ID: nht94-8.45

DATE: January 24, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerome Cysewski

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/20/93 from Jerome Cysewski to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC-9250)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal requirements to two vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response. According to your letter, one vehicle is a 13,600 pound cement silo that has tandem axles. The second vehicle is a 6,400 pound aggregate batch plant that has a single axle. The cement silo and batch plant are mounted on their own trailers, and are equipped with electric brakes. Each vehicle is pulled by a one ton truck with hydraulic brakes. You also stated that both vehicles are mobile but are designed to be towed for off-the-road set and positioning. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (Section 102(3))

If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Whether NHTSA considers a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on the use for which it is manufactured. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Your letter does not provide sufficient information for us to determine the extent to which the two vehicles would use the public roads. Nor can we determine whether the on-highway use of the vehicles would be merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which they are manufactured.

However, you should be able to determine whether the vehicles are considered motor vehicles based on the information set forth above.

If the vehicles are considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act, they would be required to meet all safety standards applicable to trailers. Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

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

ID: nht94-8.46

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terry Karas -- T. K. Auto Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/5/93 from Terry Karas to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of November 5, 1993.

You have asked whether a Canadian car that was accompanied by a Canadian manufacturer's letter stating that the vehicle complies with U.S. safety standards can be imported as a conforming vehicle under Box 2.

Box 2 on the HS-7 importation form is the importer's declaration under 49 CFR 591.5(b) that the motor vehicle to be imported complies with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bears a certification label or tag to that effect, affixed by the original manufacturer of the vehicle. Because some Canadian vehicles may be virtually identical to those manufactured in the United States, and hence may comply with U.S. safety standards even if not bearing a specific certification to U.S. safety standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has accepted, in lieu of specific certification to U.S. safety standards, a letter from the Canadian manufacturer stating that the vehicle to be imported was manufactured to comply with the U.S. safety standards.

If a manufacturer's compliance letter accompanies a vehicle manufactured for sale in Canada at the time such vehicle is offered for importation into the United States, the vehicle may be entered under Box 2 as a conforming vehicle, without the intervention of a registered importer or the issuance of a bond. However, the manufacturer's compliance letter must contain the VIN of the specific vehicle that is to be imported, and an unqualified statement that the vehicle, as manufactured, complied with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Customs will then forward the HS-7 form and manufacturer's letter to this agency. However, if customs wishes us to review the manufacturer's letter, it is the prerogative of Customs to defer entry of the vehicle until it has received our views as to whether entry under Box 2 is appropriate.

You have also asked whether it makes "a difference if it is being imported for commercial or private purposes." Any Canadian vehicle that is accompanied by an acceptable manufacturer's letter of compliance is eligible for entry as a conforming vehicle under Box 2, regardless of whether the intent of importation is the commercial sale of the vehicle, or the retention of the vehicle for private use. However, if the letter is not an acceptable statement of compliance and the importation is for commercial purposes, the vehicle may only be imported under bond by a registered importer who must satisfy NHTSA that the vehicle complies, or has been brought into compliance, with the U.S. safety standards. Even though the registered importer's compliance work may be minimal, it is important to remember that the registered importer is also the person

responsible by statute for implementing notification and remedy campaigns in the event that noncompliances of the original manufacturer or safety related defects are discovered in the Canadian vehicle.

ID: nht94-8.47

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lloyd Boshaw -- M&L Auto Trim

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/90 from Paul Jackson Rice to David Holscher and letter dated 12/28/93 from Lloyd Boshaw to John Womack (OCC-9512)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of January 28, 1993, asking whether you must disconnect an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp when you add an aftermarket spoiler to the deck lid that incorporates such a lamp.

I enclose a copy of an interpretive letter we sent David Holscher on August 31, 1990, which remains our position today. In brief, a spoiler lamp will supersede the original equipment center lamp. When the spoiler is installed, Federal law does not dictate whether the original lamp must be disconnected or remain usable. That question is answerable under State law, and we suggest that you consult the Department of California Highway Patrol for its views. If California has no regulation bearing on this problem, we assume that you may either disconnect the original lamp or leave it connected, as your customers desire.

ID: nht94-8.48

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kathy Rose -- Account Directive, FitzGerald Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/12/93 from Kathy Rose to Glen Beck (OCC 9528)

TEXT:

Your letter of October 12, 1993, to the office of Motor Carriers in Sacramento, has reached us for reply. Your company produces a "trailer skirting" for van trailers, and some of your customers have asked "whether it is legal to have the retroreflective tape (which is required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108) to be applied to the length of the trailer be placed below the trailer, on the trailer skirting."

The letter does not indicate whether the skirting is intended as original or aftermarket equipment. If the skirting is original equipment that is added to the trailer at the time of its manufacture and intended to remain there for the life of the trailer, the conspicuity treatment required by the standard may be affixed to it, provided that it is mounted as near as practicable within a range that is not less than 375mm and not more than 1525mm (approximately 15 to 60 inches) above the road surface. Under that condition, the portion of the trailer side that is above the skirting need not be equipped with the conspicuity treatment. If the skirting is aftermarket equipment, there is no requirement or restriction relating to conspicuity treatment of the skirting. We assume that the trailer to which it will be attached, if manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, will bear conspicuity markings in accordance with the standard.

ID: nht94-8.49

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: Allan Garman -- M.F. Bank & Co., Inc., Denver Branch

TO: Walt Myers -- NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Rulemaking Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/31/94 From John Womack To Allan Garman (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(1)(A)

TEXT: Total number of pages INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE: 5

Mr. Myers:

As a followup to our telephone conversation this afternoon regarding the saleability of 287 baby car seats being transported inside a tractor-trailer which was involved in an accident, my 4-pg. "File Report" to the Insurance Adjuster follows for your review.

Although the "File Report" contains some information which will be of minimal interest to you, I felt it best if I provided you with all the information I have.

Please respond by answering the following questions:

1) Is there law in effect which would prohibit us from selling the involved car seats as salvage due to the fact that they were involved in a transit accident?

2) Assuming the subject car seats complied with all federal safety regulations and guidelines prior to being involved in this truck accident, are there any other laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, or recommended practices under the NHTSA's jurisdiction which we should consider before offering these car seats for eventual sale to the public?

3) Can we arrange to have an NHTSA representative from the local Denver office inspect these car seats at our warehouse and render an opinion as to whether they comply with all applicable federal safety standards?

My most sincere thanks to you for researching this matter for us. I look forward to your response.

Please find my address, telephone number, and fax number on the "File Report" letterhead.

(ATTACHMENT OMITTED)

ID: nht94-8.5

DATE: February 22, 1994

FROM: Robin L. Fennimore, Spectrum Engineering Group

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: School Bus Safety Standards Our File: 94057

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/28/94 from John Womack to Spectrum Engineering Group (A42; STD 206; FMVSS 217)

TEXT: We are currently reconstructing a motor vehicle accident involving a 16-passenger, mini school bus. As a result of this investigation, several questions have risen concerning design modifications performed on the right front entrance door of the vehicle; specifically, whether they are controlled by and in compliance with any and all applicable FMVSS. We would appreciate your assistance in resolving these concerns.

A 1988 Ford Econoline Cargo Van was purchased as an incomplete vehicle and later fitted with a school bus body by Midbus of Lima, Ohio. A copy of the van's I.D. plate and a Mid Bus brochure is enclosed for your reference. This vehicle was outfitted with a remote door opening/closing apparatus and latching mechanism, although maintained the original Ford van door. The O.E.M Ford latch/hinge mechanism was disabled by removing the striker plate.

On January 13, 1989, the operator of the bus lost control of the vehicle, striking both a tree and a utility pole. The collision allegedly caused the operator to be ejected from the vehicle through the right front passenger door.

Given this information, would you please respond to the following questions:

1) Would this vehicle be classified as a "multi-purpose passenger vehicle", a "bus" or a "school bus"?

5

2) Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?

3) Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door, (particularly its loading requirements)? Can you provide copies of the versions of these documents effective in 1988?

4) Can you please provide copies of the 1988 FMVSS 206 and 217?

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (203) 272-1111.

If there are any fees associated with this request, we will be happy to reimburse your office.

ID: nht94-8.50

DATE: January 19, 1994

FROM: Donald F. Lett -- Lett Electronics Co.

TO: Department of Transportation -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/18/94 From John Womack To Donald Lett (A42; Std. 109; Std. 110; Part 575.104)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I was directed to your department by Mr. Duane Perrin to resolve any legal responsibility, if any, for the following question;

Is there any pre-necessary authorization needed to modify an existing passenger tire, for instance a 215-70-R15 blackwall radial tire?

Proposed Modification

Grind down the existing sidewall 1/8 to 3/16 inch deep by 2 1/2" wide. Then vulcanizing white rubber into this recess making a 2 1/2" whitewall radial tire out of a previously D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire.

Thereupon we would merchandise this tire Nation wide to a specific classic car buff of the 1955-1960 era. Your kind attention to this matter would be greatly appreciate.

Thank you,

ID: nht94-8.6

ID: nht94-8.7

DATE: February 21, 1994

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

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Richard Kuykendall -- 3M

TITLE: 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 3/28/94 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A42; 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."

In a May 17, 1993 letter, Blue Bird requested the following interpretations regarding the requirements of Section S5.5.3(c):

"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 support of this request, the letter stated --

"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."

Your response to our May 17, 1993 letter dated July 7, 1993 documented a telephone conversation between Mary Versailles of your staff and myself in which I provided the following additional information in support of our request:

"In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retro-reflective 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 retro-reflective 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 pushout 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 rivet, 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."

Your response of July 7, 1993 provided the following interpretations:

"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 rivet, 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 retro-reflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retro-reflective 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."

Blue Bird sincerely appreciated the above timely and conscientious response which recognized the real world manufacturing problems we were facing and which provided reasonable flexibility in meeting the requirements while maintaining strict adherence to the requisites of the November 2, 1992 final rule. The above response enabled Blue Bird to design and incorporate into production acceptable retro-reflective tape installations for side door, side window, and roof emergency exits.

However, the installation of retro-reflective tape on the rear of the school buses is still a major problem because of the limited amount of area on the rear of school buses and the many features required by federal and state standards. These features include taillights, stop lights, turn signal lights, backup lights, license plate holder and light, reflectors, large windows, extended rubrails, exit door or windows, hinges, handles, labels, and a multitude of fasteners to meet FMVSS 221 School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Attached are two pages taken from our May 17, 1993 request for interpretation that illustrate these problems that require cutting, notching, and punching of holes in the tape around the rear school bus exits. Our supplier of retro- reflective tape, 3M, has been unable to provide us a product that is cut, notched, and/or punched with sealed edges that would help ensure the longevity, durability, and effectiveness of the retro-reflective tape. In order to provide ongoing safety, the retro-reflective tape must remain on the bus and retain its reflective properties. Without proper sealing of the holes and notches, the longevity of the tape is questionable.

Since January 1993, in order to enhance the conspicuity and thereby the safety of school buses, Blue Bird has been installing retro-reflective tape down the sides and around the perimeter of the rear of new school buses as part of

standard equipment. Attached are illustrations and an advertising flyer showing the standard equipment designs we have developed to minimize installation problems and maximize conspicuity of the vehicles. The materials and patterns used are compatible with the FMVSS 108 requirements NHTSA has established for large trailers. SINCE ALL SCHOOL BUSES ARE REQUIRED BY FMVSS 217 TO HAVE A REAR EMERGENCY EXIT, Blue Bird believes that outlining the rear perimeter of the buses rather than just the perimeter of the emergency exit opening is more practical, reasonable and in the best interest of safety. We, therefore, request an interpretation stating that RETRO-REFLECTIVE TAPE AROUND THAT PERIMETER OF THE REAR OF A SCHOOL BUS CAN BE USED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF S5.5.3(C). Such an interpretation would meet the intent of the November 2, 1992 final rule by allowing the retro-reflective tape to continue to satisfy the requisite of identifying the location of the rear emergency exits to rescuers while substantially improving its ability to increase the on- the-road conspicuity of the bus. We believe such an interpretation is also consistent with your July 7, 1993 interpretation which said "....the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter." Based on the problems we are having on the rear of the school buses, we now consider the locations chosen for our standard equipment perimeter marking "AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE" to the exit perimeter.

Thank you for consideration of this request for interpretation. Our purpose in making this request is to enhance the effectiveness of the material we install to meet S5.5.3(c) and make school buses safer. The length, width, and total area of reflective tape we are proposing to install on the rear of school buses by requesting the above interpretation is significantly greater than what would be required to outline only the perimeter of the exit opening. The new FMVSS 217 requirements become effective May 2, 1994 and therefore an early and favorable response is urgently requested. We believe our request can be resolved with an interpretation because it is compatible with both the wording and the intent of the standard. If, however, it cannot be handled as an interpretation, we request that this letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking per 49 CFR Part 552. Thank you.

ATTACHMENTS

Illustrations omitted.

ID: nht94-8.8

DATE: February 18, 1994

FROM: Gilbert Gallahar -- Kings Environmental Hydrogen Systems

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/18/94 From Jonhn Womack To Gilbert Gallahar (A42; Std. 301)

TEXT: Ref. Request for interpretations on requirements for an on board Hydrogen Generator to be used on an internal combustion engine (stationary and mobile) to help control exhaust emissions.

Dear Mr. Womack,

Our company manufactures a hydrogen generator, that is installed on any gasoline or diesel vehicle (except engines with 2 spark plugs per cylinder and 2 cycle diesel engines), to help cut HC, CO and NOx.

This device takes water, and on demand, by electrolysis, manufactures hydrogen and oxygen. The gases (the higher form of water or the molecular form of water), are then pumped immediately to the normal (OEM) intake air stream of an internal combustion engine. The air stream gets this mixture, mixes it with the air, and sends it to the combustion chambers where it mixes with the primary fuel (diesel or gasoline), and ignited.

To insure that the hydrogen tank is never under pressure, the generator is designed to be operated without positive pressure. The vacuum pump is designed to pick up all gases generated and send it directly to the OEM intake air system. There is at least 3 systems in place, which independent of the other 2 systems, act to relieve the pressure in the producing tank. When the system is turned off, even without the pump working, in less than 15 minutes, all the pressure within the tank has been equalized to that of the outside atmospheric pressure.

The connection to drive the generator comes through a 15 amp. fused electrical line from the battery, through a relay, that is connected to the ignition. The device is connected such that the only time it is on is when the ignition is on.

Hydrogen is a non toxic gas, that is extremely buoyant. This buoyancy prevents any pockets of gas forming outside of its dictated path. If any hydrogen should escape, the buoyancy would cause the gas to find any way out, to the surrounding atmosphere.

The electrolyte is food grade, and is in, less of a concentration,

2

than a weak lemonade. NEPA Rating: Health - 0, Flammability - 0, Reactivity - 0. RCRA Hazard Class, Dilute solution (if discarded) non-hazardous. DOT hazard class, corrosive material.

From a safety point of view, the hydrogen generator is a much safer device than the battery. We are a tank of water as opposed to a tank of acid. We both make hydrogen but our hydrogen is vented out as soon as it is made. The hydrogen generator is protected to a maximum current draw of 15 amps. The hydrogen generator is designed to work under a slight negative pressure (supplied by the pump) and within minutes, of the engine being turned off, there is no hydrogen pressure left in the system. If the water should run out, there is no longer any current path, therefore no current flow. The vehicle then operates as if the device did not exist.

Enclosed is a set of installation instructions. The installation of the hydrogen generator in no way interferes with any OEM device of the vehicle to be installed.

Please, let me know as soon as is possible, your interpretation of NHTSA statutes, regulations or standards for our device.

Sincerely Yours,