ID: nht93-2.31

DATE: March 27, 1993

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

TO: Niel Eisner -- Assistant General Council, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-18-93 from John Womack to Carl W. Ruegg (A41; Part 568; Part 592; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: We intend to ship car parts from the Philippines to the U.S. We need to know the legal definition of a vehicle that comes within the scope of D.O.T. regulations. We assume a part such as fender or other body parts do not.

For instance we may wish to ship some parts partially assembled such as chassis and body assembly or perhaps chassis and body plus front & rear axle transmissions. These parts and partial assembly's would be sold as kits for conversion to electric vehicle.

ID: nht93-2.32

DATE: March 27, 1993

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

TO: Niel Eisner -- Assistant General Council, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-18-93 from John Womack to Carl W. Ruegg (A41; Part 568; Part 591; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: We intend to ship car parts from the Philippines to the U.S. We need to know the legal definition of a vehicle that comes within the scope of D.O.T. regulations. We assume a part such as fender or other body parts do not.

For instance we may wish to ship some parts partially assembled such as chassis and body assembly or perhaps chassis and body plus front & rear axle transmissions. These parts and partial assembly's would be sold as kits for conversion to electric vehicle.

ID: nht93-2.33

DATE: March 29, 1993

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

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Chief Council, U.S. Department of Transporation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-13-93 from John Womack to Carl W. Ruegg (A41; Part 591)

TEXT: Kindly send us information and regulations regarding the importation of non-conforming vehicles for research, investigation studies, demonstrations.

ID: nht93-2.34

DATE: March 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Marty D. Pope -- President, Wheels "R" Rollin, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-18-93 from Marty D. Pope to Walter Myers (OCC 8326)

TEXT: This responds to your February 18, 1993 letter to Walter Myers of this office. You stated in your letter and in telephone conversations with Mr. Myers that your firm obtains used wheels from salvage yards, mostly passenger car wheels, refurbishes them by sandblasting and refinishing them, then sells them to manufacturers of utility trailers. You asked how to "bring the wheels manufactured before 1977 up to standards" (referring to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS), and whether it is possible to "stamp the wheels previous to 1977 with a regulation code to approve their usability." "Wheels" refers to the wheel rim and the hub to which the rim is attached.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 ET SEQ.) (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles (including trailers) and new items of motor vehicle equipment (including tires and wheels). The purpose of Standard 120 is to provide safe operational performance by ensuring that vehicles to which it applies are equipped with tires of adequate size and load rating and with rims of appropriate size and type designation. The standard applies to new trailers, and to rims manufactured on or after August 1, 1977. Violations of any of the standards are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum fine of up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

You ask about our requirements for the rims of the wheels you refurbish. The answer depends on whether the rim is intended to be installed on a new trailer or intended as a replacement rim for a used trailer.

If the rim is intended for a new trailer, the new trailer manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 120. Standard 120 establishes two requirements for the vehicle. First, S5.1.1 requires that the rims on a new trailer be listed by the manufacturer of the tires mounted on the trailer as suitable for use with those tires. Second, the rims on a new trailer must meet the rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120. Since the rims you refurbish were originally passenger car rims, they will not have the required markings, regardless of date of manufacture because Standard 120 does not apply to passenger car rims. Therefore, trailer manufacturers may not install passenger car rims on new trailers unless those rims are marked in accordance with Standard 120.

If the rim is intended as a replacement rim on a used trailer, different requirements apply. The rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120 apply only to NEW rims manufactured on or after August 1, 1977. Refurbished wheels sold for used trailers are considered used wheels instead of new wheels for purposes of Standard 120, and are thus not subject to the rim marking

requirements of the standard. As pointed out above, however, a new or refurbished rim installed on a new trailer must meet the rim selection and marking requirements of Standard 120 (S5.1.1 and S5.2).

Relatedly, you ask about marking a used rim with the information required by Standard 120 for new rims. Any rim, new or used, that is installed on a new vehicle must be marked with the "regulation code" (i.e., the "DOT" symbol constituting the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard 120) and the other information required by the standard. However, a rim manufactured prior to August 1, 1977, that is sold as a replacement rim must not be marked with the DOT symbol. NHTSA has long held that manufacturers may not show the DOT certification on items of motor vehicle equipment to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies. The reason for that decision is that such a certification would be false and misleading to NHTSA and to consumers who might assume that the item was subject to and met a Federal safety standard. Thus, since Standard 120 does not apply to rims manufactured prior to August 1, 1977, such rims cannot now be marked with the DOT symbol.

You should also be aware of two other provisions of the Safety Act. The first provision is S108(a)(2)(A), which provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. This means that a person in these categories cannot remove the label information required by Standard 120 during the refurbishing process.

Second, under S151-157 of the Safety Act, manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., wheel rims) are responsible for safety-related defects in their products. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a defective wheel rim is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) A refurbished rim that had been previously damaged (e.g., cracked, bent, or pitted) might not be capable of performing safely while in service.

For your further information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS and a fact sheet entitled WHERE TO OBTAIN NHTSA'S SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. The pamphlet briefly summarizes each of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the fact sheet advises where to obtain the full text of those standards and our other regulations. You may also find helpful the attached fact sheet entitled INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT.

We also note that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a regulation on the refurbishing of damaged rim components. You can contact OSHA at (PHONE NUMBER) for information about that regulation.

I hope this information is will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-2.35

DATE: March 30, 1993

FROM: Dann T. Deaver -- President, Origins International Corporation

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-23-93 from John Womack to Dann T. Deaver (A41; VSA 102(3)); Also attached to letter dated 12-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Matthew J. Plache; Also attached to letter dated 10-31-88 from Erika Z. Jones (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Hiroshi Kato; Also attached to letter dated 4-16-85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Alexander E. Nagy

TEXT: At your request during our telephone conversation today, the following is a description of the physical characteristics and intended use of an electric vehicle which my company has been commissioned to develop.

GENERAL DATA

LENGTH - 107" HEIGHT - 61" BODY WIDTH - 58" WIDTH WITH MIRRORS - 71"

WEIGHT - 1050 LBS.

POWER - 48V SERIES DC, ELECTRIC SPEED RANGE: 1 25 MPH MAX.

MARKET USE

This vehicle will be marketed as a closed community vehicle for retirement communities, closed club grounds, on site/off road/construction vehicles, theme parks, resorts, etc. The vehicle is not to be marketed as useable on public thoroughfares and/or highways. The tires are of a high profile design capable of being used on golf courses, and golf bag wells and golf accessories are designed into the vehicle.

Where many golf cars today are used in the above applications, our vehicle provides better handling, greater load carrying capability, higher speed, longer range, better weather protection, and a very unique appearance and package.

As we discussed today, it is important that we are made aware of any federal safety regulations which may apply to vehicles of the above description and use. Concurrently we are exploring similar state vehicle safety/equipment requirements.

We would appreciate a letter, addressed to me at the address below, stating your Department's position on this matter.

I appreciate your attention and consideration.

ID: nht93-2.36

DATE: March 30, 1993

FROM: Arvind V. Rajan -- Vice President, Marketing and Planning, Solectria Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-93 from John Womack to Arvind V. Rajan (A41; Part 591)

TEXT: The Solectria Corporation is a manufacturer of electric vehicles and advanced EV components, based in Massachusetts. We currently produce the Solectria Force, which is a Geo Metro that has been converted to electric drive. In order to serve the needs of vehicle customers in Southeast Asia and the Caribbean, we need to use a vehicle chassis with right-hand steering. Since the Geo Metro is only available in left-hand steering we will need to import an equivalent vehicle, the Suzuki Swift, from Japan. After we receive the vehicle, we will convert it to electric, and immediately export it.

The Suzuki Swift with right-hand drive may not be certified for use in the United States by NHTSA. However, as the vehicles will never be used on public roads in the United States and will not be sold to U.S. customers, we believe that we will be allowed to import them into the U.S. Mr. Frank Turpin of NHTSA has confirmed this view. However, the U.S. Customs Office has informed us that it will need written confirmation from the Department of Transportation before releasing such vehicles to us.

We would appreciate written confirmation from the D.O.T. that we are indeed permitted to import such vehicles for the purposes mentioned above. If you have any questions, please call me at (508) 658-2231 or fax me at (508) 658-3224. Thank you for your time and attention, and we look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht93-2.37

DATE: March 30, 1993

FROM: David L. Boren -- United States Senator, United States Senate

TO: Howard Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-15-93 from Howard M. Smolkin to David L. Boren (A41; Redbook (2); Std. 121)

TEXT: Enclosed are copies of correspondence I have recently received from ABAS Marketing, Inc., of Norman, Oklahoma, concerning an invention they have for a noncomputerized antilock braking system.

This company has been trying to get the NHTSA to investigate their product through some research that is currently being conducted by your agency. In an effort to be helpful to my constituents, I would appreciate your review of this correspondence and a response that I can share with them.

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to write in behalf of this Oklahoma Company. I will look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Please send your response to my Oklahoma City office to the attention of Jim Hopper. Best wishes.

February 11, 1993

Senator David Boren U.S. Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

Due to the adamant position of President Clinton, regarding the encouragement of small business enterprise as a means to stimulate our economy, we are heartened to rebel against apparent discrimination we have encountered in the Department of Transportation. I am enclosing a letter sent to Jim Britell of the Research and Development section of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration explaining the problem. In order for you to better understand the scope and implication thereof, I am providing some background information below.

We have invented and applied for patent on a noncomputerized antilock braking system applicable to trucks and trailers equipped with air, brakes, air over hydraulic brakes, vacuum hydraulic brakes and electric brakes. We have the only products in the world, so far as we know, in the last three categories. In the air brake ABS competition, currently being waged in the U.S., we are pitted against Bendix Corporation, Midland-Grau, Wabco/Rockwell and Bosch, all of whom have a computerized system. Most of the technology they rely upon is

adapted from European products and imported from Germany by Grau, Wabco and Bosch.

We have products that were created in Oklahoma by Oklahomans. They are manufactured in Oklahoma and we are respectfully asking that the leaders of our State assist us in overcoming the barriers. This can easily become a major industry for Oklahoma if we are not stomped on by the giants or forced to sell out to out of state interests.

Will you please give us the benefit of your expertise in the political arena? We have a great contribution to enhance affordable highway safety, but our government regulators are ignoring it.

Very truly yours, STRAIT-STOP MANUFACTURING CO., INC.

Thomas D. Price President

TDP/dlg Encl.

P.S. I sincerely appreciate the help you have given us in the past. There is no question but that you do stimulate the regulators to action.

Attachment: Letter dated 2-10-93 from Thomas D. Price, President, Strait-Stop Manufacturing Co., Inc., to Jim Britell, Research and Development, NHTSA.

(Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-2.38

DATE: March 30, 1993

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

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-16-93 from John Womack to Greg Hixson (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT: Hixson and Netherton Distributing a corporation in Dallas, Texas wishes to import an "Aftermarket Airbag" for automobiles to be sold in the United States.

We have been unable to obtain any specifications, standards or regulations regarding Airbags or importing of such an item.

If your office has any of this information we would certainly appreciate you forwarding it to our office as soon as possible.

We can be reached by phone or by mail at the following:

Hixson and Netherton Distributing P.O. Box 28995 Dallas, Texas 75228 (214) 682-9836

A prompt reply would be very much appreciated.

ID: nht93-2.39

DATE: March 31, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: W. C. Burke -- Captain, Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-7-92 from W. C. Burke to Paul Rice (OCC 8125)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of FMVSS No. 205, GLAZING MATERIALS (49 CFR S571.205). This interpretation is based on my understanding of the statements in your letter as well as statements made by Mr. Greg Bragg of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in a telephone conversation with Mr. Clarke Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff.

You ask about the marking responsibilities of glass installers who put replacement glass in school buses. CHP personnel have found school buses with replacement glass that is not marked. You ask whether an installer who cuts sections of glass from a larger, marked section is required by S6.4 of FMVSS No. 205 to mark each individual smaller section (if not already marked) prior to installing them as replacement windows. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes.

The person who cuts a section of glazing to size for installation in a motor vehicle is considered a manufacturer of the glazing. This is because the item of glazing is not considered manufactured until it is in the form that it will actually be sold for installation into a motor vehicle. This position that the person cutting the glazing is a manufacturer was stated early in the history of Standard No. 205, in a letter to Donald Counihan (May 9, 1968). The agency has stated frequently since then that persons cutting sections of glazing are manufacturers, most notably in a preamble for a 1972 rule on Standard No. 205 adopting the requirements of S6.4. (37 FR 24035, November 11, 1972) NHTSA stated that S6.4 requires "persons who cut glazing" to include the markings required by Standard No. 205 "on each cut piece."

S6.4 requires each person who cuts glazing to mark the piece with the markings required by section 6 of American National Standard (ANS) Z26. Section 6, ANS Z26 requires the following information: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. Section S6.5 of Standard No. 205 also requires that person to certify the material in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

While your letter refers to persons cutting sections of glazing from larger sections, we note that it is possible that an item of replacement glazing was designed for a specific vehicle by a "prime glazing material manufacturer" (i.e., "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material," see S6.1 of Standard No. 205). If the item was so designed by such a manufacturer, the item must be marked and certified in accordance with S6.1 and 6.2 of Standard No. 205. A person other than a prime glazing material manufacturer installing the glazing without cutting it would have no marking requirement

under Standard No. 205. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Shaw at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-2.4

DATE: 03/03/93

FROM: BARRY FRELRICE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA

TO: RON MARION -- SALES ENGINEER, THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-4-92 FROM RON MARION TO BARRY FELRICE (OCC 8073)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether there has been any consideration given to excluding "non-route-type" school buses from Standard No. 131's requirement that school buses be equipped with a stop signal arm. You stated that, as a manufacturer of school bus bodies, you are getting numerous questions regarding the installation of stop arms on school buses not used on route service. According to your letter, a number of schools across the U.S. purchase school buses, paint them a color other than yellow, and use them exclusively for athletic trips. You stated that these buses pick up at the school and travel to another school to unload, and do not make stops for loading or unloading along the way and in no way attempt to control traffic. You stated that the purchasers of these school buses are concerned about paying for stop arms which are never used.

As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, is a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard which requires all new school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the bus.

To answer your specific question, this agency has not considered whether "non-route-type" school buses should be excluded from Standard No. 131's requirement for a stop signal arm. I note that this issue was not raised in the comments on our notice of proposed rulemaking.

We do appreciate the concern of a purchaser about paying for safety equipment that he or she believes will never be used. However, the limited information provided in your letter does not provide a basis for concluding that we should consider changing the standard.

We do not know how many school buses are used exclusively or primarily for "non-route-type" service, although we assume the number is small. Further, it would appear that there would be occasion to use signal arms for some school buses used for such service. For example, these safety devices might be used while loading and unloading students when the school bus is parked on a school driveway or a road near a school, if the school bus is used to transport students to activities at locations other than schools, or if the school bus is sometimes used as a replacement for out-of-service regular route school buses. T also note that, assuming that there is occasion to use stop signal arms or some school buses which are primarily used for non-route service, it is not clear how the agency would distinguish, for purposes of a regulation, which school buses should be excluded from the requirement for stop arms.

I hope this information is helpful.