ID: nht95-2.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 3, 1995

FROM: Doug Russell -- Design Engineer, Advance Engineered Products

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 121 Paragraph S5.4.2.2 Brake Power

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/29/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DOUG RUSSELL (A43; STD. 121)

TEXT: Dear Sir

Recently, I have been reviewing test data used to certify brake components to FMVSS - 121. Could you please answer two questions which arose as a result of this review:

1. Paragraph S5.4.2.2. of FMVSS - 121 requires that a deceleration be made from 20 mi/hr to a stop at an average rate of 14 ft/s<2>. A maximum service line brake pressure is not specified for this deceleration. Thus, in order to meet the deceleration requirement, a service line pressure exceeding 100 lbs/in<2> could be used despite the fact that tractor - trailer brakes are usually configured to operate at a maximum nominal brake pressure of 100 psi. Are there any limitations on the pressure which c an be used to achieve the required deceleration rates?

2. Test results from one of Advance's suppliers show that the actual deceleration rate was approximately 15% below the 14 ft/s<2> specified in paragraph S5.4.2.2. I have discussed these results with NHTSA's Richard Carter, and according to him the mini mum requirements of FMVSS-121 have not been met. However, according to the supplier, this stop must be done as part of the whole dynamometer test procedure but not meeting the deceleration requirements for this particular stop does not constitute a fall. Have any interpretations been made which allow a reduced deceleration rate?

Please call if you have any questions. Thank-you

ID: nht92-5.48

DATE: June 23, 1992

FROM: R. Marie McFadden -- Cable Car Concept, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/20/92 from Paul J. Rice to R. Marie McFadden (A39; Std. 207; Std. 208)

TEXT:

We are a manufacturer of rubber tired trolleys, Road-Trains and Trolley-Trams. These vehicles can be used on the highway and are motorized, licensed vehicles. I have enclosed some spec sheets to give you an idea of what we build.

We would like a letter of interpretation on the following:

1 - Our small unit has a GVW of 12,300, we understand that we need seat belts for the driver only, this small unit is an eighteen passenger. Our largest is a thirty-two passenger unit with a GVW of 17,000 lbs.

2 - As you can see on our Tram specs we do have oak seats, is there a ruling on this at all.

3 - We have one seat on some of our vehicles that we refer to as a jump seat it is located in front of the entrance door, this seats two people and faces the driver. Would the same ruling apply to this seat as for the other passenger seats.

We have been manufacturing Trolleys for over twenty years, and are aware that new regulations came into effect Sept 1, 1991. We also have a copy of Federal Regulation #208. We would appreciate if you could interpretate the ruling before this date and after.

We appreciate your time, and await your reply.

Attachment

Brochure describes the Mini Trolly manufactured by Cable Car Concepts, Inc. (Text 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: nht94-8.5

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 with 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: nht91-6.21

DATE: October 14, 1991

FROM: Robert W. Smith -- President, Auto Safety Corporation

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Senior Staff Attorney, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated November, 1991 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert W. Smith (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

My partner and I want to thank you for all the help you gave us during the course of the meeting in your office on August 15, 1990.

Since that meeting we have been continuing the development of our prototype stop lamp license plate frame, in order to conform to all applicable NHTSA standards.

The purpose of this letter is to confirm what we learned at that meeting. Your computer search of Safety Standard #108 data as it would apply to our device, the flashing/steady burning stop lamp, turned up the following:

1. In the case of the Simcox letter (A29, Redbook 3, Erika Z. Jones to Bettie Lou Simcox, October 24, 1986), the use of a flashing/steady burning stop lamp is permissible on a motorcycle. As you'll recall, our embodiment, which complies with specifics of the Safety Standard #108, is a specially designed license plate frame that incorporates a light assembly and a patented (U.S. Patent No. 4,871,945) electronic circuit. (See attached drawings Fig. 1 and Fig. 2)

2. Safety Standard #108 also would allow the use of a flashing/steady burning stop lamp on passenger cars. Specifically, for our purposes, in the embodiment of a license plate frame with built-in lights and circuitry. (Drawing Fig. 1)

3. Safety Standard #108 would permit the use of an auxiliary flashing/steady burning stop lamp which could be mounted on the rear of vans, pickup trucks, and mini vans. (Drawing Fig. 3)

In closing, we again thank you for the help you have given us.

ATTACHMENT

Motor vehicle flashing/steady burning stop lamp license plate frame. (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) (Graphics omitted)

Auxiliary flashing/steady burning stop lamp. (Fig. 3) (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht87-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/09/87

FROM: TERRY K. BROCK -- COONS MANUFACTURING NATIONAL SALES MANAGER

TO: STEVE KRATZKE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE #217

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY K. BROCK; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 08/20/87 FROM TERRY K BROCK TO SEBASTIAN MESSINA; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM ST MESSINA TO TERRY K BROCK RE COONS MANUFACTURING INC. DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGERS MC 157-87

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kratzke,

Pursuant to our telephone conversation regarding Coons Manufacturing, Inc.'s desire to provide adequate emergency escapes per FMVSS Code #217 in our Diamond VIP mini buses, I write.

Mr. S. T. Messina, Chief Motor Carrier Inspections and Investigations of the State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation has denied certification for a 25 passenger bus recently delivered to the State of New Jersey. Please refer to the attached letter dated August 28, 1987.

It is very much a concern to Coons Manufacturing, Inc. that we are meeting the FMVSS Code #217. However, we along with other manufacturers of this type bus, have in the past considered our front entrance door, which is labeled and equipped with the p roper emergency release mechanisms per the above referenced regulation, as an emergency side exit. Please refer to the attached sample materials of two competitors. We have enclosed diagrams of this electric entrance door as well as photos for your ref erence. We are requesting you to better assist us in understanding why this is unacceptable to use as one of the required side emergency exits. Also, on the driver's side we have in the past, considered the driver's window which is 20" x 20" clear open ing or 400 square inches as an additional emergency side exit.

Please respond as soon as possible as to whether or not our existing emergency exits provide adequate escape per FMVSS Code #217. If they do not, please state what would be required in addition to what we are already providing. It is our desire to c ooperate to the fullest regarding this matter. Thank you for your assistance.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP

TO: ERICA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 217, 222 AND 302; LETTER DATED 11/15/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 2812; LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JO NES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

We are writing to you to confirm our understanding that our "Impact Control System", or safety bar is not in conflict with any existing standard for installation in school buses. The device was presented to various staff peopled in NHTSA on July 28, 1988. Our principal contact was Dr. Carl Clark.

Transportation Equipment Corp. was formed in December 1987. The company has conducted extensive market research to determine the concerns of the numerous interest groups who would be affected by installation of our system. The engineering and design process undertaken has resulted in solving two major problems involving the safe transportation of school bus passengers; 1) a drastic reduction of HIC (Head Injury Criteria) numbers by spreading the load across the chest, and 2) overcoming the utility problems associated with seat belt use on school buses.

Included for your review and evaluation are the following materials:

Engineers drawings and photographs of the device.

Video tape and written documentation of the dynamic testing conducted at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

Independent Consultants opinion on the design and dynamic test results.

Background information on our Consulting Engineers.

We have identified those vehicles under 10,000 pounds (small buses & mini vans) as a target market for installation of our system. At present, these vehicles are under a federal mandate to be equipped with seat belts. It is our objective to have our device offered as an alternative option to seat belts in this class of vehicle. We respectfully request your opinion concerning a ruling and/or confirmation of the systems acceptance as an alternative option.

If we have omitted any information needed to consider this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

ID: 86-5.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/86

FROM: DALE T. FANZO

TO: DIANE STEED -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/02/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO GERALD PETERSON; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 202; LETTER DATED 05/17/88 FROM GERALD PETERSON TO ERIKA JONES, OCC - 2052; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM CARL C CLARK TO JERRY PETERSON

TEXT: Dear Ms. Steed,

"I hereby petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to change the requirements of Standard #202 to include head restraints on vehicles other than passenger cars. I feel that the listing of these mini vans as multi purpose evades the issue of safety. I am enclosing this copy of my letter to Lee Iacocca and Chrysler's response. A brief summary of my accident follows:

"On February 11, 1986 I was sitting at a red light on Route 22. A welding truck was in back of me and was struck by a milk tanker. The driver of the tanker dozed off at 50 mph, pusing the welding truck into me with me ending up 211 ft. from point of contact.

"The result from the accident was I had 0 degree head movement for 9 weeks and a A/C separation of the left shoulder. After seeing 4 doctors and 6 therapists I am able to move my head to the left, however, only 60 degree to the right. It is 7 months now and I may have permanent damage to my ligaments in my neck. I have been told that a normal whiplash is caused when your head goes back and it bounces off the head restraint. However, my 3 seated Voyager SE had no head rest which caused my head to snap over the seat causing my injury.

"Ms. Steed, my van is listed with the State as a station wagon and also with my insurance company. If you check to see how many SE Voyager and Caravans were purchased since 1984 you would find, I'm sure, 80%-90% with families. My purpose for this petition is to make sure that no other innocent party will have to go through what I have been going through. To make matters worse, I am a self employed individual who relys on sales by way of 40,000 miles a year to support my family."

In summary, I would appreciate your time and consideration towards this petition. I can be reached at the above address, or by calling (412) 831-8514.

ENCLS

ID: nht71-2.39

DATE: 05/04/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1971, regarding the March 10, 1971, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

The following are answers to your questions:

1. Question:

Standard to be effective as of August 15, 1973, through August 14, 1975, second option (S4.1.2.2) --- How many dummies should be used for frontal crash? Is the use of dummies necessary for roar and front seats or for front seat only?

Answer:

S4.1.2.2 (b) and (c) specify that the frontal barrier crash requirements of S5.1 shall be met for each front designated seating position. Thus, a dummy must be placed in each front designated seating position for these tests.

2. Question:

Same standard (S4.1.2) --- For a two seater car, what options for passive seat belts for both occupants should be taken? (First or Second option or one of these)

Answer:

A passive belt system may be used to meet the requirements of either the first or the second option under S4.1.2. If the passive belt system is intended to get the second option, however, it must employ a Type 1 seat belt assembly either as a part of the passive belt or as a separate component. This Type 1 belt must be separately usable, and must in addition meet the requirements of S7.1 and S7.2 and have a seat belt warning system.

The risk that the presence of a latch in the system may cause occupants to leave the belt unfastened while the vehicle is in motion is of concern to the NHTSA. At the same time, it is evident that some method of release is necessary for passive belt systems as well as for other passive restraints. We are therefore considering additional rulemaking on the subject of passive belts.

3. Question:

In regard to the Volkswagen Mini bus, which is the category of this automobile? (Multipurpose Passenger or Passenger)

Answer: It in a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

4. Question:

I understand that the convertible type automobile has partial exemption before August 15, 1973. What exception would be taken after that date? Also, through rumor, I have heard that this automobile will be included in the Multipurpose Passenger Car category. Is the correct?

Answer:

Because the multipurpose passenger vehicle may be manufactured in convertible form, the standard refers to convertibles under the multipurpose passenger vehicle requirements. A clear distinction is intended between such convertible multipurpose passenger vehicles, which are regulated by S4.2, and convertible passenger cars, which are regulated by S4.1. There is no plan to treat a convertible passenger car as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Convertible passenger cars are not distinguished from other passenger cars other than to exempt them from shoulder belt requirements in the January 1, 1972, to August 14, 1973, time period. They must thereafter meet the passive system requirements applicable to passenger cars, with no special exceptions.(Illegible Word) the multipurpose passenger vehicle category, convertibles are given the option of meeting lesser passive requirements than other multipurpose passenger vehicles (S4.2.2 and S4.2.3).

Please advise us if further clarification is needed.

ID: 1985-04.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. K. Douglas Scribner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. K. Douglas Scribner President Mini City Ltd. 876 Turk Hill Road Fairport, NY 14450 Dear Mr. Scribner:

This responds to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically, you were interested in learning whether that standard applies to tires for use on "antique and classic automobiles." You stated that your firm deals in tires which are authentic replacement tires for antique and classic cars, and that none of those tires has ever been marked with a DOT number. Standard No. 109 requires that all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 be marked with DOT numbers, among other things, and there is no exception to this requirement for tires designed for "classic" cars.

It is unclear when you refer to a "DOT number" whether you are referring to just the tire identification number, which is required to appear on all new tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 by 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, or that identification number together with the symbol "DOT." The DOT symbol is a certification by the tire manufacturer that the tire complies with all the requirements of Standard No. 109. I have enclosed copies of both Standard No. 109 and Part 574 for your information.

In any event, Standard No. 109 applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 of the standard requires the DOT symbol to be permanently marked on the tire, while section S4.3.2 requires the tire identification number assigned to a manufacturer in accordance with Part 574 to be permanently marked on the tire. Standard No. 109 contains no provisions making an exception to these requirements.

Accordingly, if the antique and classic cars to which you refer were manufactured in or before 1948, the tires are not subject to Standard No. 109 or Part 574. Sales of such tires would not violate any of this agency's requirements.

If, however, the tires are designed for use on cars manufactured after 1948, the tires must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109, including the requirements to have a DOT symbol and a tire identification number marked permanently on the sidewall. If you sell tires which are subject to, but do not comply with, the requirements of Standard No. 109,you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). Section 109 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a maximum civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and this agency would consider each sale of a noncomplying tire to be a separate violation.

If you need any further information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590 Attn: Jeffrey R. Miller

Further to conversations with your office today, regarding DOT Standard 109 and its application to our marketing of tires for antique and classic automobiles, I am writing to request a copy of the "interpretation book" which will explain qualifying exceptions or exemptions.

Basically, we have dealt, and wish to continue dealing, in tires which are obsolete in nature (non-radial, odd sizes, etc.) but which are necessary for authentic replacement tires on antique and classic cars.

Some of these are still supplied by their original manufacturers (Firestone. Goodyear, Dunlop, etc.) and some are reproductions made from original molds (Denman, Lucas, etc.). None of these have ever carried DOT numbers.

I look forward to your reply at your early convenience. Sincerely, K. Douglas Scribner President KDS:se