ID: nht91-7.11

DATE: November 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; (Signature by Steve Wood)

TO: Carl Miller -- O.E. Sales Manager, DICO Tire, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-17-91 from Carl Miller to NHTSA (OCC 6586)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the application of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Information and Recordkeeping, to new tires sold in the replacement market. You indicated that, as a manufacturer of boat trailer tires, you believed that Part 574 required you to provide recall information cards for every new tire, whether that tire was to be installed as original equipment or sold in the replacement market. You added, however, that you heard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had recently restricted the application of this requirement to tires sold as original equipment. Accordingly, you requested the agency to confirm that information. NHTSA has made no amendments to Part 574 that would restrict the requirement that tire manufacturers provide recall information cards only for those tires sold as original equipment. Hence, tire manufacturers remain subject to the requirement that they provide such cards to every distributor and dealer that sells the manufacturer's new tires, regardless of whether those new tires are sold as original equipment on a vehicle or as an individual replacement item.

Part 574 sets forth tire information and recordkeeping requirements to facilitate notification of purchasers in the event that a manufacturer must recall a tire to remedy a safety-related defect, or a noncompliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Among Part 574's requirements, S574.7 specifies requirements for tire registration forms. I believe these forms are what your letter refers to as "recall information cards." S574.7 requires each new tire manufacturer and each new tire brand name owner (or its designee) to provide tire registration forms to every distributor and dealer of its tires which offers "new tires for sale or lease to tire purchasers. (49 CFR 574.7(a)(1)) Part 574 defines "tire purchaser" as "a person who buys or leases a new tire, or who buys or leases for 60 days or more a motor vehicle containing a new tire for purposes other than resale." (49 CFR 574.3(5))

Thus, S574.7(a)(1) explicitly requires that tire registration forms be provided to every distributor or dealer that offers a manufacturer's new tires for sale to the public. S574.7 makes no distinction between tires to be sold as original equipment and tires sold as replacement products.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 574 and have highlighted the provisions that relate to your question. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ATTACHMENT

49 CFR Part 574, Tire Information and Recordkeeping, pages 588-601. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-7.12

DATE: November 16, 1991

FROM: Woodruff Carroll -- Carroll, Carroll, Davidson, & Young

TO: Kathleen DeMeter -- Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: prior letter

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/11/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Woodruff Carroll (A39; Part 571.3; Part 567)

TEXT:

In reading the letters sent me additional letters of far greater importance than those given were cited in the letter.

Please produce pursuant to the FIOA act the following:

1. 4/7/83 letter to mr. Takeo Shimizu attached to the 4/3/89 letter to Les Schriner (which in turn is attached hereto)

2. May 9, 1974 letter quoted on page two of the letter to Edward Green of Henke manufacturing (attached hereto)

3. July 16, 1976 letter to Jeep Corporation from Robert Carter to NHTSA quoted on page 1 of the letter to D.J. Henry

4. compliance testing in this regard (#3)

5. Manufacturers good faith categorization of parts and the standards under which they categorize them. (1/18/77 letter to Meyer products)

6. There is also a letter to you from Snoway that has not been produced.

In reading these letters the following questions arise:

1. Is the attached exhibit three done correctly under the regulations in effect at that time?

2. Is a second stage manufacturer liable if he knowingly manufacturers a product that exceeds the primary manufacturers specifications but has it installed by a local body shop who is the dealer? (Is either one or both liable under these circumstances?)

3. As to question number one and two if there were foreseeable circumstances that would cause the weight to exceed the GAWR would that violate federal regulations? (such as loading the cargo area to capacity with the snowplow attached?) See question 4 to Henke 3/8/76)

4. Why is the snowplow not attached when being weighed per the 1/18/77 letter to D.J. Henry (unloaded vehicle weight) when it is operated regularly upon the highways with the snowplow attached between jobs in its ordinary use and also when not in use.

Thank you for your assistance in these matter it is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht91-7.13

DATE: 11/16/91

FROM: DAVID M. HART -- PRESIDENT, FLUSHSAVER

TO: PAUL J. RICE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-10-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DAVID M. HART (A40; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-3-87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO DAVID M. ROMANSKY (STD. 108)

TEXT: I called NHTSA this date, and after being transferred from department to department, I was advised by a Mr. Roman to write your office.

Our firm specializes in the creation and subsequent marketing of unique patentable products for the mass market.

Our latest is a product which will go by the name FLASHIT, and whose market will be the owners of late model automobiles.

Virtually all late model cars have a third taillight which is located on the package tray in the center of the rear window. The FLASHIT product is essentially a "clear decal", rectangular in shape, which contains a short message. That message for example could be the name of a college (UCLA) or a car rental company, (HERTZ). The word or words contained in the message are not solid print but are clear and become visible when the brake is activated and the red taillight comes on. The red light acts upon the special quality of the product and illuminates the message contained within the "decal". It is essentially no different than the myriad stickers that are currently seen on the rear windows of many cars other than the fact that the message is clearly seen only when the brake light comes on.

Upon investigation we have determined that there is no existing regulation which would prevent the marketing of this product. However since we intend to market the product on a nationwide basis we feel it important to receive feedback from your agency.

Our mailing address is 5440 West Century Blvd. Los Angeles, Ca 90045. Phone 310 670 9939. Your prompt response and assistance would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht91-7.14

DATE: November 18, 1991

FROM: Eileen Mathews -- Industry Manager, Hose and Tubing, General Electric Company

TO: James Scapellato -- Director of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Motor Carrier Highway Administration

COPYEE: Vernon Bloom; Ralph Ford; Mike Martin; Paul Brennan; Deirdre Fujita; Larry Minor

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/11/92 from Paul J. Rice to Eileen Mathews (A39; Std. 106)

TEXT:

GE Plastics is working with certain tube manufacturers to supply them with a high performance co-polyester engineering thermoplastic resin, under the tradename LOMOD resin, for use in the airbrake tubing. LOMOD resin would be sold to the tubing suppliers who would extrude the material and supply the brake tubing systems to the truck OEMs. GE Plastics is requesting an interpretation of Motor Carrier Specification 393.45 and DOT 571.106 in regards to GE Plastics ability to supply this market provided positive test results in accordance with DOT 571.106 and/or the SAE J844.

At this point in the airbrake program, GE Plastics has tested Type A 1 /4" tubing made from LOMOD resin per SAE J844 and DOT 571.106 (tubing tests but not assemblies). Tubing made from LOMOD resin has passed all relevant tests except that we have not yet tested UV with various colors. As GE Plastics commits money and resources to supply material to the airbrake tubing market, it is important that clarification is received on the following points:

The Motor Carrier Spec 393.45 refers to the SAE J844 Spec.

The SAE Spec includes a series of test requirements but also specifies tubing construction to be "a single wall extrusion of 100% virgin nylon (polyamide)". This material is sole sourced by one company, AtoChem. GE Plastics is interested in maintaining high performance standards, in the marketplace and believes that it has products which meet or exceed all current brake tubing performance standards, but GE Plastics does not supply virgin polyamide resin.

Question: Is it the Federal Highway Administrations intention that the regulations be interpreted as material specific and prohibit the use of resins other than "a single wall extrusion of 100% virgin nylon 11 polyamide" which may meet or exceed the performance requirements of the regulations? If not, will tubing be made of LOMOD copolyester material be in compliance with the Administration if all of the test requirements of SAE J844 are met (i.e. specification to read "J844 Tests" rather than "J844")?

The DOT Spec 571.106 makes reference to "coiled nylon tube assembly which meets the requirements of 393.45" in S7.3.6, S7.3.10 and S7.3.11. This reference or exemption with coiled tube is necessary for thermoplastic tubing (versus the original straight, rubber hoses) to meet the describe fitting pull-off tests.

Question: Does compliance with 571.106 require compliance with 393.45 and hence SAE J844? Is it necessary to call out "nylon" in S7.3.6 and S7.3.10?

Aside from exact material (polyamide resin) reference, the section detailing Construction in SAE J844 limits the make-up of the tubing by calling out "single wall extrusion".

Question: Does this prevent the supply of a co-extruded tubing (e.g. a possible VALOX polyester resin/LOMOD resin co-extruded tubing) which possesses the required I.D. and O.D. dimensions and which also passes all SAE J844 specification testing?

Our understanding is that the above questions will not to be addressed by SAE. The SAE Committee is a standardization committee which originates once a product is already on the market. It is likely that an SAE committee will write a new specification based on the new thermoplastic tubing passing the same testing criteria once that tubing is sold on the market. The new tubing, however, must be in compliance with DOT before it can be sold in the marketplace. Thus, unless Motor Carrier Spec 393.45, DOT 571.106 and the SAE J844 Spec are interpreted to allow the use of resins other than nylon, which also meet or exceed the performance requirements of those specifications, there does not seem to be a practical way to introduce a new competitive resin into the brake tubing application. We assume that it is not the intent of the regulators to restrict either the development of new technology or competition. Your clarification and response to this request will be appreciated.

ID: nht91-7.15

DATE: November 20, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: D. E. Graham -- Engineering Manager, Regulatory, Test & Service Engineering, ASC Incorporated

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-16-91 from D. E. Graham to Richard Reed (OCC 6591)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power Windows (49 CFR S571.118). As you noted in your letter, the agency published a final rule amending Standard No. 113 in the April 16, 1991, edition of the Federal Register (56 FR 15290). You requested clarification of certain requirements in that final rule.

The agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule amending Standard No. 118. The agency is currently reviewing the merits of each petition. The agency will issue a notice in the Federal Register granting and/or denying the petitions. In that notice, the agency will also address the concerns raised in your request for an interpretation on Standard No. 118. Please let us know if you have any questions about the issues raised in your letter after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it.

If you need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-7.16

DATE: November 20, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herbert J. Lushan -- Regalite Plastics Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-91 from Herbert J. Jushan to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6505)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the use of tinted flexible plastic glazing in certain jeep-type vehicles. You explained that a customer has asked you to manufacture a bronze-tinted clear plastic flexible window for installation in the rear side and rear windows of its vehicles. You indicated that this glazing material would not satisfy the minimum light transmittance requirement of Standard No. 205 and requested confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits the use of such glazing for rear and side windows in these vehicles. Further, during two telephone conversations on October 29, 1991 and October 30, 1991, you informed Elizabeth Barbour of my staff that your question specifically refers to the use of this glazing on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and the two-door Geo Tracker. You also confirmed to Ms. Barbour that the glazing materials to which your letter refers would be installed as original equipment, but added that your company is also involved with after-market products. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your question.

By way of background information, S103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANSI Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. Among Standard No. 205's requirements are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance, measured by Test 2 in ANSI Z26. A minimum of 70% light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars.

ln trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying sections S6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 111) and thus, subject to the minimum light transmittance requirement. The windows

to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Thus, Standard No. 205 permits the use of tinted glazing materials (i.e. items of glazing that are not subject to Test 2) for windows to the rear of the driver in such vehicles when they are equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars.

As stated above, you described the product you wish to manufacture as tinted flexible plastic, Item 7 glazing, which would be installed in the rear side and rear windows of the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker. According to the agency's information about these vehicles, the rear side and rear windows are part of a removable soft-top. Standard No. 205 permits glazing used for readily removable windows in these locations to be manufactures out of flexible plastic glazing (Items 6, 7 and 13), among other types of glazing. Thus, since these specific window locations on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker are not subject to the light transmittance requirement, and since Standard No. 205 permits use of flexible plastic glazing for readily removable windows, the Standard would permit you to manufacture the bronze-tinted flexible plastic glazing for the use your customer requested.

You also states that your company is involved with after-market glazing materials. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. According to this provision, your company, for example, could install the Item 7 glazing in the rear side and rear windows of a Suzuki Sidekick or Geo Tracker after that vehicle is first sold to a consumer. This provision would, however, prohibit the after-market installation of tinted flexible plastic glazing in the front side windows of that vehicle because such installation would cause the glazing of the front side windows to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

The "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners themselves. No section of the Safety Act prevents vehicle owners themselves from installing any product on their vehicles, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. The actions of individual vehicle owners may be regulated or precluded by individual States, which have the authority to regulate owner modifications and the operational use of vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-7.17

DATE: November 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William J. Lewandoski (Lewandowski) -- National Accounts Manager, Wheels/RV Products, Kelsey Parts Business

COPYEE: Lawrence F. Henneberger; Larry Cox -- CHP

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-9-91 from William J. Lewandowski to Robert Helluth (OCC 6245); Also attached to letter dated 5-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Bill Lewandoski; Also attached to letter dated 4-30-91 from Bill Lewandowski to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 9, 1991, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency, regarding an apparent conflict between an interpretation furnished you by this Office on May 23 of this year, and a Memorandum of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) dated May 30, 1991. The subject is whether the Tekonsha Voyager and Commander electronic brake controls ("the Brake Control") are permitted under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The Brake Control incorporates a "manual override" slide bar that activates the trailer brakes without a corresponding activation of the trailer stop lamps. On May 23, we responded to your question whether activation of "the trailer BRAKES and nonactivation of the tow vehicle/trailer stop lamps comply" with Standard No. 108. We informed you that Standard No. 108 does not so permit, and that, because the Brake Control "applies the service brakes to diminish vehicle speed," the stop lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to be activated.

However, on May 30, CHP issued Management Memorandum No. 91-80 stating that this agency had issued a ruling that the Brake Control was "legal" under the preemption authority of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and that CHP personnel should consider the device to be in compliance with State requirements. You have asked for a clarification of the apparent conflict between our May 23, 1991 interpretation and the CHP memorandum.

The Patrol informs us that its Memorandum was based upon an interpretation that this office furnished on September 10, 1990, to Lawrence F. Henneberger. Describing the Tekonsha Commander as a device which would allow the driver of a tractor-trailer combination "to use the hand control to override the trailer brakes in an emergency mode to control swaying," Mr. Henneberger had stated last year that California had taken the position that the vehicle's stop lamps must be activated when the Brake Control is used, "even though the service brakes are not applied at the time." It appeared to us from Mr. Henneberger's statements that the purpose of the Brake Control was "to control trailer sway and NOT 'to stop or diminish speed by braking.'" The basis for California's position was its interpretation of Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code which states, in pertinent part, that stoplamps shall be activated upon application of the hand control head for electric brakes. We responded to Mr. Henneberger in our September 1990 letter that the California requirement conflicted with the requirement in Standard No. 108 that stop

lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes, and that therefore, under the preemption clause of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), Section 24603(f) was preempted "to the extent that it may be read as requiring stop lamps to be activated on motor vehicles equipped with the Commander Electronic Brake Control, when the Control is hand activated in an emergency mode to provide sway control."

We have reviewed the interpretations of September 10, 1990, and May 23, 1991, as you have requested, and we have concluded that our interpretation letter to Mr. Henneberger was in error. Although Mr. Henneberger informed us that the Brake Control "does not involve application of the vehicle's service brakes" (Henneberger letter, June 22, 1990, page 2; there are also three similar representations on page 4), the Tekonsha product literature that you supplied us clearly states that "The Voyager will not apply the trailer brakes unless the manual override slide bar is applied." (Item 5 under "Important Facts to Remember"), demonstrating that application of the Brake Control results in application of the trailer's service brakes. We have talked with Sergeant Cox of the California Highway Patrol about the operation of the Brake Control. We understand that operation of the Brake Control sends an electric impulse to the trailer brakes without going through the main tractor/trailer brake actuation system. The activation of the trailer brakes witnout a simultaneous activation of the tractor brakes allows the tractor to proceed with undiminished speed in order to take the slack out of the connector by increasing the distance between it and the trailer, which has slowed due to the activity of the electronic brake control, and thereby reduce the sway of the trailer.

This information about the Brake Control is the basis for our reconsideration of the interpretation of September 10, 1990. Although use of the Brake Control does not involve application of the "vehicle's service brakes" through the service brake control, it nevertheless does "apply the trailer brakes" as that phrase is used by Tekonsha in its product literature. Although the immediate intent of the driver may be to control sway, that intent is realized by creating a differential in speeds between towing and towed vehicles. That differential is created, not by increasing the speed of the towing vehicle, but by diminishing the speed of the towed vehicle through braking. As we noted in the September 10 letter, a stop lamp is defined in part as a lamp that indicates the intent of the driver to diminish speed by braking. We therefore find that Standard No. 108 and 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) do not preempt Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code. We confirm our interpretation of May 23, that installation of the Tekonsha systems, under the conditions and by the persons therein described, appear to violate Standard No. 108 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Device.

Our letters to both you and Mr. Henneberger may have left the impression that operation of the Brake Control on the brakes of the towed vehicle also requires activation of the stop lamps of the towing vehicle. Sgt. Cox has clarified that the Brake Control activates only the brakes of the towed vehicle, not the towing one. Consequently, Standard No. 108 would not require activation of the towing vehicle's stop lamps when the Brake Control alone is used to apply the brakes of the towed vehicle to diminish sway.

A copy of this letter is being provided the Department of California Highway Patrol, and Lawrence Henneberger, attorney for Tekonsha.

ID: nht94-7.10

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. Mark Willingham, Esq. -- Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, L.C. (Austin, TX)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/1/94 from Mark Willingham to John Womack (OCC 9640)

TEXT:

This responds to your February 1, 1994, letter to me about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) consumer information regulation for utility vehicles (49 CFR 575.105, Utility Vehicles). The regulation, Part 575.105, requires manufacturers to permanently affix a prescribed sticker in a prominent location of each utility vehicle to alert drivers of the handling differences between utility vehicles and passenger cars.

You asked about the meaning of the word "permanent" as used in Part 575.105. In a May 1984 final rule establishing Part 575.105 (copy enclosed), NHTSA said that the label "should be of a permanent nature" and concurred with a comment on the proposed rule that the label should be permanently affixed so that, among other reasons, subsequent vehicle owners are made aware of the utility vehicle's handling characteristics. NHTSA believed specifying precisely how the label is to be permanently affixed would be design restrictive. However, we stated in the enclosed final rule that stickers such as the placard required by paragraph S4.3, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, would be considered adequate.

You also asked "to whom is Part 575.105 directed (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealership)...(or) a seller of a used vehicle." The regulation applies to the manufacturer and seller of a new vehicle, not to a seller of a used vehicle. The regulation was issued under sections 103, 112 and 119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C S1381, et seq. (hereinafter Safety Act). Section 103 authorizes NHTSA to issue and amend Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 112(d) (15 U.S.C. S1401(d)) authorizes NHTSA:

"(T)o require the manufacturer (of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment) to give such notification of such performance and technical data as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act in the following manner --

(1) to each prospective purchaser of a motor vehicle or item of equipment before its first sale for purposes other than resale . . .; and

(2) to the first person who purchases a motor vehicle or item of equipment for purposes other than resale . . . .

Section 119 confers general rulemaking authority to issue rules to effectuate the express grants of authority and the obligations imposed by the Safety Act.

Sections 103, 112, and 119 of the Safety Act authorize NHTSA to require the consumer information label up to the delivery of the new vehicle to the consumer who first purchases the vehicle "for purposes other than resale." NHTSA cannot require sellers of used vehicles to restore missing labels prior to sale of the used vehicles, or prohibit a vehicle owner from removing or defacing the label.

You also asked for documents regarding the drafting and interpretation of Part 575.105. Please find enclosed copies of the following: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58323); final rule, dated May 11, 1984 (49 FR 20016); final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration, dated August 10, 1984 (49 FR 32069); and letter to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq., dated August 15, 1984. For future reference, copies of NHTSA's interpretation letters can be obtained from the agency's docket section. The address for the docket is 400 Seventh St., S.W., Room 5108, Washington, D.C., 20590, telephone (202) 366-4949.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.11

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William J. MacAdam -- President and CEO, trans2 Corporation (Farmington Hills, MI)

COPYEE: James Freeman, Esq. -- Hogan and Hartson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to two letters dated 11/3/93 from William J. MacAdam to John Womack (OCC 9283)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation that an electric vehicle that trans2 plans to manufacture is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Your counsel, Mr. James Freeman, informed Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff that you do not object to the manner in which this letter describes the trans2 vehicle.

We have determined that the trans2 electric vehicle is not a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. "Motor vehicle" is defined at Section 102(3) of the Act as:

(A)ny 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.

It is unclear from your letter whether the trans2 vehicle is manufactured for on-road use. However, NHTSA has stated in past interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles.

These criteria appear to be met by trans2's vehicle. You stated that the top speed of the vehicle is 20 miles per hour. Photographs of trans2's vehicle show that it is approximately the size and height of a golf cart. From the side, the passenger compartment appears to be an oval. From the rear, the vehicle has tail lights built into the two headrests. These unusual body features make the trans2 vehicle readily distinguishable from "motor vehicles."

Accordingly, we determine that trans2's vehicle is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Since the trans2 vehicle is not a motor vehicle, none of NHTSA's regulations or standards apply to it.

Please note that except for the features of the trans2's vehicle described herein, the remaining vehicle specifications described in your letter of November 3, 1993 are protected under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. The protection will continue until trans2 discloses details of its vehicle to the public.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.12

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus (Lima, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner; Also attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from Eric T. Stewart to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9792)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 17, 1994, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You requested clarification of the width requirement in S5.5.3(c) for retroreflective tape.

You are correct that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. Enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that 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.

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