ID: nht93-2.50

DATE: April 13, 1993

FROM: Jim Keizer

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-93 from John Womack to Jim Keizer (A41, Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-93 from John Womack to Jay Lee (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-93 from John Womack to Steven C. Friedman (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 6-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stephen Mamakas (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 5-13-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stephen Mamakas (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 1-19-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208)

TEXT: I'm an individual that has a dream of starting my own small business or repacking or replacing air bags in automobiles.

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

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

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

ID: nht93-5.19

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 9, 1993

FROM: Margret Schmock von Ohr -- Robert Bosch GmbH

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

TITLE: Painted reflex reflectors for passenger cars

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/13/93 from John Womack to Frau Margret Schmock von Ohr (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This responds to my fax from May 3, 1993, Mr. Womack's reply from May 10, 1993 and our telephone call from today.

I had asked you whether it is permissible to paint reflex reflectors (exterior painting) for motor vehicles and under which conditions. Although you had already told me that it is permissible provided that all requirements of Standard 108 including the referenced SAE J594f are met I have to ask for further information.

1. Does the combination "Plastic + paint" have to meet SAE J576c? (Outdoor exposure test takes three!!!! years so that we cannot start our production now!)

2. Is it sufficient to have only the plastic material (without paint) tested according to SAE J576c?

3. If it is not sufficient how can we get an exception to the rule?

I want to highlight again that our production will be changed from painting to 2-color-molding in December 1993. Painting is only a transitional process!

Please protect this request as a confidential business information.

I would appreciate your response until next week.

Thank you very much in advance.

ID: 77-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Union Carbide Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 31, 1977, question whether Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, currently requires a border around the safety warnings that are required to be placed on brake fluid containers.

Standard No. 116 was recently amended (41 FR 54942, December 16, 1976) to specify color coding requirements for hydraulic brake system fluids and to make a minor change in the required warning label. The proposal preceding this amendment did specify that the safety warnings on brake fluid containers be surrounded by a color coded border (40 FR 56928, December 5, 1975). However, after reviewing the comments submitted regarding the cost of the proposed borders and after reevaluating the expected safety benefits, the agency decided to withdraw the proposed requirement. The final rule, therefore, did not include a requirement for color coded borders.

Although Standard No. 116 does not require a border around the safety warnings on brake fluid containers, manufacturers are permitted to use a border if they choose.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION

January 31, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

It is my understanding from reading Docket No. 71-13; Notice 12 published in the Federal Register 41, No. 243 - Thursday, December 16, 1976, that the border around the warning statement on brake fluid containers specified in Standard No. 116 (49CFR 571.116) is no longer mandated.

It is my further understanding that a border around the statement is permitted for the purpose of setting off the statement from the balance of the information on the label.

If my understandings are correct, I wish to receive written confirmation of them from your office.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Whitehead -- Manager, Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs

cc: D. Raymond; F. M. Redler; R. W. Shiffler; G. W. Warnock

ID: nht71-2.16

DATE: 03/18/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Verrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 16, 1971, concerning the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulations, and your letter of March 12, 1971 submitting additional information.

Section 574.10 requires manufacturers to keep records of tires shipped "on or in" a vehicle. This would cover the case you describe of tires shipped on a trailer, whether attached to the axle or merely strapped to the frame, providing that the tires were meant for use on that particular trailer.

If the tires are shipped separately, either attached to another trailer or shipped in a separate package, they are not considered to be shipped "on or in" the trailer within the meaning of section 574.10. Therefore, the provisions of section 574.9(b) would apply and the dealer would be required to record the appropriate priate tire information and communicate it to the tire manufacturer.

If the tires are shipped separately, under Part 574 the trailer manufacturer would not be required to keep the records of the tires shipped. However, under section 113(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), the manufacturer is responsible for maintaining the name and address of the first purchaser. A copy of the Act and the recent amendment to the Act, section 113, which added subsection (f), are enclosed for your information.

Should you so desire, you may submit a petition for rulemaking on this subject under our rulemaking procedures (49 CFR 553).

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht94-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: Allan E. McIntyre -- Vice President, Engineering and New Product Development, Sprague Devices, Inc.

TO: Rodney Slater -- Administrator, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Allan E. McIntyre (A43; Std. 104)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Slater:

The purpose of this letter is to request your office for an interpretation/understanding of FMVSS-104 regarding evaluation procedure or how to undertake ammendment / revision of FMVSS-104.

By way of background please note that Sprague Devices, Inc. of Michigan City, Indiana both designs and markets components for windshield washer systems for trucks, buses and multipurpose vehicles. Secondly, I serve as Chairman of the SAE subcommittee re sponsible for windshield wiping and washer documents specifically SAEJ198 and 1944. I also chair a similar task force under the direction of TMC (The Maintenance Council of ATA).

My specific inquiry is regarding FMVSS-104- S4. 2.2 describing windshield washer requirement for truck, bus and multipurpose vehicles. Document lists SAE recommended Practice J942 of 11/65 (with modification). J942 has been superceded by an "a" and a " b" revision at SAE level. It also pertains specifically to PASSENGER CAR WINDSHIELD WASHER SYSTEMS.

SAE recognized the need of a document specifically addressing commerce vehicles, etc., and had chartered my subcommittee to develop such a document. J1944 is the result of our subcommittee activity and has been both approved and published in SAE Handboo k. (Copy attached). Its purpose is to follow the overall format of the J942 document while recognizing that advancements in technology allow for more strigent requirements, increased performance levels, etc. J1944 is overall a "tougher" document compa red to the J942 series.

Would the above situation allow for documentation of compliance to FMVSS-104 through use of the new J1944 recommended practice or is it necessary to evaluate per J942 as specifically written?

Second inquiry relates to the above also. If it is necessary to evaluate per J942 (both recognizing its' being superceded by "a" and "b" and more recently J1944) how does one petition for a revision in FMVSS-104?

There are other areas in FMVSS documents that are similar in nature to the above and therefore your response to this specific question could in essence respond to the inquiries of many.

Respectfully,

Enclosures

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104; SAE J1944 - Truck and Bus Multipurpose Vehicle Windshield Washer System

(Text of enclosures is omitted.)

ID: 18811.DRN

Mr. Chun Jo
102 Paladin Place
Cary, NC 27513

Dear Mr. Jo:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Hyundai mobile construction cranes you wish to import into the United States are "motor vehicles". I regret the delay in this response. This letter confirms that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider the mobile construction cranes to be "motor vehicles."

You have enclosed photographs of the cranes, Hyundai Hydraulic Truck Crane Operator's manuals (for a 25 ton and for a 50 ton crane), other Hyundai materials describing the cranes and a Mitsubishi Motors Crane Carrier Owner's Handbook.

By way of background information, NHTSA interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are promulgated. NHTSA's statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."

In the past, we have concluded 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.

We have carefully reviewed the photographs and other information you have provided. It is clear that the equipment you wish to import are mobile cranes and therefore are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of NHTSA's statutory definition. Since construction equipment such as mobile cranes are not motor vehicles, they would not be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Please note that since a State may require an off-road vehicle to be registered, you may wish to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which your products will be sold or used about requirements for the use of the vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. I am returning the materials describing the mobile cranes (except the photographs) back to you under separate cover. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.3/11/99

ID: 19867.wkm

Mr. Keely Brunner
Customer Relations and Contract Compliance
Transportation Techniques "Trans Teq"
1705 East 39^th Avenue
Denver, CO 80205

Dear Mr. Brunner:

This responds to your e-mail inquiry of April 14, 1999, in which you stated that you are a start-up manufacturer of a hybrid-electric bus for a downtown pedestrian mall. You stated that the bus has a maximum speed of 30 miles per hour and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 46,000 pounds. You cited paragraph S5.1.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard), No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed) and asked whether, since your bus cannot attain a speed of 80 kilometers per hour in 3.2 kilometers or less or 50 mph in 2 miles or less, S5.1.2 applies to your bus. The answer is no.

Paragraph S5.1.2 provides that except for vehicles that are unable to reach a speed of 80 kmh in 3.2 km or reach a speed of 50 mph in 2 miles, the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle system must be not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of the axle system. The GAWR is stated on the vehicle certification label required by 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 567. Paragraph S5.1.2 specifies other requirements, but since your bus has a maximum speed of only 30 mph, none of the requirements of S5.1.2 would apply to your bus. The remaining provisions of Standard No. 120, however, do apply to your bus.

It is not clear from your incoming e-mail whether Trans Teq has manufactured, sold, or delivered any vehicles into interstate commerce. If so, we have no record of Trans Teq having submitted to this agency the information required by 49 CFR Part 565.7(d) (copy attached). Further, if Trans Teq began manufacturing vehicles more than 30 days ago, we have no record of it meeting the reporting requirement of 49 CFR Part 566.6 (copy attached). Please submit the required information without delay.

I am enclosing for your further information a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which discusses other pertinent requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address, by telephone at (202) 366-2992 or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:120
d.6/23/99

ID: 1983-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 7 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Richard H. Attenhofer Technical Manager, O.E Dunlop Tire Company Box 1109 Buffalo, New York 14240

Dear Mr. Attenhofer:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked if Dunlop could use a print type called OCR-A for the DOT symbol and the tire identification number.

Note 1 to Figure 1 of Part 574 specifies only four different print types which may be used for the DOT symbol and identification number, none of which are OCR-A. However, Note 4 to Figure 1 states that other print type will be permitted if approved by this agency. We have examined the print type shown in the diagram attached to your letter and have no objections to your company printing the required information in OCR-A type.

In the final rule establishing Part 574 (35 FR 17257, November 10, 1970), the agency explained that the reason for specifying only four print types which would be acceptable without advance agency approval was to ensure that the information would be easily readable by all persons. The OCR-A print type shown in the diagram attached to your letter is easily readable and thus satisfies our concerns in that regard. Accordingly, that print type is hereby approved.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 10, 1983

Mr. Steven Kratzke Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation wishes to utilize the latest electronic techniques for sorting and inventory control of automobile, motorcycle and truck tires which are subject to Tire Identification and Recordkeeping as defined in CFR 49, Chapter V, Part 574.

We request an interpretation of your office if the style of characters shown on the attached sketch 9522-DS do meet the requirements of Notes 1 or 4 shown in Figure 1 of Part 574.

Dunlop is grateful for your prompt consideration of this matter. Should you have any questions please call me direct at 716/879-8327.

Very truly yours,

DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION

Richard H. Attenhofer, Technical Manager, O.E.

ID: 16242.drn

Ms. Kay Howeth
Executive Director
St. Michaels Housing Authority
P. O. Box 296
St. Michaels, MD 21663

Dear Ms. Howeth:

This responds to your October 7, 1997, request for an opinion whether St. Michaels Housing Authority must provide school bus transportation for your children in a drug awareness program. The answer to your question is determined by Maryland State law.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Under 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., a "school bus" is any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125.

Since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider a drug awareness program to be a "school," we would not require that a dealership selling a new vehicle to your Housing Authority sell a school bus. However, each State has authority to regulate the use of vehicles within the State, and Maryland law may specify the type of vehicle your Housing Authority must use to transport the children. You may wish to contact the Maryland State department of motor vehicles to learn whether there are any State requirements applicable to vehicles used to transport children in drug awareness programs.

For your information, I am also enclosing a copy of NHTSA's publication, "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements."

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#571
d.11/5/97

ID: nht94-2.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/22/93 from Jane L. Dawson to Walter Myers

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office in which you posed two questions regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Your first question related to the definition of "daylight opening" found in the final rule amending FMVSS 217, dated November 2, 1992, (57 FR 49413) (hereinafter Final Rule). Specifically, you asked "(w)hat constitutes an obstruction and how close to t he door does an object have to be in order to be considered an obstruction?"

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or obje ct that would block, obscure or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the o pening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. I have enclosed a copy of a March 24, 1994 letter to Mr. Bob Carve r of Wayne Wheeled Vehicles which provides an example of how the amount of area to be credited was determined for a specific design.

You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993, (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all types of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice.

In your second question you referred to the current provisions of S5.2.3.1(b), FMVSS 217, which provides that a left-side emergency door must be located in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment. You then asked whether that requirement was chang ed in the Final Rule. The answer is yes.

Section S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217, as amended in the Final Rule, provides manufacturers two options for the provision of school bus emergency exits, S5.2.3.1(a) (Option A) and S5.2.3.1(b) (Option B). Option A requires a rear emergency door. If additional e mergency exit area is required, the first additional emergency exit must be a left side door located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment. Option B requires a left-side emergency door and a pushout rear window, but does no t designate a specific location for them. Thus, the amended standard does not specify a location for a left-side emergency door installed for Option B, the equivalent of current S5.3.3.2(b).

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Walter myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.