ID: nht94-1.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Rowe Manufacturing

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: GLAD-GRIP

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Neil Rowe (A42; Std. 106)

TEXT:

The Glad-Grip started as a useful device to help connect and disconnect the hydraulic hoses on farm implements. This device is called the Hydra-Grip. As time passed and the Hydra-Grip became better known, several truckers saw the Hydra-Grip and thought they would be an asset on the air hoses of semi truck tractors. There is nothing on the air hoses to get a grip on except the hose itself or the spring below the glad hand. Especially during cold weather when drivers twist the glad hand loose from its mating coupler half, the hose would be bent at a severe angle causing the hose to either break or develop a leak. This problem is greatly reduced by installing the Glad-Grip, a very durable and simple handle. Safety is also a factor as the operator's hand is not in contact with the air hose itself.

The Glad-Grip has a machined steel core designed and tested to withstand a minimum of 3000 psi of hydraulic pressure, far in excess of the pressure on the air line system. The center bore of the core exceeds DOT requirements of at least 66% of the air l ine inside diameter. The threads, both male and female, are cut to American National Standard Institute one half inch NPTF threads.

It is the desire of Rowe Manufacturing to provide a safe and economical device for the trucking industry. To help minimize down time and costly repairs associated with broken hoses. At the same time we want to abide by all DOT standards and regulations .

Thank you for your consideration of our product. If you have any questions regarding our product feel free to call.

ID: nht94-1.20

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 Fed eral 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 al so 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: nht94-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

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: nht94-1.22

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terry Karas -- T. K. Auto Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/5/93 from Terry Karas to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of November 5, 1993.

You have asked whether a Canadian car that was accompanied by a Canadian manufacturer's letter stating that the vehicle complies with U.S. safety standards can be imported as a conforming vehicle under Box 2.

Box 2 on the HS-7 importation form is the importer's declaration under 49 CFR 591.5(b) that the motor vehicle to be imported complies with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bears a certification label or tag to that effect, affixed by the original manufacturer of the vehicle. Because some Canadian vehicles may be virtually identical to those manufactured in the United States, and hence may comply with U.S. safety standards even if not bearing a specific certification to U. S. safety standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has accepted, in lieu of specific certification to U.S. safety standards, a letter from the Canadian manufacturer stating that the vehicle to be imported was manufactured to comply w ith the U.S. safety standards.

If a manufacturer's compliance letter accompanies a vehicle manufactured for sale in Canada at the time such vehicle is offered for importation into the United States, the vehicle may be entered under Box 2 as a conforming vehicle, without the interventi on of a registered importer or the issuance of a bond. However, the manufacturer's compliance letter must contain the VIN of the specific vehicle that is to be imported, and an unqualified statement that the vehicle, as manufactured, complied with all a pplicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Customs will then forward the HS-7 form and manufacturer's letter to this agency. However, if customs wishes us to review the manufacturer's letter, it is the prerogative of Customs to defer entry of the vehicle until it has received our views as to whe ther entry under Box 2 is appropriate.

You have also asked whether it makes "a difference if it is being imported for commercial or private purposes." Any Canadian vehicle that is accompanied by an acceptable manufacturer's letter of compliance is eligible for entry as a conforming vehicle u nder Box 2, regardless of whether the intent of importation is the commercial sale of the vehicle, or the retention of the vehicle for private use. However, if the letter is not an acceptable statement of compliance and the importation is for commercial purposes, the vehicle may only be imported under bond by a registered importer who must satisfy NHTSA that the vehicle complies, or has been brought into compliance, with the U.S. safety standards. Even though the registered importer's compliance work may be minimal, it is important to remember that the registered importer is also the person

responsible by statute for implementing notification and remedy campaigns in the event that noncompliances of the original manufacturer or safety related defects are discovered in the Canadian vehicle.

ID: nht94-1.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lloyd Boshaw -- M&L Auto Trim

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/90 from Paul Jackson Rice to David Holscher and letter dated 12/28/93 from Lloyd Boshaw to John Womack (OCC-9512)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of January 28, 1993, asking whether you must disconnect an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp when you add an aftermarket spoiler to the deck lid that incorporates such a lamp.

I enclose a copy of an interpretive letter we sent David Holscher on August 31, 1990, which remains our position today. In brief, a spoiler lamp will supersede the original equipment center lamp. When the spoiler is installed, Federal law does not dict ate whether the original lamp must be disconnected or remain usable. That question is answerable under State law, and we suggest that you consult the Department of California Highway Patrol for its views. If California has no regulation bearing on this problem, we assume that you may either disconnect the original lamp or leave it connected, as your customers desire.

ID: nht94-1.24

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kathy Rose -- Account Directive, FitzGerald Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/12/93 from Kathy Rose to Glen Beck (OCC 9528)

TEXT:

Your letter of October 12, 1993, to the office of Motor Carriers in Sacramento, has reached us for reply. Your company produces a "trailer skirting" for van trailers, and some of your customers have asked "whether it is legal to have the retroreflective tape (which is required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108) to be applied to the length of the trailer be placed below the trailer, on the trailer skirting."

The letter does not indicate whether the skirting is intended as original or aftermarket equipment. If the skirting is original equipment that is added to the trailer at the time of its manufacture and intended to remain there for the life of the traile r, the conspicuity treatment required by the standard may be affixed to it, provided that it is mounted as near as practicable within a range that is not less than 375mm and not more than 1525mm (approximately 15 to 60 inches) above the road surface. Un der that condition, the portion of the trailer side that is above the skirting need not be equipped with the conspicuity treatment. If the skirting is aftermarket equipment, there is no requirement or restriction relating to conspicuity treatment of the skirting. We assume that the trailer to which it will be attached, if manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, will bear conspicuity markings in accordance with the standard.

ID: nht94-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: Allan Garman -- M.F. Bank & Co., Inc., Denver Branch

TO: Walt Myers -- NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Rulemaking Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/31/94 From John Womack To Allan Garman (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(1)(A)

TEXT: Total number of pages INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE: 5

Mr. Myers:

As a followup to our telephone conversation this afternoon regarding the saleability of 287 baby car seats being transported inside a tractor-trailer which was involved in an accident, my 4-pg. "File Report" to the Insurance Adjuster follows for your re view.

Although the "File Report" contains some information which will be of minimal interest to you, I felt it best if I provided you with all the information I have.

Please respond by answering the following questions:

1) Is there law in effect which would prohibit us from selling the involved car seats as salvage due to the fact that they were involved in a transit accident?

2) Assuming the subject car seats complied with all federal safety regulations and guidelines prior to being involved in this truck accident, are there any other laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, or recommended practices under the NHTSA's jurisdictio n which we should consider before offering these car seats for eventual sale to the public?

3) Can we arrange to have an NHTSA representative from the local Denver office inspect these car seats at our warehouse and render an opinion as to whether they comply with all applicable federal safety standards?

My most sincere thanks to you for researching this matter for us. I look forward to your response.

Please find my address, telephone number, and fax number on the "File Report" letterhead.

(ATTACHMENT OMITTED)

ID: nht94-1.26

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 24, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerome Cysewski

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/20/93 from Jerome Cysewski to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC-9250)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal requirements to two vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response. According to your letter, one vehicle is a 13,600 pound cement silo that has tandem axles. The second vehicl e is a 6,400 pound aggregate batch plant that has a single axle. The cement silo and batch plant are mounted on their own trailers, and are equipped with electric brakes. Each vehicle is pulled by a one ton truck with hydraulic brakes. You also stated that both vehicles are mobile but are designed to be towed for off-the-road set and positioning. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The Safety Act defines the ter m "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." (Section 102(3))

If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Whether NHTSA considers a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on the use for which it is manufactured. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, suc h 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. In 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 is more than "incidental."

Your letter does not provide sufficient information for us to determine the extent to which the two vehicles would use the public roads. Nor can we determine whether the on-highway use of the vehicles would be merely incidental and not the primary purpo se for which they are manufactured.

However, you should be able to determine whether the vehicles are considered motor vehicles based on the information set forth above.

If the vehicles are considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act, they would be required to meet all safety standards applicable to trailers. Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecti ng motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

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: nht94-1.27

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/20/93 from Lawrence F. Henneberger to John G. Womack (OCC 9115)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you request an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, on behalf of your client, MICO, Inc. I apologize for the delay in our response. You ask that the agency g ive you an interpretation that FMVSS 105 does not preclude the installation of MICO's product, an auxiliary hydraulic brake lock, under the circumstances you have described.

As you note in your letter, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment com ply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

According to your letter, MICO's auxiliary hydraulic brake lock operates as follows. The device permits hydraulic system fluid to pass from the master cylinder to the brakes when the brake pedal is applied, thereby increasing hydraulic brake pressure. The device then blocks the return of the hydraulic fluid to the master cylinder when pressure is removed from the brake pedal. The device is not designed to be used when the vehicle is in motion, but only when the vehicle has been brought to a full stop, and the mechanical parking brake applied. At that point, the vehicle operator activates the auxiliary brake lock by means of a separate control switch. The device is deactivated prior to moving the vehicle.

FMVSS 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic brake service brake and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to vehicles with hydraulic service brake systems. In the case of an auxiliary hydraulic brake lock, there is no applicable sta ndard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, since installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with safety standards.

If MICO's auxiliary brake lock is installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the entire brake system satisfies the requirements of FMVSS 105. If the device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the a lteration. In particular, the vehicle would need to continue to comply with FMVSS 105.

MICO, as the manufacturer of the device, would have no certification responsibilities. However, a vehicle manufacturer or alterer might require

information from MICO in order to make its necessary certification. Much of the information that you provided to us in your request for an interpretation might be useful in this regard.

Should the auxiliary brake lock be installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the installer would not have to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not kn owingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard.

I note that while we do not have any opinion about the safety of MICO's product, it is our understanding that certain vehicle manufacturers have stated that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles. I enclose an example from a GMC service bulletin. MICO may wish to consult with these manufacturers concerning whether the use of its product in these vehicles would raise any safety concerns.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies Federal statues and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. I note that the Safety Acts's provisions concerning defects are applicable to motor vehicle equipment manufacturers even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard.

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

ID: nht94-1.28

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 25, 1994

FROM: Eldon J. McLauchlin -- President, Valley Automotive Specialties, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel of NHTSA

TITLE: Certification Opinion

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 to Eldon J. McLauchlin from John Womack (A42; VSA 102(4))

TEXT:

I contacted your office on 1/24/94 regarding information on certification pertaining to a product I have developed. I was advised by an associate of yours' to write you a letter explaining the purpose of the product and a brief description of it's uses and how it operates.

The product is an Automated Fire Extinguisher System. The AFES can be used on automobiles, trucks, boats, RV's, and buses. We will also be modifying the existing proto-type so that it can be installed in homes and commercial buildings.

The purpose of this product is to enable the operator/occupant of vehicles or buildings to exit safely in the event of a fire. The automation of the control valve will activate the extinguisher even if the operator/occupant is not able to due to unconsc iousness or other circumstances beyond their control. This product will allow sufficient time for the operator/occupant to escape or be extracted from the vehicle or building.

The AFES will operate on a 12 volt system, most commonly found on all types of motor vehicles, boats, etc. The AFES will also operate on a 110 volt system, common in all homes and buildings. Activation will be accomplished through smoke and heat sensor s, a valve and manifold assembly with strategically placed directional nozzles. The number of directional nozzles required will depend on the size of the vehicle or building that has the AFES installed. Once the AFES is installed it will stay maintaina ble and can be recharged.

In closing, if it is your opinion that this lifesaving system needs to be certified by the appropriate agency(s) or if you need further information in order to determine your opinion, please contact me. I would greatly appreciate it if you could make av ailable to me the information I will need to accomplish the certification if you decide it is necessary. Thank you for your time and consideration.