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.

ID: nht94-9.6

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C.N. Littler -- Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs, MCI/TMC (Manitoba)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 7/30/93 from C.N. (Norm) Littler to Mary Versailles (OCC 8951)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX and phone call of July 30, 1993 to Mary Versailles of my office. Your FAX enclosed information on a vehicle, the AMF Invader, which is built on a remanufactured MCI chassis, and advertised and sold as a new vehicle. You do not believe that such a vehicle should be considered a new vehicle. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, we can explain whether such a vehicle would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the implications of such a determination. I suggest you also contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it is appropriate to advertise this vehicle as new. To determine whether this vehicle can be titled and registered as new, you would have to contact the various states concerning their laws.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor does it endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

After a vehicle's first retail sale, a provision affecting its modification is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) which provides:

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

It is possible that modifications on an existing vehicle may be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle for purposes of compliance with the safety standards. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such modifications were completed.

The agency has stated that a bus built with a new body is not considered a "new" vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle (see, for example, August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Farmer). The agency has also stated that a bus constructed from an old body and a new chassis is a new vehicle (see, for example, July 17, 1981 letter to Mr. Larry Louderback). When neither the body nor the chassis are completely new, the agency looks to see if the vehicle has so deviated from the original components and attributes that it may be considered an new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a used vehicle (see, for example, April 22, 1991 letter to Mr. Kent Morris).

You enclosed an article titled "The New Invader" from the August 1993 issue of National Bus Trader magazine. The manufacturing process for the Invader is described beginning on page 14. Page 16 of this article states, "the Invader is supplied with a new engine," but the article does not contain enough information to determine whether the vehicle, which includes both new and old parts, would be considered new. If the Invader has a new body, NHTSA would consider the vehicle to be new if the chassis lacks the used components referenced in the Farmer letter. Any new vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture before the vehicle can be sold in the United States.

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

ID: nht94-9.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: Adam A. Freund -- Manager, Testing Services, Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Table II Minimum Static; Breaking Energy (inch pounds) D.O.T. 119

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 from John Womack to Adam A. Freund (A42; Std. 119)

TEXT:

Further to our telephone conversation of this date, please find enclosed a copy of subject matter for your perusal. As we had discussed I believe there is a typo in the highlighted columns marked respectively MOTORCYCLE and ALL 12 INCH OR SMALLER RIM SIZE. If I am correct the first column MOTORCYCLE should show a plunger diameter of 5/16" and the column marked ALL 12 INCH OR SMALLER RIM SIZE should show a plunger diameter of 3/4".

I would appreciate your qualifying my interpretation of above subject matter. If my interpretation is incorrect, please advise me how the respective columns should be marked.

Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. would greatly appreciate any expedited consideration you may allow us on this request.

ATTACHMENT

(Table omitted.)

ID: nht94-9.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1994

FROM: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TO: John Womack

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Bob Carver (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have two matters in which I need rulings from the Chief Counsel regarding FMVSS 217. I've discussed both with Charles Hott and he recommended that I write you for an official response.

QUESTION 1:

There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specifications in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Opening" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

QUESTION 2:

Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a): "Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate,.... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use this sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e. FMVSS 302)?

I can make an educated guess on both questions, but I'd like an official ruling. I look forward to your response.

ATTACHMENT

Figure 5C - Mimimum Side Emergency Exit Clearance Specifications and Side Door Opening With Seat Obstruction. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht95-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 1, 1995 EST

FROM: Andrew Grubb

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/12/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ANDREW GRUBB (A43; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: To whom it may concern,

I am writing in regards to motor vehicle regulations as applicable to two products I am currently selling. I have a copy of a letter dated April 1st of 1991 from Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, of your office dealing with a small push scooter like product, eq uipped with a 37cc engine called a "Walk Machine". In this letter, Mr. Rice had written "NHTSA has stated in many interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered a motor vehicle if such vehicles have a maximum at tainable speed of 20 mph or less and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other motor vehicles." He then went on to say since the "Walk Machine" fit this description, and that it was not a "motor vehicle", that none of the NHTSA's standards would apply to it.

The products I have in question both seem to fit into these guidelines, however I would like to get an official ruling on that by your office. Enclosed you will find sales brochures for both products which may prove helpful in understanding what each one entails.

The first product is a scooter called the "California Go-Ped". The Go-Ped resembles a small push scooter, with a 22.5cc 2 cycle motor mounted above the rear wheel. It is a small, foldable scooter with 6" diameter non-pneumatic tires, weighing 20 lbs . This scooter cruises at an average of 15mph, with a maximum of 20 mph.

The other "scooter" type product is called "TSi Power Scooter". Similar to the Go-Ped it too resembles a push scooter, however it has a slightly larger wheel diameter (14" inflatable tires), and is not foldable. This scooter is driven by a 21cc 2 cy cle motor mounted above the rear wheel, with a top speed of approximately 15mph. TSi Powered Sports also produces a few other models including a motorized "skateboard", and motors for mounting on a conventional bicycle. Any input on these other product s would be appreciated.

I want to try and clear up where exactly these products fit into MV regulations, so I can tell my customers exactly wher they can and can not opperate them. I have also written to get more information on state MV laws, and federal safety regulations applicable to these scooters. I appreciate and await a reply dealing with these products.

Brochures omitted.

ID: nht95-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald Orlando -- Orlando World Industries

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/21/94 letter from Donald Orlando to Ed Glancy

TEXT: Dear Mr. Orlando:

This responds to your letter concerning whether your "Seat Belt Buddy" would be affected by any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued by this agency. You describe the product as "a stuffed toy animal with a slit in the center of the animal where you insert the seat belt through and then into the automobile's buckle."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. We do have a standard (Standard 209, Seat belt assemblies) that sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. We also have a standard (Standard No. 30 2, Flammability of Interior Materials) that sets forth flammability resistance requirements for the originally installed safety belts of the vehicle. However, since your product would not be part of a new seat belt assembly, these standards would not ap ply.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 con cerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-r elated defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. I t appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation doe s not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. For example, they must ensure that the Seat Belt Buddy does not impair the function of the safety belt or belt retractor, or vitiate the compliance of the belts with Standard No . 302. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that the addition of any device to a vehicle's belt system raises possible safety concerns. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensu re that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. We urge you to carefully evalu ate whether your product would in any way compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system, and whether instructions to the consumer are needed to advise about the proper use of the product. Among other things, you should evaluate wh ether children are likely to play with the "Seat Belt Buddy" in a manner that either introduces excessive slack in the shoulder belt, thereby reducing the protection provided by that belt in the event of a crash, or the inadvertent unlatching of the belt system. Finally, since the originally installed safety belts must meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, we encourage you not to degrade the flammability performance of safety belts.

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

Sincerely,