concept as well as the actual hardware.

Let us take a moment to also thank Mr. Marvin Shaw of your legal department for his guidance and legal expertise in helping us understand the governmental aspect of our improved concept. Also, Mr. Mike Perel from your Research and Development department for his input concerning federal testing procedures. Let us not forget Mr. Rich Van Iderstine and Mr. Pat Boyd, from the office of Rule making. They were able to guide us through positive and enlightening particulars in their area.

During the meeting your agency representatives spoke of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard # 111. We would appreciate your written response confirming that FMVSS # 111 states, that a "passenger vehicle weighing under 10,000 lbs. and having a left side and an interior mirror (field of view) that comply with the specifications in the standard may use any mirror of the (OEM) manufacturers or owners choice or, use no mirror at all on the right side of their vehicle.

As this matter is of extreme urgency to us, ,we look forward to hearing from you soon. Again, we thank you for your unyielding thoughtfulness of public safety.

ID: nht93-2.49

DATE: April 13, 1993

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

TO: Carl W. Ruegg -- President, Carlo International, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-29-93 from Carl W. Ruegg to Taylor Vinson (OCC 8512)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 29, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

In response to your request for "information and regulations regarding the importation of non-conforming vehicles for research, investigation, studies, demonstrations," I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 591, the regulation governing the importation of motor vehicles and equipment subject to the regulations of this agency, and a copy of a final rule published March 8, 1993, that amends the regulations. Sections 591.5(j), 591.6(g) (as amended), and 591.7 (as amended) apply to your inquiry.

If you have any questions regarding the interpretation of the regulation or amendments, you may contact Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263). Questions regarding the implementation of the regulations, such as the information deemed acceptable to acquire the agency's pre-entry letter of approval, should be addressed to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. You may contact Clive Van Orden with questions of this nature (202-366-2830).

ID: nht93-2.5

DATE: March 3, 1993

FROM: Matthew J. Ryan -- Director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Bureau, State of New York, Department of Transportation

TO: Charles R. Hott -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-19-93 from John Womack to Matthew J. Ryan (A41; Std. 222)

TEXT: This letter is a follow-up to your telephone conversation today with Jim Brunet regarding interpretation of the recent changes (Federal Register 1/15/93) to Title 49 Part 571.222.

From your conversation, we feel the following statements are correct:

1. If a school bus is built or modified to accommodate one or more wheelchairs, after January 17, 1994, the restraint/securement system required by the regulation change, must be complied with.

2. A school bus built with no wheelchair seating positions, is not required to have a wheelchair position.

We request that you please confirm in writing that the above statements are accurate.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter and please feel free to contact us on (518) 457-3406, if you have any questions.

ID: nht93-2.50

DATE: April 13, 1993

FROM: Jim Keizer

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-93 from John Womack to Jim Keizer (A41, Std. 208); 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: I'm an individual that has a dream of starting my own small business or repacking or replacing air bags in automobiles.

To begin with, I need to know what legal ramifications might be involved. What kind of liability is needed, etc. Next, I need to know the technical side of the business, such as, must I be certified by the national auto makers and if so how do I get this done?

I also would like to have yur input on whether you feel there is a market for this service, keeping in mind insurance companies savings by having an individual like myself doing this job. The amount of auto recyclers rebuilding cars to help our environment comes into play also.

Please advise me on anything that you might feel would be of assistance to me to start this business. I will appreciate any and all information you can provide.

ID: nht93-2.51

DATE: April 13, 1993

FROM: Bob Davis -- Quality Control Mgr., Horton Emergency Vehicles

TO: David Elias -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA - DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/27/93 from John Womack to Bob Davis (A41; Std. 206)

TEXT:

I would like to request an interpretation on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 571.206 "Door locks and door retention components".

We are an Ambulance and Emergency Vehicle manufacturer and must comply with this Standard. We are concerned with this particular Standard because all of our vehicles have two (2) rear doors. The streetside door is closed first with it's own double (top & bottom) two step latch and an inside and outside release handle with locking features both inside and outside. The curbside door is closed last of which overlaps the streetside door, and it too has a double (top & bottom) two step latch and same locking features as the left.

Some of our customers have requested that we eliminate the inside handle and locking features on the streetside door because they have people trying to open the streetside door from the inside quite frequently. They of course can't due to the curbside door overlapping this door, thus preventing them from doing so.

If we should eliminate both the inside door release handle and the inside/outside locking features, leaving only an outside release handle, will we still be able to comply with Code Of Federal Regulations Transportation 571.206?

Under section S4.1.3 "Door Locks" it states that EACH door shall be equipped with its's own locking mechanism. We are looking at this as if one of the doors is trapped by the other door, and the other door is lockable, doesn't this in a sense make the trapped door also able to become locked?

We would appreciate it very much if we could get an answer on this by April 27, 1993.

ID: nht93-2.6

DATE: 03/04/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: GUY DORLEANS -- INTERNATIONAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MANAGER, VALEO LIGHTING

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-22-93 FROM GUY DORLEANS TO CHIEF COUNCEL, NHTSA

TEXT: We have received your letter of January 22, 1993, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to aimability of headlamps.

Valeo is currently studying new principles for aiming small circular headlamps. It appears that these headlamps will require unique aiming adaptors (meaning that the Hopkins universal adaptor cannot be used with them). These adaptors will be placed in the trunk of any vehicle with which they are supplied, and relevant instructions for use will be included in the vehicle operator's manual. Valeo has asked for confirmation that each version complies with Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 does not require that an aiming adaptor be provided with a motor vehicle, only that the vehicle's headlamps be capable of mechanical aim. Therefore there is no legal requirement that an adaptor be provided. However, without such an adaptor, an owner of a vehicle with the new headlamps may encounter difficulties at State inspection stations where the Hopkins adaptor is in use, and at repair facilities when headlamps are replaced or after body work has been performed that necessitates reaim of headlamps. Therefore we believe that provision of the adaptor and aiming information would enhance consumer acceptance of the new headlamps.

ID: nht93-2.7

DATE: 03/04/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT A. ERNST -- RESEARCH COORDINATOR, I-CAR TECH CENTER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-19-90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LINDA L. CONRAD (STD. 208); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-4-93 FROM ROBERT A. ERNST TO CHIEF CONSUL, NHTSA (OCC 8302)

TEXT: This responds to your February 4, 1993, letter concerning possible legal obligations to repair an air bag system following a collision. You stated that your organization produces technical training for the automotive collision repair industry and has received a number of inquires concerning this issue. Your specific questions are addressed below. Where two questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response.

1. Are there Federal regulations which specifically direct the collision repair facility to restore the supplemental restraint system to an operable condition following a deployment on vehicles the facility repairs?

4. Can the vehicle be sold if the owner knows that the supplemental restraint is inoperable because of a previous deployment?

I am enclosing a copy of a January 19, 1990, letter to Ms. Linda L. Conrad which addresses the issue of possible legal obligations to repair a deployed air bag following a collision. As explained in that letter, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

2. If repairs are deliberately made to mask the fact that the air bag system is inoperative, has the repair facility violated any applicable laws?

Section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After an air bag is deployed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

As explained in the Conrad letter enclosed, this provision does not impose an affirmative duty on a repair business to replace an air bag that was damaged in a crash. However, this section would prohibit the repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the readiness indicator. Any violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

3. If the owner of the vehicle requests that the supplemental restraint not be restored to operational condition, is the owner of the repair facility or the vehicle liable for later injuries?

Liability risk is a question of state law, not of Federal law. Therefore, a repair business should consult an attorney in its state about this question. 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: nht93-2.8

DATE: March 5, 1993

FROM: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-8-93 from John Womack to Jane L. Dawson (A41; Std. 217)

TEXT: Per our phone conversation yesterday, I am requesting a written response to the following question:

Is an exterior handle required on an emergency exit window in order to comply with the upcoming changes to FMVSS 217?

ID: nht93-2.9

DATE: March 5, 1993

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

TO: Tylor Vinson -- DOT, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Reflex Reflectors for Passenger Cars

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-93 from John Womack to Margret Schmock von Ohr (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: As I already mentioned in our telephone conversation last Friday I have a question on reflex reflectors for passenger cars.

Our major customer Mercedes wants us to change all existing front signal lamps until September 1993. Mercedes wants clear lenses (plus amber bulbs) instead of amber lenses (plus clear bulb).

Each lamp consists of three functions:

- front turn indicator - sidemarker - reflex reflector

As you know the reflex reflector must be amber so that we need a two-color lens (clear plus amber).

Therefore we need a two-color molding machine and a special tool for each of these modified two-color lenses.

The production of these special tools will at least take until the beginning of next year so that we cannot met our customers schedule.

Another alternative for producing two-color lenses is a partial painting of the lenses where we would paint the reflex reflector area of the lenses with an amber top painting.

1. Is it allowed to have amber painted reflex reflectors?

2. Under which conditions would it be allowed to have them painted? Thank you very much in advance.

If you need any information please do not hesitate to contact me.