ID: nht94-8.50

DATE: January 19, 1994

FROM: Donald F. Lett -- Lett Electronics Co.

TO: Department of Transportation -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/18/94 From John Womack To Donald Lett (A42; Std. 109; Std. 110; Part 575.104)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I was directed to your department by Mr. Duane Perrin to resolve any legal responsibility, if any, for the following question;

Is there any pre-necessary authorization needed to modify an existing passenger tire, for instance a 215-70-R15 blackwall radial tire?

Proposed Modification

Grind down the existing sidewall 1/8 to 3/16 inch deep by 2 1/2" wide. Then vulcanizing white rubber into this recess making a 2 1/2" whitewall radial tire out of a previously D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire.

Thereupon we would merchandise this tire Nation wide to a specific classic car buff of the 1955-1960 era. Your kind attention to this matter would be greatly appreciate.

Thank you,

ID: nht94-8.6

ID: nht94-8.7

DATE: February 21, 1994

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Richard Kuykendall -- 3M

TITLE: 49 CFR Part 571.217; Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release; Federal Register Vol 57, No. 212, Monday, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Section S5.5.3(c) of the referenced final rule requires that:

"Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1."

In a May 17, 1993 letter, Blue Bird requested the following interpretations regarding the requirements of Section S5.5.3(c):

"Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening."

In support of this request, the letter stated --

"The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges, or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads."

Your response to our May 17, 1993 letter dated July 7, 1993 documented a telephone conversation between Mary Versailles of your staff and myself in which I provided the following additional information in support of our request:

"In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retro-reflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape." You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retro-reflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear pushout window or

rear door), for two reasons. First you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivet, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off."

Your response of July 7, 1993 provided the following interpretations:

"NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivet, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retro-reflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retro-reflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six-inches."

Blue Bird sincerely appreciated the above timely and conscientious response which recognized the real world manufacturing problems we were facing and which provided reasonable flexibility in meeting the requirements while maintaining strict adherence to the requisites of the November 2, 1992 final rule. The above response enabled Blue Bird to design and incorporate into production acceptable retro-reflective tape installations for side door, side window, and roof emergency exits.

However, the installation of retro-reflective tape on the rear of the school buses is still a major problem because of the limited amount of area on the rear of school buses and the many features required by federal and state standards. These features include taillights, stop lights, turn signal lights, backup lights, license plate holder and light, reflectors, large windows, extended rubrails, exit door or windows, hinges, handles, labels, and a multitude of fasteners to meet FMVSS 221 School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Attached are two pages taken from our May 17, 1993 request for interpretation that illustrate these problems that require cutting, notching, and punching of holes in the tape around the rear school bus exits. Our supplier of retro- reflective tape, 3M, has been unable to provide us a product that is cut, notched, and/or punched with sealed edges that would help ensure the longevity, durability, and effectiveness of the retro-reflective tape. In order to provide ongoing safety, the retro-reflective tape must remain on the bus and retain its reflective properties. Without proper sealing of the holes and notches, the longevity of the tape is questionable.

Since January 1993, in order to enhance the conspicuity and thereby the safety of school buses, Blue Bird has been installing retro-reflective tape down the sides and around the perimeter of the rear of new school buses as part of

standard equipment. Attached are illustrations and an advertising flyer showing the standard equipment designs we have developed to minimize installation problems and maximize conspicuity of the vehicles. The materials and patterns used are compatible with the FMVSS 108 requirements NHTSA has established for large trailers. SINCE ALL SCHOOL BUSES ARE REQUIRED BY FMVSS 217 TO HAVE A REAR EMERGENCY EXIT, Blue Bird believes that outlining the rear perimeter of the buses rather than just the perimeter of the emergency exit opening is more practical, reasonable and in the best interest of safety. We, therefore, request an interpretation stating that RETRO-REFLECTIVE TAPE AROUND THAT PERIMETER OF THE REAR OF A SCHOOL BUS CAN BE USED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF S5.5.3(C). Such an interpretation would meet the intent of the November 2, 1992 final rule by allowing the retro-reflective tape to continue to satisfy the requisite of identifying the location of the rear emergency exits to rescuers while substantially improving its ability to increase the on- the-road conspicuity of the bus. We believe such an interpretation is also consistent with your July 7, 1993 interpretation which said "....the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter." Based on the problems we are having on the rear of the school buses, we now consider the locations chosen for our standard equipment perimeter marking "AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE" to the exit perimeter.

Thank you for consideration of this request for interpretation. Our purpose in making this request is to enhance the effectiveness of the material we install to meet S5.5.3(c) and make school buses safer. The length, width, and total area of reflective tape we are proposing to install on the rear of school buses by requesting the above interpretation is significantly greater than what would be required to outline only the perimeter of the exit opening. The new FMVSS 217 requirements become effective May 2, 1994 and therefore an early and favorable response is urgently requested. We believe our request can be resolved with an interpretation because it is compatible with both the wording and the intent of the standard. If, however, it cannot be handled as an interpretation, we request that this letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking per 49 CFR Part 552. Thank you.

ATTACHMENTS

Illustrations omitted.

ID: nht94-8.8

DATE: February 18, 1994

FROM: Gilbert Gallahar -- Kings Environmental Hydrogen Systems

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/18/94 From Jonhn Womack To Gilbert Gallahar (A42; Std. 301)

TEXT: Ref. Request for interpretations on requirements for an on board Hydrogen Generator to be used on an internal combustion engine (stationary and mobile) to help control exhaust emissions.

Dear Mr. Womack,

Our company manufactures a hydrogen generator, that is installed on any gasoline or diesel vehicle (except engines with 2 spark plugs per cylinder and 2 cycle diesel engines), to help cut HC, CO and NOx.

This device takes water, and on demand, by electrolysis, manufactures hydrogen and oxygen. The gases (the higher form of water or the molecular form of water), are then pumped immediately to the normal (OEM) intake air stream of an internal combustion engine. The air stream gets this mixture, mixes it with the air, and sends it to the combustion chambers where it mixes with the primary fuel (diesel or gasoline), and ignited.

To insure that the hydrogen tank is never under pressure, the generator is designed to be operated without positive pressure. The vacuum pump is designed to pick up all gases generated and send it directly to the OEM intake air system. There is at least 3 systems in place, which independent of the other 2 systems, act to relieve the pressure in the producing tank. When the system is turned off, even without the pump working, in less than 15 minutes, all the pressure within the tank has been equalized to that of the outside atmospheric pressure.

The connection to drive the generator comes through a 15 amp. fused electrical line from the battery, through a relay, that is connected to the ignition. The device is connected such that the only time it is on is when the ignition is on.

Hydrogen is a non toxic gas, that is extremely buoyant. This buoyancy prevents any pockets of gas forming outside of its dictated path. If any hydrogen should escape, the buoyancy would cause the gas to find any way out, to the surrounding atmosphere.

The electrolyte is food grade, and is in, less of a concentration,

2

than a weak lemonade. NEPA Rating: Health - 0, Flammability - 0, Reactivity - 0. RCRA Hazard Class, Dilute solution (if discarded) non-hazardous. DOT hazard class, corrosive material.

From a safety point of view, the hydrogen generator is a much safer device than the battery. We are a tank of water as opposed to a tank of acid. We both make hydrogen but our hydrogen is vented out as soon as it is made. The hydrogen generator is protected to a maximum current draw of 15 amps. The hydrogen generator is designed to work under a slight negative pressure (supplied by the pump) and within minutes, of the engine being turned off, there is no hydrogen pressure left in the system. If the water should run out, there is no longer any current path, therefore no current flow. The vehicle then operates as if the device did not exist.

Enclosed is a set of installation instructions. The installation of the hydrogen generator in no way interferes with any OEM device of the vehicle to be installed.

Please, let me know as soon as is possible, your interpretation of NHTSA statutes, regulations or standards for our device.

Sincerely Yours,

ID: nht94-8.9

DATE: February 17, 1994

FROM: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TO: Barbara A. Gray, Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from Barry Felrice to Karl-Heinz Ziwica (Part 543)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gray:

This letter is to inform the agency that beginning with the 1995 model year, BMW will be utilizing the 7-carline parts marking exemption granted by the NHTSA on October 9, 1986 (51 CFR 3633). As was explained to you by Mr. James C. Patterson of my staff on February 7, 1994, there have been three updates to the anti-theft device previously approved on the 7-carline. Accordingly, BMW requests that the NHTSA determine these updates constitute de minimus changes to the 7-carline's anti-theft device.

The following paragraphs describes the updates:

1. The remote device has become an integral component within the vehicle key and is the actuator for the alarm system. This change is identical to the change that BMW made on the 8-carline anti-theft device, which NHTSA has already determined to be de minimus (NHTSA letter from Mr. Barry Felrice to K.-H. Ziwica dated 10/04/93).

2. The monitoring circuits for radio theft and glove box entry, now, monitor glass breakage to further ensure the security of the entire occupant compartment, rather than, the individual components. All other monitoring (e.g. doors, hood, trunk, etc.) has remained as when the device was previously approved.

3. The anti-theft device's siren has been changed to a 112db siren.

If further information is needed or you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Patterson on (201) 573-2041.

ID: nht94-9.1

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 14, 1994

FROM: James M. Keitges -- President, Native American Motorcycle Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/3/94 from James Womack to James M. Keitges (A42; VSA Sect. 103(d))

TEXT:

Please allow me to introduce you to the Native American Motorcycle Company. The company is in the process of organizing to become the O.E.M. for large displacement motorcycles. We are currently sifting through information in order to comply with all Federal regulations as they apply to the manufacturing of motorcycles.

In order to make this task as succinct as possible, I am writing to request a statement from your office. The statement should confirm that once the company has complied with all Federal NHTSA statutes, regulations and standards, then the company has also complied with the State and Local requirements as applicable to NHTSA.

This statement will expedite our research and result in quicker compliance at all levels. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to working with your office in the future.

ID: nht94-9.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard J. Dessert -- Proprietor, Sun Cycle Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/28/93 from Richard J. Dessert to NHTSA Administrator (OCC-8731) and letter dated 5/7/93 from John W. Schumann

TEXT:

This responds to your petition of May 28, 1993, to the Administrator for a temporary exemption for low emission motor vehicles that you would like to produce. These vehicles would be purchased by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The response deadline for LADWP's Request for Proposal (RFP) was June 1, 1993. You have informed us that

"As part of LADWP requirements for successful bidders, evidence of progress towards obtaining Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards certification may be provided through demonstration that an application was made with NHTSA for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards."

Because this matter affects LADWP as well as Sun Cycle Company, we are sending a copy of this response to the designated LADWP contact, Jeffrey S. Silverstone.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) did not receive your petition until June 8, and therefore had no chance to advise you with respect to it before the RFP deadline of June 1. We must inform you that the petition does not meet our procedural requirements and is not accepted for processing and action.

There are several areas in which the petition is deficient. Most importantly, it appears to be a request for a blanket exemption from compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. While the applicable law and regulation do not forbid this, you should know that the Administrator has never entertained a petition of this breadth and in all probability would never grant one. An applicant for a low-emission vehicle exemption must provide sufficient information upon which the Administrator may find that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the motor vehicle, and that the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We do not believe that the Administrator could make the requisite findings to support a blanket exemption. It is NHTSA's policy to encourage manufacturers to manufacture conforming vehicles to the extent possible, and to narrow the scope of their requests for exemption. Low-emission vehicle petitions generally cover four to 14 standards.

As part of your argument, you must set forth each individual standard from which you request exemption, and provide a detailed description of how your vehicle differs from a conforming one. You must also provide reasons why an exemption from each standard for which request is made would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle, something more than the general

statement you have made that the first prototypes will "substantially comply with all the safety standards.: Finally, you must present your views why an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act. When we have received a petition from you that fulfills these requirements, we shall be pleased to accept it for consideration and public comment. As the vehicle you intend to manufacture is completely unknown to NHTSA, your new petition should also contain photographs or descriptive literature illustrating it.

Our closing comment is that you or the LADWP may be unclear about vehicle certification. A manufacturer does not "obtain" certification from NHTSA. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which the manufacturer certifies its vehicles after satisfying itself that it conforms to the standards, aside from those from which it may have been exempted. It does not have to have permission from NHTSA to do so. You intend to test the vehicles, and such testing could provide substantiation for your certification of compliance, or, alternatively, substantiation to NHTSA that an exemption would not unduly degrade the vehicle's safety.

If you have any questions about this matter, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202) 366-5263).

ID: nht94-9.3

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1994

FROM: Don Vierimaa -- Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: Pat Boyd -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/94 from John Womack to Don Vierimaa (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

A customer has requested that a 4 inch (100 mm) wide retroreflective sheeting be placed along the side of a trailer he is ordering. The manufacturer is reluctant to provide this width of sheeting since the rule states in S5.7.1.3(d) that Grade DOT-C2 sheeting shall have a width of 50 mm. This provides no tolerance nor does it provide a minimum.

May a manufacturer install 4 inch (100 mm) wide retroreflective sheeting instead of 2 inch (50 mm) sheeting on the side of new trailers?

ID: nht94-9.4

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1994

FROM: Sam Nunn -- Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate

TO: Jackie Lowey -- Acting Director of Congressional Affairs, U.S. Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/8/94 from John Womack to Sam Nunn (A42; Part 571.7, letter dated 12/22/93 from Bill Lee to Sam Nunn, and letter dated 12/17/93 from Tim Adamson to Bill Lee

TEXT:

I recently received the enclosed inquiry from one of my constituents. Please review the matter thoroughly, in accordance with established policies and procedures, and provide me with a full report.

I look forward to hearing from you in the very near future.

ID: nht94-9.5

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Ken Weinstein

TO: Kathryn A. Roach -- Cooper Perskie April Niedelman Wagenheim & Levenson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/11/93 from Kathryn A. Roach to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC-9344), letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208) and letter dated 3/4/93 from John Womack to Robert A. Ernst

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 11, 1993, requesting confirmation of a statement made by a NHTSA engineer that there is no federal regulation that requires replacement of a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

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