ID: nht93-8.3

DATE: November 08, 1993

FROM: Trombi, Federico -- Chief Homologation Engineer, Bugatti

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 05/09/94 From John Womack To Lance Tunick (A42; PART 525)

TEXT: This letter follows the recent correspondence that you received from Ms Rachel Jelly at Lotus Cars, Ltd. ("Lotus") regarding the question of whether Lotus and Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. may file separate petitions requesting alternate CAFE standards.

As Ms Jelly noted, in August of this year, Lotus was sold to Bugatti International Holding, SA, a Luxembourg company that also controls Bugatti Automobili, S.p.A. ("Bugatti SpA"), the Italian automobile manufacturer that is planning to enter the US market in the near future. Lotus and Bugatti SpA are operated as separate companies.

Lotus intends to file a CAFE exemption petition, as does Bugatti-SpA. Both companies are small volume manufacturers, and their joint annual production is far below the 10,000 units per year eligibility threshold. There is thus no question as to eligibility of either Bugatti or Lotus. The only question is whether Bugatti SpA and Lotus can file separate CAFE exemption petitions.

To our knowledge, the Bugatti/Lotus situation (that is, two small manufacturers under common control whose joint world-wide annual production is less than 10,000) is unique and has never before been addressed by NHTSA. Bugatti SpA is of the opinion that it is appropriate for Bugatti and Lotus to file separate petitions.

THE FILING OF TWO SEPARATE PETITIONS IS WITHIN THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE CAFE STATUTE AND LESS LIKELY TO CREATE ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS

The CAFE statute states that "a manufacturer" may submit a petition for a CAFE exemption. A joint petition in this case would not fall within this provision. Bugatti International is itself not a manufacturer, and under the statute it would be improper for TWO manufacturers to apply together.

Further, the purpose of the alternate standards provisions of the CAFE law is to permit a given small manufacturer to obtain an alternate CAFE standard that reflects the best fuel economy that SUCH small manufacturer can achieve. Combining two small companies together would muddy the all important question of the best fuel economy that EACH company is capable of achieving.

Lastly, if separate petitions were not allowed and a joint petition were required and a joint alternate standard were granted, in the event of a failure to comply with such a joint alternate standard, NHTSA would be faced with a difficult situation as regards enforcement To whom would NHTSA send the bill and how would the bill be divided?

THE FERRARI/ALFA CAFE DECISION DOES NOT PRECLUDE TWO PETITIONS IN THIS CASE

It would be improper to apply NHTSA's July, 1991 Ferrari - Alfa Romeo CAFE decision to the Bugatti/Lotus situation. Under that decision, Ferrari was found ineligible for a CAFE exemption because the total world-wide production of Ferrari and its sister companies (Fiat and Alfa) were combined when considering whether the 10,000 unit per year limit was exceeded. Under this test, Ferrari was ruled ineligible.

The Ferrari decision reversed a previous decision in 1978 which held that Maserati was eligible to apply for a CAFE exemption even though its related company, Innocenti, manufactured in excess of 10,000 cars per year. The Maserati decision was based on the fact that only Innocenti's US imports were counted when considering the 10,000 unit limit. Because Innocenti did not import into the US, Maserati was eligible.

For the following reasons, it is inappropriate to apply the Ferrari decision to the Bugatti/Lotus situation:

1) The Ferrari decision was an ELIGIBILITY DECISION, and there is no question here that Bugatti and Lotus are eligible (their combined world-wide annual production is less than 10,000). It is therefore inappropriate to apply the logic of the Ferrari decision to answer the completely different question at issue here -- should Bugatti SpA and Lotus receive separate standards?

2) The relevant FACTS of the Ferrari case were different from the facts in the Bugatti/Lotus situation. With Ferrari, NHTSA was considering two related companies (Ferrari and Alfa), one of which has a small volume manufacturer (Ferrari), the other of which was a large manufacturer (Alfa), and both of which were controlled by a still larger manufacturer (Fiat). In the Bugatti/Lotus case, Bugatti SpA and Lotus are both small manufacturers and their parent, Bugatti International, does not manufacturer autos. It is significant that the facts here are vastly different: NHTSA made it clear that the Ferrari decision depended heavily on the specific facts of that case.

3) In the Ferrari decision, NHTSA stated that the LEGISLATIVE GOAL of the CAFE exemption -- helping SMALL manufacturers -- would not be served if Ferrari were granted an exemption. In the Bugatti/Lotus situation, however, that goal would be best served if two standards were granted.

It is true that in the Ferrari decision, NHTSA said that "Ferrari and Alfa Romeo are in essence the same manufacturer for purposes of CAFE standards". NHTSA also stated that "any CAFE standard which applies to Ferrari should apply to Ferrari and Alfa Romeo together". These conclusions, however, do not foreclose Bugatti SpA and Lotus from filing separate petitions and receiving separate standards, for several reasons:

1) NHTSA's RATIONALE for these conclusions allows two standards in the Bugatti/Lotus situation. NHTSA based its conclusions on two sections of the CAFE law. Section 502(c) of the CAFE law permits CAFE exemptions to be granted ONLY IF NHTSA establishes "alternative . . . standards for . . . automobiles manufactured by manufacturers which receive exemptions". Section 503(c) defines "automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer" to include autos manufactured by a related company. Thus, in the Ferrari case, NHTSA concluded that it could grant Ferrari an exemption only if Alfa's cars were also covered by an alternate standard -- something that was impossible given Alfa's size. In the Bugatti/Lotus case, however, if two separate alternate standards were granted, NHTSA would be establishing alternate standards for all automobiles manufactured by all manufacturers which were receiving exemptions. Thus, the dilemma that existed in the Ferrari case is simply not present here.

2. The conclusions reached by NHTSA -- that Ferrari and Alfa Romeo were in essence the same manufacturer for purposes of CAFE standards and that any CAFE standard which applied to Ferrari should apply to Ferrari and Alfa -- must be read literally and confined to the context in which they were issued. In other words, when NHTSA stated that Ferrari and Alfa were "in essence the same manufacturer", the agency meant just that -- that Ferrari and Alfa were the same; the agency did NOT say or mean that two other manufacturers in a different situation would be "in essence the same". When NHTSA stated that the standard that applies to Ferrari should apply to "Ferrari and Alfa Romeo together", it meant exactly what it said -- that the standard should apply to Ferrari and Alfa; it did NOT say or mean that two other manufacturers in a different situation must meet the same result.

3. Lastly, NHTSA pointed out in the Ferrari decision that considering Ferrari and Alfa as separate manufacturers would cause problems, such as in determining compliance. In the Bugatti/Lotus case the opposite is true -- considering Bugatti and Lotus separately would create fewer problems.

The Ferrari ruling therefore only means that: 1) when the precise facts of the Ferrari situation exist (one small manufacturer related to larger manufacturers, with combined production in excess of 10,000), then all the manufacturers must be considered "the same" manufacturer, and the "normal" CAFE standard must apply; and 2) when there is a "related companies situation", one of two results must obtain: Either both companies are subject to "alternate standards" or both are subject to the "normal standard" (you cannot have half of one and half of the other).

Both of these readings of the Ferrari decision permit Bugatti SpA and Lotus to receive separate standards. Moreover, so limiting the application of the Ferrari decision to the specific facts of the Ferrari case is entirely consistent with NHTSA's careful crafting of a narrow ruling.

Based upon the forgoing, Bugatti SpA respectfully requests that NHTSA permit the filing of two separate petitions requesting 2 separate alternate standards for Bugatti SpA and Lotus.

Kindly direct any questions, as well as your response, to: Lance Tunick Ital Group Llc 9114 W 6th Ave. Lakewood CO 80215 (Tel. 303 274 0203) (Fax 303 279-9339)

ID: nht93-8.30

DATE: November 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack McIntyre -- Vice President, Tie Tech Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/15/93 from Jack McIntyre to John Womack and (OCC-9123) and letter dated 8/18/93 from Jack McIntyre to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you withdrew your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead.

You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair.

Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position...." That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards.

I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If 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: nht93-8.31

DATE: November 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Amantha L. Barbee -- Sales Coordinator, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/14/93 from Amantha L. Barbee to John Womack (OCC-9220), letter dated 1/26/93 from John Womack to Paul David Wellstone, letter dated 8/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Chuck Anderson, and letter dated 9/27/85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Charles Pekow

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to me of October 14, 1993, and your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on October 22, 1993.

You stated in your letter that you are the Head Start Sales Coordinator for Thomas Built Buses, Inc., and in that capacity you have found that many Head Start agencies are using conventional vans to transport Head Start students to and from their programs. You stated that when you asked the directors of the agencies why they did not use vehicles that comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for school buses, their usual answer was "because we have not been told otherwise." You then asked whether this practice is illegal and if so, what your organization can do to rectify the situation.

As Mr. Myers explained in your telephone conversation, this agency has repeatedly stated that Head Start facilities are preprimary schools. Therefore, new buses sold to Head Start centers for use in transporting Head Start participants to and from school must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. However, Federal law does not require Head Start facilities to use complying school buses or any other particular vehicles. The individual states, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

As promised by Mr. Myers, please find enclosed interpretation letters previously issued by us on this issue, as follows: to Hon. Paul David Wellstone, U.S. Senate, dated Jan. 26, 1993; to Mr. Chuck Anderson, dated Aug. 21, 1992; and to Mr. Charles Pekow, dated Sept. 27, 1985.

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

ID: nht93-8.32

DATE: November 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Leo Chung -- Operational Services, Genstar Container Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/3/93 from Leo Chung to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9311)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 3, 1993, to Mr. Vinson of this Office, with respect to calculation of the application of conspicuity treatment to container chassis trailers.

The length of the gooseneck is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of calculating the half length that must be covered by the conspicuity treatment (which, of course, would be greater than half the length behind the gooseneck). For example, let us say that the overall length of the trailer is 40 feet, including an 8-foot gooseneck. The amount of the side to be covered is not less than 20 feet. The area to be covered is the 32 feet between the rear bolster to the point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus. Thus, at least 20 feet of this 32-foot length must be covered in order to comply with Standard No. 108.

There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that precludes the application of retroreflective sheeting to the gooseneck. Indeed, some manufacturers may wish to do so to provide conspicuity of the trailer side when the trailer is traveling without its cargo. However, any conspicuity treatment on a gooseneck is not counted in determining whether at least half the trailer side is covered.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht93-8.33

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. Z. Peepas -- Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 11/12/93 from J. Z. Peepas to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of November 12, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, the latest in a series of communications about how the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108 are to be applied to gooseneck trailers.

On October 20, we sent you a correction of our earlier interpretation of S5.7.1.4.2(a). Our correction stated that the requirement is that conspicuity treatment not be obscured by trailer cargo. If conspicuity treatment is applied to the gooseneck of a container trailer, we understand that it will be obscured by the container (cargo) when it is in place.

S5.7.1.4.2(a) also specifies that conspicuity treatment "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." The length of the gooseneck is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of calculating the half length that must be covered by the conspicuity treatment (which, of course, would be greater than half the length behind the gooseneck).

You have suggested that we reevaluate the effect of excluding the gooseneck from compliance with the conspicuity requirements. There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that prohibits a manufacturer from applying retroreflective sheeting to the gooseneck. Indeed, some manufacturers may wish to do so to provide conspicuity of the entire trailer side when the trailer is traveling without its cargo. However, conspicuity treatment on a gooseneck is not counted in determining whether at least half the trailer side is covered. An example may clarify this for you. Let us say that the overall length of the trailer is 40 feet, including an 8-foot gooseneck. The amount of the side to be covered is not less than 20 feet. The area to be covered is the 32 feet between the rear bolster to the point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus. Thus, regardless of whether conspicuity treatment is applied to the gooseneck, at least 20 feet of this 32-foot length must be covered in order to comply with Standard No. 108, and the spaces must be distributed as evenly as Practicable. Standard No. 108 does not address the issue of the length of the spaces between strips, and a manufacturer may choose 4 feet or whatever is feasible for the trailer at hand.

On the basis of this interpretation letter, we believe that Selecto-Flash ought to be able to judge whether the conspicuity treatments on Prints A-1, A-2, B-1 and B-2 accord with Standard No. 108.

ID: nht93-8.34

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard L. Plath -- Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Richard L. Plath to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9327)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office on trailer conspicuity. You ask for confirmation of several points.

Initially, we would like to comment as follows on the 4-point procedure you have outlined:

"1) A chassis for purposes of the conspicuity requirement shall be considered to be a trailer."

This is correct. Because the chassis is designed for carrying property and for being towed by a motor vehicle, it is a "trailer" as defined for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

"2) That the total length of the chassis shall be used in computing the 50 percent coverage of high intensity reflective for each individual side.

This is correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108, retroreflective tape "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered...."

"3) In the case of a 48 foot chassis, the law will thus require a minimum of 24 feet of the approved reflective sheeting to be applied to each side. Further, there shall not be more than 18 inches of either red or silver reflective in a continuous strip and that there shall not be an allowed void of more than 48 inches between modules."

This is partially correct. Under S.7.1.4.2(a), a minimum of 24 feet of reflective material must be applied to the side of a 48-foot trailer. However, S5.7.1.3(a) requires the colors to be red and white, not red and silver. Further, under S5.7.1.3(b) , the permissible lengths of the sheeting are expressed as "each white or red segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm." We note that 450 mm is slightly less than 18 inches.

Standard No. 108 does not specify any maximum permissible "void... between modules." Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), the spaces are to be distributed "as evenly as practicable."

"4) *** when the chassis is not loaded with a container, the application of 24 feet per side of a 48 foot chassis of evenly spaced reflective modules would comply with the law as we understand it. It would identify the extreme front and rear portions of the chassis.***"

This is incorrect. Compliance by an unloaded container chassis with the conspicuity requirements is determined as if the container load were in place. S7.5.1.4.2(a) states that "at the location chosen (for conspicuity treatment), the strip shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo." Because the container obscures the gooseneck, the conspicuity treatment mandated by Standard No. 108 cannot identify the extreme front portion of the chassis. Its front termination point will be behind the gooseneck, at a point where it is not obscured by the Container. You have correctly stated this with respect to a loaded chassis but it applies to the unloaded chassis as manufactured:

"... the entire 24 feet (50 per cent of length) (shall) be applied behind the gooseneck. In general this would mean that the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis would contain the 24 feet of reflective modules. Further we understand that the 50 percent requirement would be satisfied and that additional modules would not have to be applied to the gooseneck."

You conclude that a gooseneck chassis traveling without its container would be in violation of Standard No. 108 if its gooseneck were not marked "creating a hazard and would violate the requirement stating that a void of no more than four feet is allowable." You also ask "(i)s there a benefit in applying the additional 4 feet of reflective within the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis?"

As explained previously, Standard No. 108 does not require marking of the gooseneck of a container chassis, and there is ho requirement limiting the spacing between segments of retroreflective material. We believe that the desired conspicuity of the trailer will be maintained by requiring the additional 4 feet of sheeting on the chassis behind the gooseneck when the gooseneck itself will be obscured with the container in place. Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a manufacturer from applying conspicuity treatment to the 8-foot gooseneck of a 48 foot trailer if it wishes to do so; however, the manufacturer is still required to apply not less than 24 feet of material in the 40-foot section behind the gooseneck.

We shall be pleased to answer the following four questions you have also raised:

"1) Will we need to apply 24 feet of stripping on a 48 foot chassis behind the gooseneck plus an additional 4 feet on the gooseneck?"

You will have to apply 24 feet of stripping on the portion of a 48-foot chassis that lies behind the gooseneck, but you are not required to mark the gooseneck.

"2) Since a chassis is considered to be treated as a trailer, shouldn't we apply the 24 feet evenly spaced from the extreme rear and front portions of the chassis?"

As explained previously, the 24 feet of material is to be applied behind the gooseneck. If you wish to apply evenly spaced conspicuity treatment that includes the gooseneck, you may do so, as long as at least 24 feet of it is behind the gooseneck.

"3) Is a tire considered a legal obstruction? If so, can we deduct the distance behind the tire from the 50 percent coverage?"

Yes, a tire is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of S5.7.1.4.2(a) forbidding the obscuring of conspicuity treatment. No, you may not deduct the length of the area obscured by the tire from the 50 per cent coverage. You must include it in the 50 per cent computation. Thus, if a tire would obscure 3 feet of conspicuity material on the side of a 48 foot gooseneck trailer, the manufacturer must apply 24 feet of material in the 37 feet that is behind the gooseneck which is not obscured. We note in passing that the prints submitted for our review by J.Z. Peepas of Selecto-Flash depict conspicuity treatment that is above the top of the tire and apparently not obscured by it.

"4) We anticipate that the slide mechanism on an extendable chassis will scrape the reflective film off the chassis. Is the operator then subject to penalties? How will the operator be able to avoid these penalties since they have no control over this process?"

You are not required to place conspicuity treatment on the extendable portion of the chassis provided that not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered when the conspicuity treatment is placed elsewhere. In the event that conspicuity treatment is placed on the extendable portion and is damaged when the trailer is in use, the operator will not be subject to any penalties of this agency. Federal regulations governing the use of commercial vehicles in interstate commerce are issued by another agency of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA requires that vehicles manufactured on or after March 7, 1989, meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle (49 CFR 393.11). Therefore, maintenance of the conspicuity treatment on trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, is required by the FHWA. If you wish to write FHWA on this topic, you may address James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3107, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590.

The individual states may have regulations in this area as well. We are unable to advise you on State requirements, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht93-8.35

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Ray Paradis

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of November 18, 1993, requesting a clarification of our letter of November 16 as it applies to the rear of the trailers shown in items #5 and #7 which accompanied your letter of August 31, 1993.

As we advised you with respect to rear markings, Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting across the full width of the trailer. With respect to the trailer shown in #7, retroreflective tape can be applied across the full width of the "approach ramp" to meet the requirements since the ramp will be in the down position when the trailer is moving.

As we further advised you, paragraph S5.7.1.3(b) anticipates that the length of the color segments may have to be modified to facilitate using material near rear lamps. In the worst cases of trailers with rear surfaces no wider than the minimum required for lamps. breaks in the rear treatment are unavoidable to clear the lamps. But NHTSA expects the manufacturer to minimize the breaks by using red material adjacent to red lamps. With respect to #5, we recommend applying red/white conspicuity treatment on either side of the identification lamps, with red material used in the remaining outboard areas.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht93-8.36

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Barry H. Wells -- M.D.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/23/93 from Barry H. Wells to Marvin Shaw

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter describing a device you called an "Emergency Brake Technology" (E.B.T.) system that you believe would eliminate jackknifing and improve the stopping distances of tractor trailers. A video tape accompanying your letter stated that the E.B.T. system operates by having a metal wedge slide below each wheel in response to an action by the driver. You requested the opportunity to testify or submit written comments about the benefits of this device. You also requested that the agency test the E.B.T. system.

As Marvin Show of my staff explained to you, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on September 28, 1993, that addresses the lateral stability and control of medium and heavy vehicles. The agency is proposing to require these vehicles to be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) and to comply with a 30 mph braking-in-a-curve test on a low coefficient of friction surface. Mr. Shaw advised you that while the agency does not anticipate holding a public hearing on this rulemaking, you could submit written comments to the NPRM. In addition, we have submitted this correspondence, including your incoming letter and the video tape, to the public docket.

We regret that we are unable to fulfill your request for NHTSA to test the E.B.T. system. Given our limited research budget, it is not possible for us to test every automotive safety-related piece of equipment that is introduced into the marketplace.

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

ID: nht93-8.37

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: Lynn White -- President, Industrial Metal Fabricators

TO: Jeff Boraston -- Remediquip International Manufacturing

TITLE: Portable Trailers 45590 and 50690

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/94 from John Womack to Ramin Bogzaran (A42; VSA 102(3)); Also attached to letter dated 12/1/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to John Womack; Also attached to fax dated 12/15/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to Marvin Shaw; Also attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Amar Chhabra to whom it may concern

TEXT:

The above equipment manufactured by IMF, Inc. in 1990 and 1991 meet or exceeded all requirements of the United States Department of Transportation.

I am also sending copies of the original Bill of Lading.

If I can provide additional information, please call.

Attachments (text and graphics omitted):

Exporter's Certificate of Origin Photographs

ID: nht93-8.38

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: Len R. Thies -- C & C Creations

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/18/94 From John Womack To Len R. Thies (A42; Std. 111; Std. 205; Std. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

My partner and I have developed an after-market device for use in commercial and non-commercial vans. The device inhibits the flow of air from the back of the van to the front and vice-versa, in effect reducing the amount of volume to be heated or cooled. The result is a more efficient use of the vehicle's heating/cooling system resulting in more comfort for the driver and passengers especially in cases of extreme temperatures.

The device is composed of a sheet of clear vinyl suspended near the ceiling by a metal bar. The vinyl is also attached to the sides of the vehicle by velcro patches. Visibility is unimpaired, and is easily detached and removed from the vehicle by the owner.

After additional testing we intend to start marketing the device. In order to address all potential regulations, I contacted Ms. Mary Verseilles and Mr. Mark Levine in your office, who have given me their informal opinions. I appreciate their time and commend them for their sincerity in addressing my questions and for guidance through other potential areas of concern.

The only real concern regarding the device is one raised by Mr. Levine and focuses on fire resistence. Vinyl will burn but must have constant ignition in order to do so. Many people might call it a "melt" rather than a burning action.

Basis the foregoing I would request from you a written opinion relative to the acceptability of the device for use in vehicles.

Thank you in advance for your handling of my request.

Sincerely,