ID: nht94-6.32

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol I. Morton -- Administrative Assistant, Equipment and Standards Review Unit, Washington State Patrol (Olympia, WA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/25/94 from Roger W. Bruett (signed by Carol I. Morton) to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9822)

TEXT:

We have received your letter asking whether the Hella Xenon headlamps being installed on BMW 750 passenger cars "are legal for use on motor vehicles."

The Hella Xenon units on the BMW 750 series cars represent the first application of high-intensity discharge (HID) headlamps on motor vehicles. This new technology is permitted by Standard No. 108, as indicated by the test report from ETL Testing Laboratories that you reference in your letter.

We have no information as to whether the specific BMW headlamp system actually complies with Standard No. 108 because we have not tested it. BMW's certification of compliance that is affixed to all 750s raises the presumption that the BMW HID system meets Federal requirements.

A HID system may emit light that is perceived to be somewhat whiter than emitted by conventional headlamps. It may also be perceived as "stronger", to use your word, but a properly aimed HID system should create no more discomfort glare in the eyes of an oncoming driver than a conventional one.

ID: nht94-6.33

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from Ray Paradis to John Womack (OCC 9823)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of March 28, 1994, with respect to whether an intermediate side marker lamp is required on a 24-ton ramp trailer whose "overall length is 30'8" in transport position."

We interpret the term "transport position" to mean the position that the ramp is in when the trailer is in operation, the configuration depicted by the upper drawing in the sheet you enclosed. Because the overall length of the trailer exceeds 30 feet, Table I of Standard No. 108 requires that it be equipped with an intermediate side marker lamp.

We note your remarks that competing trailers are not equipped with this lamp, and have referred the matter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

ID: nht94-6.34

DATE: April 13, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Bus Distributors Ass'n.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE TO MY QUESTIONS FAXED TO YOU ON 1/12/94 AND 2/14/94. THE "APPENDIX" PROVIDED HAS AND I AM SURE WILL PROVIDE MUCH MORE BENEFIT IN TIME.

I AM FACED, NOW, WITH A NEW QUANDARY. I CERTAINLY DO NOT MEAN TO IMPOSE ADDED WORK LOAD, AND I ASSURE YOU THAT I HAVE READ AND REREAD FMVSS 571.108 - LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, FOR MY ANSWER.

IN 571.108 SECTION S5.5.7 - REFERENCE TO VEHICLES INCLUDING BUSES, OF LESS THAN 80 INCHES OVERALL WIDTH - HAVE VERY DEFINITE WIRING PROGRAMS INCLUDED, PART (a) AND (b) - IN BOTH SUB-SECTIONS THE "MAKER LIGHTS" ARE REFERRED TO - WHICH HAVE TO BE ACTIVATED WHEN THE PARKING OR HEADLIGHT SWITCH IS ACTIVATED.

MY "QUANDARY" IS - I CAN FIND NO LIKE OR SIMILAR SECTION REQUIRING THE ACTIVATION OF SPECIFIC LIGHTS ON VEHICLES OF MORE THAN 80 INCHES IN OVERALL WIDTH.

ANY HELP AND/OR KNOWLEDGE OF A SIMILAR POSITION/FACTOR ON VEHICLES OF MORE THAN 80 INCHES IN WIDTH AS THOSE OF 80 INCHES OR LESS WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

ID: nht94-6.35

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eldon J. McLauchlin -- President, Valley Automotive Specialties, Inc. (Spokane, Washington)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/25/94 from Eldon J. McLauchlin to John Womack (OCC 9612)

TEXT:

This responds to your January 25, 1994, letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the Automated Fire Extinguisher System (AFES). You state that your product's purpose is to allow the operators and occupants of a vehicle to exit safely in the event of a fire. Apparently, the AFES sensors will detect smoke and heat and respond by automatically opening some sort of control valve, whereupon a manifold assembly with "strategically placed directional nozzles" will flood the passenger compartment with some sort of fire extinguisher/retardant. You do not state what kind of fire extinguisher/retardant is used. You explain that the automatic nature of this system will provide time to extract even an unconscious or incapacitated operator or occupant.

Apparently, the AFES has wide applicability. You explain that the AFES proto-type can be installed in a car, truck, boat, RV, or bus or other vehicle running on a 12 volt battery. Apparently you will modify the AFES so that it will run off the 110 volt current in homes and commercial buildings.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS'S) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component OR AS ANY ACCESSORY, or addition to the motor vehicle... (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the AFES, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial

portion of the expected use of the AFES system relates to motor vehicle operation. The system is intended to protect anyone occupying a vehicle when a fire occurs. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While it appears that the AFES system is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. 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.

We have some concerns about the safety impacts if the AFES were to activate while the vehicle is moving. Is it possible, for example, that a driver smoking in the car on a hot day could accidentally set off the sensors, or that they could malfunction spontaneously? Although we do not know what will be coming through the nozzles (fluid, foam, and inert gases are common fire extinguishing agents), we are concerned that AFES activation could cause the driver to lose control in what is otherwise a controllable situation. We urge you to thoroughly consider these and other factors that could affect the safety of motor vehicle operation.

If the AFES were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the AFES installed complies with all FMVSS's. Among the FMVSS's that might be affected by certain AFES installations are Standard No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact," and Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection."

A commercial business that installs the AFES system would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 208 might be degraded if it were necessary to mount the AFES manifold or directional nozzles in front of the driver or passenger. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the AFES in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA

encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact us at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-6.36

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. Roberts -- John H. Roberts Well Drilling Co. (Brighton, MI)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/7/94 from J. Roberts to John Womack (OCC 9780)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1994. You ask for clarification of the agency's position on HMMMV vehicles, as expressed in our letter to Senator Nunn, a copy of which I sent you on February 28.

Specifically, you ask for "the list of the specific objections your department based its recommendation on." As we explained to Senator Nunn, this agency has specifically exempted military motor vehicles from the statutory requirement that all motor vehicles be manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The standards that would otherwise cover HMMMV vehicles are those that apply to "multipurpose passenger vehicles" or to "trucks", depending upon the end configuration of any specific HMMMV vehicle.

Thus, our objection was based on the fact that military HMMMVs are not manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We have no knowledge of the specific standards that military HMMMVs do and do not meet, since we have never asked its manufacturer to provide this information.

ID: nht94-6.37

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Adam A. Freund -- Manager, Testing Services, Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. (Massillon, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/10/94 from Adam A. Freund to Walter Myers (OCC 9556)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter addressed to the attention of Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether Table II of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, contains certain errors.

You pointed out in your letter that Table I of FMVSS 119 specifies a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch for motorcycles, and 3/4 inch for 12-inch or smaller rims other than motorcycles. Table II, on the other hand, leaves blank the plunger diameter space, in the motorcycle column, but lists 5/16 inch plunger diameter in the 12-inch or smaller rim column. You indicated your belief that the inconsistency is due to a typographical error in those columns of Table II and asked us to confirm your interpretation.

Your observation is correct. A November 13, 1973 rule adopting Tables I and II (38 FR 31299) (copy enclosed) specifies the 5/16-inch diameter plunger for motorcycle tires, and the 3/4-inch diameter plunger for 12-inch or smaller tires and 17.5- inch or smaller light truck tubeless tires. Accordingly, the plunger diameter for the motorcycle column in Table II should read 5/16. Similarly, the 12-inch or smaller column in the current Table II is in error in specifying a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch. The correct plunger diameter for that column in Table II should be 3/4 inch to correspond with the plunger diameter specified for 12-inch or smaller rims in Table I.

Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. The agency will issue a correction to avoid any further confusion.

ID: nht94-6.38

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ted H. Richardson -- Fleet Coordinator, Priefert Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Mt. Pleasant, Texas)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/15/93 from Ted H. Richardson to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9478)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone call to this office asking our opinion regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Your letter referenced a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff about the applicability of FMVSS 120 to your product. As Mr. Myers informed you, the answer to your question depends on whether your product, the "Wishbone Carriage" used to position and carry the "Priefert livestock chute" is a "motor vehicle" (i.e., trailer) under our Safety Act and regulations. Based on the information we have, we believe the answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles. Section 102(3) (15 U.S.C. S1391(3)) of the Safety Act defines motor vehicle 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.

NHTSA further defines "trailer" in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

(A) motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

Your letter enclosed a brochure containing pictures and other information relating to the livestock chute (Priefert Squeeze Chute, Model 91). The chute is farm equipment. The upper 2/3 of the chute is constructed of steel bars, while the lower 1/3 is composed of steel panels on both sides that can be lowered or removed. The chute comes with such accessories as head gate, tail gate, and calf table. The chute is positioned on the ground in a barnyard, feed lot, pasture, or field. It is used to channel livestock or, with the head and/or tail gate in place, to immobilize an animal for medicating, branding, tagging, and the like. Your information also describes the carriage that transports the chute. The Wishbone Carriage is a 2-wheeled U-shaped dolly which is designed to be manually attached to special fittings on the chute. With the carriage thus attached, the chute can be towed by vehicle to the next job site. Once at the next job site, the wheeled carriage is detached and the chute is once again placed on the ground for use.

Whether the Wishbone Carriage is a motor vehicle (trailer) depends on its on-road use. This agency has consistently held that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining equipment, are not considered motor vehicles even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, as well as equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor vehicles. That is because the use of these vehicles on the public roadways is intermittent and merely incidental to their primary off-road use.

We have determined that the Wishbone Carriage is not a motor vehicle, because it appears it will be primarily used to transport the chute from job site to job site on the farm. Not being a motor vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including FMVSS No. 120, would not apply to your product.

Please note, however, that if the Carriage is regularly used to carry the chute from farm to farm on public roads, or is used more frequently on the public roads than the use we anticipate, the agency may reexamine the determination that the carriage is not a motor vehicle. Also, you may wish to consult your attorney for information on possible operational restrictions on your product, such as State licensing and use laws and product liability.

I hope this information is helpful to you. We have enclosed a copy of FMVSS 120 and provided you our definition of a trailer, as you requested. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-6.39

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. Hulshof -- Nedap N.V. (The Netherlands)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter/fax dated 12/14/93 from J. Hulshof to Patrick Boyd (OCC 9448)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Patrick Boyd requesting a written interpretation concerning whether your sunroof would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118, "Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and are subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine your product and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control.

You explain in your letter that your power-operated sunroof (which is a power operated "roof panel system" under Standard 118) can be closed only in four circumstances. In three of these, the ignition key must be activated. In the fourth, the sunroof can be closed when there is "Continuous operation of Central close mechanism, not capable (sic) closing the roof panel from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle."

Standard 118 requires sunroofs other than those that have an automatic reversing feature to close only in certain circumstances. One of those (S4(a)) is when the key controlling the vehicle's engine is in the activated (i.e. "on", "start" or "accessory") position. The three circumstances you described where the ignition key must be activated to operate the sunroof appear to satisfy S4(a).

With regard to the fourth circumstance, Standard 118 also permits sunroofs to close "Upon continuous activation of a remote actuation device, provided that the...device shall be incapable of closing the (sunroof) from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle" (S4(d)). The circumstance you described appears to satisfy S4(d). Your sunroof will close only upon continuous operation of a "Central close mechanism," and the mechanism is incapable of closing the sunroof from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-6.4

DATE: May 4, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Distributors Ass'n. (OCC-9945)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have today received the preliminary data from one of the members of NYSBDA the following "fax".

As noted in the preliminary data of FMVSS 217 - there are a number of bus body distributors. As also noted these are small business operations and many, many things affect their ability to carry on a successful company profitable operation. Among the "things" is keeping current with the "school bus regulations". In the process of their daily business - the sales and pricing of their vehicles to comply with the requirements of state and federal regulations and standards is very important. I hope you are readily able to realize the point I am trying to make. Quick changes can be very detrimental to that profit factor as well as the individual position of accountability to, not only their customers - but to themselves.

As you can readily view from the following "fax" there are certain "conditions" that are acceptable to the manufacturer.

We have a special position here in New York State - in that the state regulations exceed the minimum 217 requirements (except for placement of left side emergency door). NYS requires added emergency exits, such as push-out windows and roof hatches based upon capacity of the vehicle.

The distributors now are faced here in New York State with a very large unknown factor. To meet the state regulations - for door (L/S/E/D) placement - with folding seat cushion - longer body length - aisle dimension factor at L/S/E/D. Anything that you can furnish and supply to me in a timely fashion - to help my association membership will be greatly appreciated.

Attachment

CARPENTER MANUFACTURING, INC.

BULLETIN NO. 94 - 34

May 3, 1994 TO: All Carpenter Distributors

SUBJECT: EMERGENCY EXIT - DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE

NHTSA has postponed enactment of certain parts of FMVSS 217 relative to emergency exits; this change was to have taken effect on May 2, 1994. We were notified by fax on May 2nd that the effective date of the "additional emergency exit" requirement "has been delayed until September 1, 1994."

Carpenter will allow its distributors to omit certain options on orders currently in-house at no change order fee, provided the following conditions are met:

1. Order is not on schedule or started at time of receipt of change order; 2. Change order must be received by Friday, 5/13/94; 3. Only options on list below can be deleted or changed; 4. No pre-built orders can be changed; 5. Body length change will require cancellation of current order and resubmission of new order at current pricing.

Approved option deletions are:

1. Side emergency door and related components; 2. Flip seats and 4-logged seats; 3. Heater plumbing and routing; 4. Roof hatches and push-out sash not required by state specs.

Please note that the rear door hold-open device and reflective striping around the rear door opening will still be required and cannot be deleted.

You must keep in mind that orders are being schedule constantly; therefore, it is important to get any change order faxed as soon as possible. You will be notified by Martin Miller as to whether or not your change order can be accepted.

You may cover more than one body order on each change order, but all bodies on a given change order must have identical changes.

Todd Bontrager Asst. Vice President of Sales School Bus Division

ID: nht94-6.40

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: Christopher A. Hart -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Doug Bereuter -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/9/94 from Doug Bereuter to Howard Smolkin

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter concerning a rulemaking related to compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle fuel systems and fuel containers. You express concern about the time it is taking to complete the rulemaking.

I fully understand your concern over this matter and want to assure you that the agency is working diligently to reach a final decision. The supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking we issued in December 1993 was an essential step toward permitting the use of CNG containers that employ new technologies. We have now reviewed the comments received on this notice and are preparing the final rule. As agency representatives explained when they met with you in December 1993, the final rule will be reviewed by the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget.

I hope this information is helpful and appreciate your patience in this matter.

ATTACHMENT

12/3/93

Dear Congressman Doug Bereuter:

This is in response to your November 22, 1993, letter regarding the actions of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in regulating the safe performance of compressed natural gas motor vehicles and fuel containers. I understand that representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are scheduled to meet with you during the week of December 6 to discuss the points you raised in your letter. I think that they will be able to address your concerns at that time; however, I'd be happy to talk with you further about this if necessary.

Sincerely,

Federico Pena