ID: nht94-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Frances J. Chamberlain

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/6/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Frances J. Chamberlain (A43; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: I am writing in regards to car accessory regulations. I have been working on a design that would attach to the back side of the drivers and passengers seat. I have researched the regulations contained in Title 49 (Transportation) of the Code of Federal Regulations and (Parts 500-599) by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Are there regulations as to the distance that must be clear between the back side of the drivers seat and the back seat? This is an emergency accessory and could also be kept under the seat. I am trying to find an interior space of the automobile to att ach or store this unit.

Once again I would like to attach this unit to the back side of the front seat and would appreciate any help you may be able to offer as I put together the final component.

If you need further information I may be reached at 1-206-658-0579. That is my residence. I am working on this project currently and would appreciate your response.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: March, Gary D. -- Director, Illinois Department Of Transportation, Division Of Traffic Safety

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3 57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/01/94 (EST.) Letter From John Womack To Gary D. March (A42; STD. 217; Part 586)

TEXT: On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a Final Rule which revised the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improved access to school bus emergency doors. I am sure you would agree that the purpose of this rulemaking was to enhance the s afety of children being transported in school buses. The Docket states that this Final Rule is effective May 2, 1994. We at the Illinois Department of Transportation interpret this Docket to mean school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 must c omply with these new standards.

In September of 1993, we were asked the following question by a school bus distributor here in Illinois:

Does the vehicle's "date of manufacture" correspond to the vehicle's chassis completion date or the vehicle's body completion date? In essence, he asked when do manufacturers have to comply with this Docket?

On September 27, 1993, Ms. Catherine Allen of my staff spoke to Mr. David Elias of NHTSA and asked him the above question. He indicated the date of manufacture is correlated to the vehicle's date of completion. The vehicle's date of completion correspo nds to the date when the body and chassis are combined to form a completed vehicle. Therefore, we interpreted that answer to mean vehicles "combined" on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with this Docket.

On February 2, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses and asked if school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 would meet the new standards. She replied, "Only if the chassis was manufactured on or after May 2, 1994." She i ndicated multi-stage manufacturers have the option of choosing the chassis manufacture date, the body manufacture date or a date in-between for the effective date of new standards.

On February 3, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Mr. Charles Hott of NHTSA and asked him the same question. He confirmed what Ms. Dawson had said.

Therefore, according to Mr. Hott's interpretation, a school bus which clearly displays a June 1994, or later, date of manufacture will not need to meet the standards of Docket 88-21 if the chassis was completed prior to May 2, 1994.

Since we have received two different interpretations from Mr. Elias and Mr. Hott, we are asking for an official interpretation from the agency. Currently, school districts are in the process of taking bids on buses that will be delivered and perhaps hav e bodies mounted after May 2, 1994 to chassis manufactured prior to May 2, 1994. Therefore, I am sure you can understand the necessity of a prompt and official interpretation by your office.

If you need any additional information from us, please contact Mr. Larry Wort at 217/782-4974 or Ms. Catherine Allen at 217/785-1181. I will appreciate your expeditious response.

ID: nht94-1.61

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 15, 1994

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

TO: George Entwistle -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: NEF-31GEn/NCI 3302

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/8/94 from John Womack to Thomas Turner (A42; Std. 131); Also attached to letter dated 1/26/83 from Frank Berndt to Thomas D. Turner

TEXT:

Last Week I received by FAX an advanced copy of NCI 3302 concerning an apparent non-compliance of stop arms with strobe lights to FMVSS 131 Section S6.2.2, "Flash Rate." Blue Bird is forwarding a copy of NCI 3302 to our supplier of stop arms, Specialty Manufacturing Company in Pineville, North Carolina, so that they can determine if a non-compliance exists.

In studying the requirements of S5.3, a question has arisen. S5.3 Conspicuity states "The stop signal arm shall comply with either S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both." Some of the stop arms we install are reflectorized and have strobe lights. Based on NCI 3302 , it appears that the strobe lights do not comply with S6.2.2, so these stop arms do not comply with the "S5.3.2" or the "both" option of Section S5.3. However, these stop arms fully comply with the S5.3.1 option of Section S5.3; and the use of the stro be lights could be considered as optional lighting, not required by FMVSS 131 and therefore not required to meet the requirements of S6.2.

NOTE: As a general rule, supplemental lighting is permitted by Standard No. 108 as long as it does not "impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment" required by the standard. (See attached letter from Chief Counsel dated January 2 6, 1983.)

It is our understanding that a stop signal arm that fully complies with the requirements of S5.3.1 has satisfied the requirements of S5.3 Conspicuity, even if it has optional strobe lights installed that do not meet S5.3.2.

WE REQUEST CONFIRMATION THAT THE OVSC CONSIDERS A REFLECTORIZE STOP SIGNAL ARM THAT FULLY COMPLIES WITH S5.3.1 AS COMPLIANT WITH S5.3 WITH OR WITHOUT STROBE LIGHTS INSTALLED.

Your immediate response is needed so that we can proceed with work on our response to NCI 3302.

ID: nht94-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

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 m inimus (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.) h as 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: nht94-1.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

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 e ngine. 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 leas t 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 pro tected 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: nht94-1.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 21, 1994

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

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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, m eets 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, inter ruptions, 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 re lief 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 i nclude 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 tap e 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 REQUIR EMENTS 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 sub stantially 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 p erimeter." 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 hand led 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: nht94-1.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 22, 1994

FROM: Robin L. Fennimore, Spectrum Engineering Group

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: School Bus Safety Standards Our File: 94057

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/28/94 from John Womack to Spectrum Engineering Group (A42; STD 206; FMVSS 217)

TEXT: We are currently reconstructing a motor vehicle accident involving a 16-passenger, mini school bus. As a result of this investigation, several questions have risen concerning design modifications performed on the right front entrance door of the vehicle ; specifically, whether they are controlled by and in compliance with any and all applicable FMVSS. We would appreciate your assistance in resolving these concerns.

A 1988 Ford Econoline Cargo Van was purchased as an incomplete vehicle and later fitted with a school bus body by Midbus of Lima, Ohio. A copy of the van's I.D. plate and a Mid Bus brochure is enclosed for your reference. This vehicle was outfitted wit h a remote door opening/closing apparatus and latching mechanism, although maintained the original Ford van door. The O.E.M Ford latch/hinge mechanism was disabled by removing the striker plate.

On January 13, 1989, the operator of the bus lost control of the vehicle, striking both a tree and a utility pole. The collision allegedly caused the operator to be ejected from the vehicle through the right front passenger door.

Given this information, would you please respond to the following questions:

1) Would this vehicle be classified as a "multi-purpose passenger vehicle", a "bus" or a "school bus"?

5

2) Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?

3) Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door, (particularly its loading requirements)? Can you provide copies of the versions of these documents effective in 1988?

4) Can you please provide copies of the 1988 FMVSS 206 and 217?

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (203) 272-1111.

If there are any fees associated with this request, we will be happy to reimburse your office.

ID: nht94-1.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 22, 1994

FROM: Blair Abraham -- Biomedical Manager, Mersco Medical

TO: Public Affairs Office, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/30/94 from John Womack to Blair Abraham (A42; Part 567)

TEXT: I am looking for the steps to take to certify a vehicle for a higher weight rating than what is issued by the manufacturer. We modified the suspension to enable the vehicle to handle an additional 1000 pounds. The GVWR is stamped at 5600 pounds. With our new suspension kit, we would like to certify the vehicle for 6600 pounds.

If we cannot increase the GVWR, are we liable for non-compliance of a DOT regulation if we exceed the GVWR?

Please send me the information required for increasing the GVWR and coded regulation of compliance.

ID: nht94-1.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 25, 1994

FROM: J L Steffy -- Triumph

TO: Dave Elias -- Office Of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/9/94 From John Womack To Jerry Steffy (A42; Part 567)

TEXT: MESSAGE:

DEAR DAVE --

LUKE LOY IN COMPLIANCE SUGGESTED THAT I CONTACT YOUR OFFICE WITH A QUERY.

I WANT TO KNOW IF THE NHTSA CERTIFICATION LABEL THAT IS REQUIRED TO APPEAR ON MOTORCYCLES CAN BE POSITIONED IN AREAS OTHER THAN THE HEADSTOCK AREA?

I SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR ASSISTANCE WITH THIS MATTER.

BEST REGARDS,

ID: nht94-1.68

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/94 from Lawrence A. Beyer to Z. Taylor Vinson (OCC-9662)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of February 14, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office regarding the "re-importation" of used certified motorcycles into the United States after modifications have been performed abroad. These modifications would not involve a " knowingly rendering inoperative" of equipment related to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether our interpretation of November 16, 1992, "regarding this matter" remains operative.

We assume the letter to which you refer is the one addressed to Wolfgang Klamp of Blaine, Washington. Mr. Klamp's wife crossed the border daily in her Canadian-manufactured Ford Tempo to her Canadian place of employment. Because the vehicle was not cert ified as meeting U.S. safety standards, the U.S. Customs Service had informed her the car would not be admitted in the future without going through the formal entry process for conversion to the U.S. standards. We verified that the Customs Service was a cting in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and provided several suggestions.

This letter remains our position. However, we fail to understand its relevance to the fact situation you present regarding importation of motorcycles that are certified as meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We can only surmise that ind ividual Customs officials may be questioning whether the modified motorcycles comply with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of entry, notwithstanding the fact that they are certified as complying as of their manufactu re. As you know, a motor vehicle offered for importation must comply with the U.S. safety standards at the time of importation (or be converted to those standards after entry), regardless of its state of compliance at the time of its manufacture.

We have no regulations under which a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may state that it has not knowingly rendered inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, we would recommend that Customs accept such a statement accompanying an HS-7 Form's declaration of vehicle compliance if it also contained the statement that in the modifier's opinion the vehicle remained in compliance upon completion of the modifications.

Alternatively, and relevant to modifications that relate to a safety standard which may not have had to be met initially (i.e. installation of glazing on a motorcycle that was not originally manufactured with a windshield), we suggest that the modifier p rovide a statement, in writing

or on a label affixed to the vehicle, of the kind required of an alterer of a new vehicle, as set forth in 49 CFR 567.7. This statement attests to the continuing compliance of a motor vehicle after modification. Our willingness to accept such a stateme nt should enable Customs to enter the modified motorcycles as conforming vehicles.