ID: nht94-2.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

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 comp artment 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 c ontinue 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: nht94-2.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

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.

ID: nht94-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 4, 1994

FROM: William G. Franz -- Vice President, Fabrication, Wells Aluminum

TO: Walter Myers -- NHTSA

TITLE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/94 from John Womack to William G. Franz (Std. 217)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers:

Subsequent to our recent phone conversation, I am formally requesting an interpretation of paragraph S.5.1.2 regarding the window opening size. Specifically, my question is as follows:

Does the 8 inch window opening size apply to the total outside frame dimension or does it apply to each pane of glass? The enclosed picture shows a typical retention test being performed on a push out window with two separately framed pieces of glass. In other words, would a pane of glass which measures less than 8 inches across need to be subject to the retention test?

For your information, Wells Aluminum Corporation manufactures push out windows for the school bus industry.

I look forward to your response.

WGF/cih

myers.ltr

ID: nht94-2.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott Slaughter -- Pitts Enterprises, Inc. (Pittsview, AL)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/2/94 from Scott Slaughter to Marv Shaw (OCC 9654)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a logging trailer known as the "knuckle boom loader trailer" that you manufacture is a motor vehicle that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You explained that you r trailer stays in the woods the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety, Act ("Safety Act" 13 U.S.C. S 1392 et seq.) under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The 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."

Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. 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 m ove 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 contrast are 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 i s more than "incidental."

Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and brochures that this equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose. Since your trailer is not a motor v ehicle, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

If the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer is a motor vehicle, then the trailer would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle

Identification Numbers, Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 121 Air Brake System which requires automatic slack adjusters and brakes to act on all wheels.

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: nht94-2.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark Archer -- Orbital Engine Company Pty. Ltd. (Australia)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 10/5/93 from Mark Archer to NHTSA (OCC 9183)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you asked if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations affecting a vehicle that has an automatic engine shut-off device that operates when the vehicle remains idle for extended pe riods. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background information, NHTSA administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," copy enclosed) est ablishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exerc ise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines th at a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncom plying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights these responsibilities.

We cannot tell from your letter whether you seek to produce a vehicle that has a shut-off device installed as original equipment ("O.E."), i.e., prior to a first sale to a consumer, or produce the device as an "aftermarket" item of equipment, sold for in stallation in used vehicles. We will discuss both situations in this letter.

A shut-off device may not be installed on a new vehicle if the device causes the vehicle not to comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 102, "Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect," states that "t he engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position." (S3.1.3). NHTSA does not know of any shut-off device that would enable a vehicle to meet S3.1.3 of Standard 102. In 1984, NHTSA termina ted rulemaking on an action that would have amended S3.1.3 to permit a shut-off device that restarted the vehicle's engine when the accelerator is depressed. A copy of the termination notice is enclosed. The agency terminated rulemaking citing a number of safety concerns with the particular features of the shut-off device that was the subject of the rulemaking. NHTSA stated in the notice that, if in the future a more effective and safe fuel saving device is developed, NHTSA would again consider amend ing Standard 102. However, given that S3.1.3 of Standard 102 was not amended, that section precludes the O.E. installation on a shut-off device such as the one described in the termination notice.

With respect to the aftermarket installation of a shut-off device, there is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product. Standard 102 applies only to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket components of a vehicle's transmission, such as a shut-off device.

However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of a shut-off device. Under the Safety Act, the product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As explained above, each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any de vice or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." This means that if a shut-off device were sold in the "aftermarket," no manufact urer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business could install it if doing so would render inoperative any previously certified item of equipment in the vehicle. As explained above, each motor vehicle is certified as meeting Standard 102. A shut-off device that causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard 102 could not be installed by any person listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) without subjecting that person to civil penalties (section l09 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty o f up to $1,000 for each violation of S108).

The "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles. However, NHTSA urges all owners not to perform modifications that would degrade the safety of their vehicles, such as installing a fuel shut-off device that raises significant safety concerns.

I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-2.18

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 5, 1994

FROM: Hamilton K. Pyles -- Cairncross & Associates, Inc.

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/12/94 from John Womack to Hamilton K. Pyles (A42; VSA 102(a)(2)(A); Part 591

TEXT:

We are writing to request the assistance of your office, or your personal assistance, in obtaining Department of Transportation approval and color code designation on our, LIFE LITES system. Our firm has secured a patent, foreign trade license and comple ted testing with the Ohio State University, and is ready to begin producing the device.

C & L Safety Products currently has a plastics firm and lighting manufacturer within your district to begin production, as well as, several organizations who have committed to purchase the final product. We feel normal, or abnormal delays, in securing ap proval for the device could adversely impact the economic development of your voting area. Rapid approval would permit you to utilize our firm as an example, particularly in an election environment, of the assistance you can provide to those considering southwest Ohio as a site for future business. Additionally, we are prepared to utilize our public relations firm in contacting other organizations with the details of any assistance provided by you in this matter.

Sue Clark, of your Hamilton office, has been working with us, and has all the details of efforts made to date in securing approval, and has been greatly supportive in moving through the Department of Transportation process.

We have taken the liberty of enclosing a local and national press article explaining the purpose of the device, as well as, copies of the patent and foreign trade permit. Should there be any questions, please call us, to reduce the delays associated wit h mailed correspondence. Best wishes for continued success.

We would like to import into the United States a kit for a custom compact pick-up truck bed. The bed is made of varnished and sealed wooden planks and plywood with metal fastenings and reinforcements. The kit would consist of the following:

1. Plans and instructions in English for the safe and secure assembly of the bed and attachment on the frames of the specified pick-up truck makes, models and years.

2. Wooden and Plywood parts of the bed suitably labelled for identification.

3. Metal parts, fastenings, wiring and lights.

The intention is to offer this kit in advertisements in specialty

magazines and catalogs to the general public and to offer it to manufacturer's who place specialized beds (campershells, utility company boxes, etc.) on pick-up frames that they buy new without factory installed beds. The general public would strip the existing bed off their truck to install ours.

What federal laws and regulations, under your cognizance, govern the importation, sale and installation of wooden pick-up bed kits? What must I do, initially, to import a trial sample bed into the United States?

As we are on a fairly tight time schedule, your prompt reply by FAX and mail will be very much appreciated, partial answers one by one are far preferable to waiting for all the answers before replying. Thank you.

ID: nht94-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 6, 1994

FROM: Ivan L. Bost -- Director Of Engineering, Comm-Trans, The Sully Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: Federal Ruling On 3 Point Shoulder Harnesses In Rear Outboard Seating Positions In The Vans We Convert For Commercial Use.

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack to Ivan L. Bost (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Versailles,

We at Comm-Trans manufacture/convert and sell a line of commercially developed vans for use in the commercial shuttle industry. Our customers represent such markets as hotels, churches, limousine co's, airport ground transportation services, rent-a-car co's and non emergency medical transport co's.

My primary question pertains to whether or not 3 point shoulder harnesses are required in the vehicles that we convert that seat from 10 - 15 people including the driver. Please see the specifications and floor plans I have enclosed. The GVWR of the ve hicles in question is in excess of 8500 pounds and less than 10,000 pounds. We as a company have been installing these shoulder harnesses since 1992. The reason for my question is it has recently been brought to our attention at a few of my competitors are not installing shoulder harnesses and are using standard lap belts in the same size and type vans.

I have also talked with Charlie Case in your office and he reinforced what we are doing with the definition of a bus under 571.3 and regulation 208 in section S.4.4.3.2. Please take the time to review this issue and get back with me in writing with a le gal interpretation of the standards.

Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-2.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- U.S. DOT, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Ray Paradis (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Per my discussion with Taylor Vinson, I have enclosed an overall side view of Dakota Manufacturing Companies 24 ton ramp trailer.

The question is whether a center side marker light is required. The overall length is 30'8" including the ramp in transport position.

In reviewing competition, I cannot find any center lights being used.

ATTACHMENT

Drawing of Trail-Eze, model D20R24. (Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht94-2.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ulrich Metz -- Automotive Division, Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/9/93 from Ulrich Metz to NHTSA (OCC 9194)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to this agency regarding a new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshield. I apologize for the delay in responding.

The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, "the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement." You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, W indshield Wiping and Washing systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes.

The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 10 4. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared.

The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas "A," "B," and "C." Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must als o be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe p attern as "that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels THROUGH A CYCLE) (emphasis added). A "cycle" is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of "wiper blade movement du ring system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme AND RETURN" (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the

requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met.

As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at l east 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of en gine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system.

Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpo se passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, howeve r, apply only to passenger cars.

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

ID: nht94-2.21

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Darryl Cobb (Abbeville, GA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/29/93 from Darryl Cobb to Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation (OCC 9280)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about how Federal regulations would affect the sale of an aftermarket rearview mirror you plan to import into the United States. You stated that this mirror system would be installed on the driver's side of a passenger car. A brochure accompanying your letter indicated that the mirror system contains both a portion that is a flat mirror of unit magnification and a portion along the outer edge that is convex. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the respons ibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA issued performance requirements for new vehicle mirrors in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR S571.111, copy enclosed). Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in Standard No. 111. Vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in Standard No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle type on which the mirror system is installed. Assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirem ents of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on new vehicles of that type.

Please note that since Standard No. 111 applies to the completed new vehicle, it does not apply to mirrors sold and installed as aftermarket equipment. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect an aftermarket mirror system. Un der the Safety Act, the mirror is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety relat ed defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defec tive equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperati ve ... any device or element of design installed on

or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that replaced a complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111. Se ction 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of the render inoperative provision.

The Safety Act does not establish any limitation on an individual vehicle owner's ability to modify his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they desire on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.