ID: nht80-3.25

DATE: 07/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

COPYEE: R. McCUTCHEON -- ASST. POSTMASTER GEN., U.S. POSTAL SERV.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your June 5, 1980, letter to this office, you indicated that Michelin would like to equip mail vans with passenger car tires. Since the mail vans will be restricted to speeds of 50 miles per hour and less, you believe that it would be permissible to load the tires above the maximum load indicated on the tires, pursuant to the provisions of Standard 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). This assumption is accurate.

Section S5 of Standard No. 120 sets forth two basic safety requirements which new motor vehicles other than passenger cars must meet, including a mail van. Paragraph S5.1.1 requires these vehicles to be equipped with tires which meet the requirements of Standard 109 or Standard 119. From your characterization of the tires as passenger car tires, I assume that you will be providing tires which meet the requirements of Standard 109.

The second general requirement, contained in paragraph S5.1.2, is that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall be not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of the axle system, as specified on the vehicle's certification required by 49 CFR Part 567. As you implied in your letter, this requirement of S5.1.2 does not apply to vehicles which have a speed attainable in 2 miles of 50 miles per hour or less. This exception was intended to apply only to vehicles such as mobile cranes, which do not have the capability to reach speeds greater than 50 miles per hour. However, the language inadvertently is so broad that it encompasses vehicles which have their speed capabilities restrained by devices like governors and, thus, would apply to the mail vans you describe.

There are two comments I would like to make on this unintended loophole. One is that we will strictly enforce the 50 mile per hour limitation. If any of the mail vans can attain speeds over 50 miles per hour, that van will be in violation of Standard 120 if the tires you describe are used. Additionally, we are going to examine whether it is necessary to amend Standard 120 to close this loophole.

The second comment is a recommendation that you fit the mail vans with tires whose labeled maximum loads are at least equal to the GAWR of the axle on which they are mounted. The Tire & Rim Association allows a 9 percent increase in the load over the maximum load labeled on the tires when the speed range is restricted to 50 miles per hour (1979 Yearbook of the Tire & Rim Association, at 2-03). This 9 percent increase in load carrying capacity is calculated for truck tires. When using passenger car tires on the mail vans you have described, safety concerns mandate that the load carrying capacity of the tires be reduced by 10 percent, to ensure that the lighter duty passenger car tires can safely perform the heavier duty work that is routine for vehicles like mail vans. Indeed, if the vehicles were not speed restricted, S5.1.2 of Standard 120 would require this 10 percent reduction to be made for the passenger car tires.

If Michelin follows the course of prudence, it should calculate the maximum load carrying capacity of the tires with a 9 percent increase allowed for the speed restriction. Then this maximum load must be reduced by 10 percent to allow for the use of passenger car tires. The net result of this increase and decrease would be that the maximum load which the passenger car tires you describe could safely carry is approximately the maximum load labeled on the tires, because the increase and decrease will cancel each other out.

I trust that Michelin Tire Corporation, which has a very good record of concern for tire safety, will not equip a motor vehicle with potentially unsafe tires, even if a loophole in Federal regulations might inadvertently permit it to do so.

SINCERELY,

REF: D.O.T. MISC.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION - Technical Group

JUNE 5, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are proposing the use of a passenger tire on an electric mail van being produced for the U.S. postal service.

The van is speed restricted to 50 mph, therefore, we can allow an increase in load carrying capacity over and above that indicated on the tire sidewall.

If the van is considered "a vehicle other than a passenger car" it would fall under the requirements of FMVSS 119 and 120 rather than FMVSS 109 and 110 and the increase in load carrying capacity would be in accordance with FMVSS 119 and 120.

Please advise if our proposed solution is in conformance with NHTSA requirements.

The scheduling of this program is extremely tight and your prompt reply would be appreciated.

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht74-1.50

DATE: 07/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Armstrong for R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 10, 1974, request for interpetation of the volume requirements for service brake chambers in S5.2.1.2 and S5.1.2.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake System:

S5.1.2.1 The combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs shall be at least twelve times the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms.

You also requested that reservoir volume be based on manufacturer "rated volume" based on the designed volume of the reservoir.

In testing for compliance with S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2, the NHTSA will accept a manufacturer's published "rated volume" of the brake chamber with the piston or diaphragm at maximum travel. This means that the manufacturer may specify the full stroke of the piston or diaphragm and compute the "rated volume" based on the designed volume of the chamber and the full stroke he has established. This volume may be somewhat larger than "nominal brake chamber displacement" which does not necessarily account for the void ahead of the relaxed diaphragm or piston, the so-called "prefill volume." This volume must be included because it must be pressurized along with the displaced volume.

In the absence of manufacturer's published ratings, the NHTSA will measure the brake chamber volume with the push rod at maximum stroke.

With regard to air reservoir volumes, the NHTSA will determine the volume of reservoirs by actual measurement. As a practical matter air reservoirs are simple structures whose volumes are relatively easy to measure.

Sincerely yours,

ATTACH.

Bendix

Heavy Vehicle Systems Group

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

May 10, 1974

Subject: Title 49 CFR, Part 571, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems

Dear Sir:

Concern has arisen in the motor vehicle industry relative to the matter of brake chamber and reservoir volumes as set forth in Section 5.1.2.1, of the subject standard which provides:

"The combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs shall be at least twelve times the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms."

The question posed is: How will the sizing be verified for compliance purposes? Hence, an interpretation of Section 5.1.2.1 is requested.

Historically, the Industry has used the "nominal" or rated full stroke of brake actuators, in determining available stroke. In practice, it was understood that the nominal or rated full stroke is all that can be counted on to provide braking. (The recommended readjustment stroke followed by the Industry has been from 3/8 to 3/4 inch less than the "rated full stroke" depending upon actuator size.) Further, SAE recommended Practice J813, "Automotive Air Brake Reservoir Volume" does not go into any detail relating to strokes, tolerances, etc. of the various components involved in the actuation of a foundation brake.

The design of a braking system requires that a component, such as an actuator, which is called upon to give a specified stroke must have its own dimensions and tolerances so designated that its "minimum" travel provisions are those required for the system. To use the actuator's maximum stroke, taking into account tolerance stack up, as the basis for sizing a reservoir, appears to be unreasonable and would not increase the safety of the vehicle. (The maximum possible stroke is, of course, not available in every actuator and thus cannot be counted on for braking.)

It is therefore recommended that NHTSA give favorable consideration to an interpretation of Section 5.1.2.1 to provide that the brake chamber volume be specified at the advertised nominal or rated full stroke of the brake chamber. This volume can be determined by a manufacturer and precludes the necessity of adding additional reservoir volume to compensate for theoretical tolerances that in all likelihood will never become cumulative in the system.

An analogous situation exists with reservoirs. Because of the profusion of sizes and special configurations (different sizes and quantities of ferrules, and a variety of lengths and diameters) the minimum volume determined by physically filling several reservoirs of each configuration to measure the exact volume does not appear to add any reasonable degree of accuracy or safety.

Therefore, it is also recommended that the reservoir volumes be certified based on a "rated volume" produced by calculation using the actual nominal Engineering drawing dimensions. Ferrules would be ignored in the calculations as being insignificant and at any rate generally a "plus" for volume.

We solicit your comments on these matters and would be happy to discuss our recommendations with you if you feel that additional information is necessary.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Hildebrandt -- Group Director of Engineering

ID: nht87-2.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/01/87 EST

FROM: NHTSA

TITLE: CONSUMER INFORMATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO DECEMBER 19, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO REIZES AND APRIL 6, 1988 LETTER FROM REIZES TO STEED

TEXT: AIR BAGS

An air bag is one type of automatic crash protection equipment now available on many new cars. It is a very effective safety device that is built into the steering wheel or dashboard of a car. In a frontal crash, it inflates rapidly to cushion the o ccupant from violent impact with the hard interior surfaces of the car. An air bag should always be used in combination with safety belts to provide the best protection available in all kinds of crashes.

WHAT CAUSES THE AIR BAG TO INFLATE?

In a serious frontal crash -- equivalent to hitting a brick wall at a speed greater than 12 miles per hour -- a crash sensor activates the air bag. Within 1/25 of a second after impact, the bag is inflated to create a protective cushion between the occu pant and the vehicle interior, such as the steering wheel, dashboard and windshield. The air bag inflates and then deflates rapidly.

The sensors are switches which are activated by a crash. They discriminate between impacts intended to inflate the bag (those severe enough to cause injury) and events not intended to inflate the bag (i.e., "fender-benders" in parking lots, or panic stops).

HOW RELIABLE ARE THEY?

All parts of air bag systems are sealed until used and are designed to have an effective operating life exceeding that of the vehicle in which they are installed. Air bags installed in cars ten years ago can still protect in crashes today. Once an air bag has deployed, it must be replaced.

DO AIR BAGS EVER FAIL TO INFLATE IN SERIOUS CRASHES?

A malfunction is very unlikely. Since they were introduced in 1972, air bags have inflated as designed in hundreds of serious frontal crashes.

HOW MUCH WILL AN AIR BAG COST?

The cost will depend on how many are produced. These costs are relatively high now but are expected to drop significantly as more and more cars with air bags are manufactured. Government estimates at high production levels are $ 320 for air bags for bo th the driver and passenger, and $ 220 for driver only systems. New technology could lower these amounts even more.

DO I NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING SPECIAL TO OPERATE A CAR WITH AN AIR BAG IN IT?

No. The car's owner's guide will explain the proper use of the system. The car is also equipped with an indicator that provides the driver with information about the readiness of the air bag. Labels are placed in the car to alert service personnel tha t the car has an air bag. Again, remember to wear a safety belt too so that you are protected in all types of crashes.

HOW CAN I GET AN AIR BAG?

Many manufacturers are planning to offer air bag systems over the next few years.

1987

Acura Legend Coupe BMW L7, 7-Series Ford Tempo, Topaz All Mercedes-Benz Porsche 944 Turbo Volvo 7-Series

1988

Acura BMW Ford Mercedes Porsche Volvo

Olds Delta 88 Chrysler - selected lines Saab 9000

1989

Acura BMW Ford Mercedes Porsche Volvo Delta 88 Chrysler Saab 9000

Nissan - selected lines

Toyota - selected lines

1990

Acura BMW Mercedes Porsche Volvo Chrysler Saab 9000 Nissan Toyota

1 million Fords - selected lines

500 thousand GM cars-selected lines

1991

Acura BMW Ford Mercedes Porsche Volvo Chrysler Saab 9000 Nissan Toyota GM

Subaru - selected lines

1992

Acura BMW Ford Mercedes Porsche Volvo Chrysler Saab 9000 Nissan Toyota Subaru

3 million GM cars - selected lines

ID: 22653.drn

Mr. Larry Dornbusch
22 West 131^st Glen Park Road
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137





Dear Mr. Dornbusch:

This responds to your inquiry asking whether a company modifying a used two-wheeled motorcycle into a three-wheeled motorcycle is required to ensure, pursuant to Standard No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems, that each of the three wheels has a brake, and that the three-wheeled motorcycle has a parking brake. As discussed below, the answer is no.

I note that your communication to us was supplemented with a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff. As background for your question, you told Ms. Nakama that you originally bought a two-wheeled motorcycle and registered the motorcycle in the State of Illinois. Subsequently, you sent the motorcycle out-of-state to a company to be converted to a three-wheeled motorcycle (trike). When you got your trike back, you discovered that "the two rear wheels were braked by one rotor and caliper on the differential rather than the wheels. "You expressed to Ms. Nakama your understanding that Standard No. 122 requires a brake for each of the three wheels.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 122, which applies to motorcycles. Standard No. 122 specifies performance requirements for motorcycle brake systems.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. ' 30122).

The manufacturer of your motorcycle presumably manufactured a new motorcycle that met all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under the "make inoperative" provision cited earlier, the company that modified your used motorcycle was required to ensure that the various changes it made did not make inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in the motorcycle in accordance with Standard No. 122 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

As to your question concerning whether each wheel of a three-wheeled motorcycle must have a brake, Standard No. 122 establishes the following requirements for motorcycle brakes at S5.1, Required equipment-split service brake system: "Each motorcycle shall have either a split service brake system or two independently actuated brake systems." Nothing in the standard requires all three wheels of a three-wheeled motorcycle to have a brake.

You also noted that after the modifications, the three-wheeled motorcycle did not have a parking brake. Standard No. 122 at S5.1.4 Parking brake, states: "Each three-wheeled motorcycle shall be equipped with a parking brake of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement."

As earlier stated, Standard No. 122 applies to new motor vehicles. If your motorcycle were manufactured new with three wheels, or converted prior to first retail sale, S5.1.4's parking brake requirement would have applied. However, in the case at issue, a parking brake was not required for your motorcycle when it was new, since it was a two-wheeled motorcycle. Moreover, the make inoperative provision would not have the effect of requiring a company modifying a used two-wheeled motorcycle into a three-wheeled motorcycle to add a parking brake.

You also ask whether 49 CFR Section 393.42 Brakes required on all wheels, applies to the way your motorcycle was converted. We are unable to provide an answer to this question because Section 393.42 is not administered by NHTSA, but by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation. I therefore suggest you refer your question about Section 393 to the FMCSA for an answer.

I also note that the individual states may regulate modifications to used motorcycles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:122
d.9/20/01

ID: nht91-4.37

DATE: July 3, 1991

FROM: Michael D. Incorvaia -- Manufacturing Engineering Manager, Wagner Lighting

TO: NHTSA -- Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: Re Request for Letter of Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael D. Incorvaia (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Wagner Lighting is requesting an interpretation on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108 per the documentation that follows.

All responses by NHTSA to this request should be addressed to:

Michael D. Incorvaia Manufacturing Engineering Manager Wagner Lighting P.O. Box 4650 Sevierville, TN 37864.

Wagner Lighting, a manufacturer of automotive and truck turn signal and hazard warning flashers for more than thirty years, requests a letter of interpretation from NHTSA concerning FMVSS 108. Per 49 CFR 512 4b3i, Wagner Lighting wishes to keep this request confidential because this concept is a trade secret.

Per 512 4b3ii and 4b3iii, Wagner Lighting has disclosed this information to three (3) sources. However, Wagner Lighting does not consider these disclosures to be a compromise of the confidential nature of the material. During conference calls on the twentieth day of May, 1991, Allegro MicroSystems, Inc. of Concord, N.H. and Exar Corp. of San Jose, California were given this information. These companies are designers and manufacturers of custom integrated circuits (IC) which would be used to control Wagner Lighting's flasher. Both of the companies were being interviewed as potential suppliers of the solid state IC that would help perform the functions listed in this document. Prior to this date, both of these companies had signed a non-disclosure agreement concerning any information that would be given to them by Wagner Lighting concerning purposed flasher development. The same information was shared again with Exar in meetings at Wagner Lighting on June 25-27, 1991.

This information was also disclosed to one of our customers. On three (3) separate dates, May 9 and 29, 1991 and June 13, 1991, This information was shared with the General Motors (GM) Flasher Task Force in Detroit. The GM Flasher Task Force is developing a new flasher specification for the corporation. Wagner Lighting felt this information was important for future flasher technology and needed GM's feedback as a customer. The other competitors, who are also involved with the GM Flasher Task Force, were asked to leave the room before this information was disclosed. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, it was only disclosed to GM personnel.

Wagner Lighting does not feel that any of these disclosures is a compromise to the confidentiality of the following ideas because Wagner Lighting has applied for a patent for these ideas. (Patent application WLD-019749)

Per 512 4b3iv, Wagner Lighting knows of no other disclosure, public or private.

Per 512 4b3v, Wagner Lighting knows of no prior determination of these ideas.

Per 512 4b3vi, Wagner Lighting feels that the disclosure of these ideas would be harmful due to two (2) reasons. One, Wagner Lighting is planning on applying for foreign patents and the disclosure of these ideas would jeopardize these applications. Second, if the US patent is not granted, it would take away the competitive advantage of these ideas.

Per 512 4b3vii, Wagner Lighting sees no reason why this disclosure would impair NHTSA's ability to obtain similar information in the future.

Per 512 4b3viii, Wagner Lighting sees no reason why this disclosure would impair any other government interests.

Per 512 4b3ix, Wagner lighting request that these ideas be held as confidential until such time that US and European patents are awarded.

Per 512 5a, Wagner Lighting feels that the denial of confidentiality would result in competitive harm.

DESCRIPTION

The present conflict involves turn signal flashers, hazard warning flashers, and combination flashers, which perform the functions of both previously listed flashers. The conflict centers around FMVSS 108.

Previous to the 3 terminal, 3 lamp electronic/relay flasher, automobile systems utilized two 2-terminal thermal flashers. One flasher operated the automobile signal lamps for the turn signal mode, the other for hazard warning. Still today, the two 2-terminal flashers are used in 754 of the vehicles made in the United States.

The turn signal flasher would operate in a "steady on" condition if a lamp was lost (i.e. lamp outage) in the turn signal mode. This was to indicate to the driver that a lamp had failed. The hazard warning flasher would operate at the same speed regardless of the number of lamps, down to two lamps. The constant speed was required to maximize the visual perception of the flashing lamps, no matter how many lamps had failed. Both the turn signal and the hazard warning flashers are required to operate within the unshaded polygon shown in Figure 1.

FMVSS 108 was written to agree with the above discussion. The actual laws read:

FMVSS 108 (reference SAE J945 (3.0)) "...The previous operating tolerances shall apply for loads of two signal lamps, and the maximum design load..." where the tolerances are the unshaded polygon in figure 2.

FMVSS 108 (reference SAE J588e (4.5)) "failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate should be indicated by a "steady on", "steady off", or by a significant change in the flashing rate of the illuminated indicator."

In the 1980's, electronic based flashers were introduced into the market. Presently, most are three terminal (battery, load, and ground) relay based flashers. (note: there is a two terminal, transistor based flasher (battery and load) under development at Wagner Lighting). These electronic flashers are required to operate within the same unshaded polygon in Figure I during the normal turn signal and in the hazard warning mode. Because the flash rate/duty cycle window is so wide, the technology of the flashers on the market today have wide variations in flash rate over temperature. Therefore, the flash rate had to be doubled for the lamp outage condition in turn signal mode to meet the "significant change" required in FMVSS.

As automobile designers began to cut costs, the electronic/relay flashers were used as combination flashers, both turn signal and hazard warning mode. However, using the flasher in this application for a 3 lamp turn signal/6 lamp hazard system introduced a conflict with the FMVSS laws. The units were design to double in flash rate when there were only 2 lamps in the system. This would indicate a lamp out for the turn signal mode.

However, if a automobile had 4 lamps out while in hazard mode, the flasher would also double in flash rate. There would be two lamps flashing in hazard mode outside the unshaded polygon and therefore not within the optimum perception region of other drivers. Such an occurrence would be rare case, but it is possible and therefore is a safety issue.

The present solution to the problem is the electronic/relay flasher designers plan to add a terminal to the flasher that would indicate whether the vehicle is in turn signal or hazard warning. A special IC would be designed to monitor this terminal, and adjust the flash rate accordingly.

This solution will require an additional terminal on the flasher, an additional plug, associated wiring, and a new switch design. All of these will add cost to the automotive wiring system.

Wagner Lighting has a solution to the problem.

The proposed lamp outage indication will remain within the acceptable performance range of FVMSS 108 represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 GRAPH - FMVSS 108 POLYGON (Graph omitted)

I Michael D. Incorvaia, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFRS12. state as follows:

(1) I am Manufacturing Engineering Manager, and I am authorized by Cooper Industries Wagner Lighting Division, hereinafter written as Wagner Lighting, to execute documents on behalf of Wagner Lighting.

(2) The information contained in the following letter to the Office of Chief Counsel is confidential and proprietary data and is being submitted with the claim that it is entitled to confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C #22(b)(4).

(3) I have personally inquired of the responsible Wagner Lighting personnel who have authority in the normal course of business to release the information for which a claim of confidentiality has been made to ascertain whether such information has ever been released outside Wagner Lighting.

(4) Based upon such inquiries, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the information for which Wagner Lighting has claimed confidential treatment has never been released or become available outside Wagner Lighting except as hereinafter specified:

(5) I make no representations beyond those contained in this certificate and in particular, I make no representations as to whether this information may become available outside Wagner Lighting because of unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure except as stated in paragraph 4; and

(6) I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this the tenth day of July, 1991.

Michael D. Incorvaia

ID: 001646drn

Teresa Stillwell, Public Relations Director
ACF, Inc.
P. O. Box 730
Marsing, ID 83639

Dear Ms. Stillwell:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, applies to used school buses that your company wishes to carry forest fire-fighters and fire-fighting equipment.

In your letter, you write that the used school "buses in our fleet range from 1980 to 1992" as the dates of manufacture. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated the used school buses range from 45 to 63 in passenger capacity, and thus are over 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) in gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You will modify the buses to carry 22 passengers (including the driver).

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to used motor vehicles. That is, persons selling a used vehicle are not required to sell vehicles that meet the FMVSSs. Thus, there is no NHTSA requirement that the modified buses meet FMVSS No. 217.

There is a limit in Federal law on the modifications that certain commercial businesses may make to vehicles for compensation. This "make inoperative" provision is discussed below.

Making Safety Devices and Elements Inoperative

Section 30122(b) of 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. states, in relevant part:

Prohibition. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, this section prohibits the entities listed in 30122 from removing, disabling or otherwise "making inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, with regard to modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from school bus to bus [1] ), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has interpreted the provision to hold that the modifications do not violate the "make inoperative" prohibition as long as the converted vehicle complies with the safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new type. Applied to the situation you present, and assuming that ACF is modifying the buses for compensation, this means that ACF would have to ensure that the buses meet the "bus" emergency exit requirements to preclude a violation of 30122.

The emergency exit requirements that apply to "buses" are explained in an enclosure to this letter. As you requested, the enclosure also explains the requirements for "school buses."

The make inoperative provision does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles. Thus, if ACF is modifying used school buses for its own use, there is no NHTSA requirement not to make inoperative the safety systems or devices installed in the vehicle. However, NHTSA urges owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Storing Fire-Fighting Equipment

You told Ms. Nakama that fire-fighting equipment (such as axes, shovels, and chain saws) would weigh between 2,300 to 3,000 pounds and would be secured in the bus by storage in cages. Separate cages can be designed for opposite sides of the bus, leaving a clear aisle to the rear emergency exit door. You stated that it was also proposed to put one large storage cage in such a way as to block the rear emergency exit door. In your letter, you ask whether, if the rear exit is blocked, installing a roof exit in front of the cage door fulfills the required number of exits. You asked Ms. Nakama whether Federal law permits blockage of the emergency exit door.

We assume for this answer that you are regulated by the "make inoperative" provision of 30122. Because your company would change the vehicle type (i.e., from school bus to bus), and there is no requirement for rear emergency exit doors for buses, NHTSA law would not prohibit the blockage of the rear emergency exit door with a permanent structure such as the cage, as long as a roof emergency exit is provided. If you are modifying your own vehicles and are thus not regulated by the make inoperative provision, you are not required by NHTSA to install an exit. If an exit is not provided, we strongly recommend that the emergency exit label be removed from the rear door.

Your final question to Ms. Nakama was whether it would be permissible to transport gasoline on the buses for fueling forest fire-fighting equipment such as chain saws. The Research and Special Projects Administration (RSPA) of the Department of Transportation has regulations that may apply to transport of gasoline. You can contact RSPAs Office of Hazardous Materials Standards toll free at 1-800-467-4922 for information about RSPA regulations. We also suggest that you contact your State motor vehicle administration for information about any State regulations in this area.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA
d.5/21/03





---

[1] By NHTSAs definition, a bus is "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." (See 49 CFR 571.3, "Definitions.")

ID: 86-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joseph H. Barnett, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Joseph H. Barnett, Esq. Puckett, Barnett, Larson, Mickey Wilson & Ochsenschlager One Constitution Drive P.O. Box 1287 Aurora, Illinois 60507

Dear Mr. Barnett:

This responds to your letter concerning a brake shoe assembly invented by your client. You stated that it is contemplated that the item will be sold in the replacement or so called after market and asked whether governmental approval and/or testing is required before the invention can be marketed and placed in service. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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 comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA has issued safety standards for both hydraulic-braked vehicles (Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems) and air-braked vehicles (Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems). In the case of a brake shoe assembly, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if the item 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 Standard No. 105 or Standard No. 121, as applicable. Also, if the item 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 alteration.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not by required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Please note that the Vehicle Safety Act's provisions requiring manufacturers to notify purchasers of safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge are applicable to motor vehicle equipment manufacturers even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

N.H.T.A. 40O - 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTN: Frank Berndt

RE: Belk Brake Assembly Patent Application Serial No. 06/804,166

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This office is counsel for George L. Belk, the inventor of an improved brake shoe assembly. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the abstract describing same along with figures 1 and 2 of the mechanical drawing submitted with the patent application.

In previous art, the webs are welded to the table and by this invention they are held together by slots and belts. Prototypes have been successfully road-tested for many thousands of miles under heavy duty conditions.

It is contemplated that the market for the item will be in the replacement or so-called attachment. Could you please advise if governmental approval and/or testing is required before the invention can be marketed and placed in service.

Very truly yours,

J.H. Barnett

JHB/me

Enclosures

BRAKE SHOE ASSEMBLY

ABSTRACT

A bake shoe assembly for a vehicle includes a generally arcuate platform, to which a pad of friction lining is attached, and with is selectively connectable to a pair of supporting webs. Each web has a plurality o radially extending peripheral projections received by corresponding slots provided in the platform. Clamp means are provided for pressing the webs against the platform such that the projections and slots cooperate to locate the webs immovably on the platform. The platform and friction lining may thereby be removed from the webs while the webs remain installed within the brake drum of the vehicle.

ID: nht68-2.25

DATE: 06/14/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon Jr. M.D.; NHTSA

TO: John J. Sparkman; United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to the matter raised in your note of May 21 and the accompanying correspondence from Mr. Jimmy R. Knight concerning his attempt to import a Volkswagen.

Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) provides in part that no person shall import into the United States any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date that any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless that vehicle conforms with such standard. Section 108(b)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent part that a motor vehicle offered for importation in violation of the provision discussed in the previous sentence shall be refused admission under joint regulations issued by the Treasury Department and the Department of Transportation, except that regulations may be issued permitting the importation of such a motor vehicle upon such terms and conditions (including the furnishing of a bond) as may appear appropriate to the Secretaries of the Treasury and Transportation to insure that any such motor vehicle will be brought into conformity with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States. In implementation of section 108(b) (3) of the Act, Part 12 of the Customs Regulations was jointly issued and published in the Federal Register on January 10, 1968 - a copy is included as Attachment I. Prior to publishing Part 12 in final form, a notice of proposed rule making was published in the Federal Register and, at the same time, a news release was issued by the Federal Highway Administration detailing the requirements of the proposed regulation - a copy of the news release is included as Attachment II. Thereafter, upon publication of the final rule, a Department of Transportation news release was issued again detailing the requirements of the final rule - a copy of the DOT news release is included as Attachment III. Further, the requirements of Part 12 were communicated to the Department of Defense and the Department of State and those departments were urged to give the regulations the widest possible dissemination. Finally, the Customs Department printed an addition to its information booklet on the importation of automobiles into the United States in which the need to conform to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards was specifically stated - a copy of the Customs publication is included as Attachment IV. Thus, the existence of the importation regulations contained in Part 12 relating to motor vehicles and the need to conform to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards for such vehicles were given the widest possible publicity.

Under the Act, certification of conformity with Federal motor vehicle safety standards is a function of the manufacturer. It is the manufacturer, not the Federal Highway Administration, who certifies that his product conforms to applicable standards. In keeping with the requirement of self-certification in the Act, section 12.80(c) of the Customs Regulations provides that a person, after obtaining entry of a nonconforming vehicle under section 12.80(b)(2)(iii) of the Customs Regulations, must file, within the time stated, a verified statement that such motor vehicle has been brought into conformity, the person who has brought the vehicle into conformity and a description of the nature and extent of the work performed or return the vehicle or forfeit the bond. These provisions are applicable to Mr. Knight's situation. Mr. Knight's problem is that he cannot or will not state that the Volkswagen in question has been brought into conformity. This problem, in turn, apparently stems from the fact that no one but the manufacturer of the motor vehicle can state to what degree the Volkswagen was not in conformity in the first instance. It would seem, therefore, that the only practicable solution to Mr. Knight's problems is for him to contact the manufacturer of the motor vehicle to find out the extent to which the vehicle does not conform to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Armed with the information, Mr. Knight, or persons knowledgeable in automotive mechanics, will know whether the vehicle can be made to conform and what needs to be done to being the vehicle into conformity. We are forwarding to Mr. Knight a complete set of applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards together with a copy of this letter. Further, we are including a copy of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as Attachment V.

We trust the above satisfactory answers the inquiry and if we can be of any further service to you in this regard, please do not hesitate to call upon us.

ID: nht74-3.41

DATE: 05/09/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Andrew T. Hosoodor

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1974, concerning the defect notification campaign involving your 1972 Open Road motor home. You object to Open Road's insistence that you sign an authorization for repair and alteration form which contains a rather comprehensive indemnity and hold-harmless provision.

The NHTSA is without authority to compel the making of any repairs to potentially defective vehicles in the hands of purchasers. Manufacturers are free to make repairs subject to conditions, or to not make them at all. The NHTSA has issued regulations regarding the content of defect notification letters (49 CFR Part 577) but does not consider these regulations to apply to the campaign in question as the campaign was initiated before the regulations become effective.

We have corresponded with Open Road regarding this matter, which was first brought to our attention by another purchaser whose objections were similar to your own. That purchaser signed a modified authorization form with Open Road, who has provided us with a copy which we enclose for your information. Open Road has informed us that the sole purpose of the indemnity and hold-harmless clause to which you object is to protect Open Road from third party claims for unauthorized repairs. A copy of Open Road's letter to use with that representation is enclosed should you wish to undertake further negotiations with the company.

We have notified Open Road that future campaign notification letters must be revised if the company insists on the continued use of the indemnity and hold-harmless provision in its present form. Copies of this correspondence with Open Road are also enclosed.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

ENC.

ID: 17322.drn

Mr. Gary Hammontree
Director, Physical Plant
Starr Commonwealth
13725 Starr Commonwealth Rd.
Albion, MI 49224

Dear Mr. Hammontree:

This responds to your letter asking for information as to whether your nonprofit organization must use school buses to transport youngsters in your residential treatment program. You also ask about the Alternative Education Program (AEP). As explained below, we do not consider the residential treatment program to constitute a "school" as that term is used in our statute. Thus, new buses sold to you for transporting youngsters in the program are not required to be school buses under Federal law. Your buses used in the AEP may or may not be school buses, depending on how regularly they are used for school transportation. With regard to both programs, you should also keep in mind that the States regulate the registration and use of vehicles in their jurisdictions. You should therefore consult Michigan law to see what requirements, if any, apply to the vehicles.

Your letter explains that Starr Commonwealth provides many social services to children and families. One service offered is transportation for:

youth that have been through the juvenile justice system and placed in our residential treatment program. While they attend school on our campus, their primary reason for being placed with us is not for education, but rather to work toward resolving their emotional and delinquent behavior.

Your letter states that for children in the residential treatment program, transportation is provided to events such as "service projects in the community that assist in the building of self esteem, home visits, and recreational activities."

Your letter also noted that Starr Commonwealth provides an Alternative Education Program. Youngsters in the AEP attend public schools and are transported to and from school in school

buses associated with the public schools. Your letter states that occasionally Starr Commonwealth provides transportation for the youngsters in the AEP.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 (copy enclosed) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125 (copy enclosed). Therefore, large (e.g., 15-passenger) vans that are likely to be used significantly to transport school students are "school buses."

Your letter raises two questions. First is whether Starr Commonwealth's residential treatment program constitutes a "school." This question is one the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the type of services provided by the organization at issue.

The facts you have provided show that Starr Commonwealth primarily provides psychological and therapeutic counseling and other social services for the youngsters. For purposes of NHTSA's safety standards, I have concluded that these services are distinct from the academic instruction associated with a "school," and that therefore, Starr Commonwealth is not a "school." Accordingly, if a dealer were to sell a new bus (e.g., a 15-passenger van) to Starr Commonwealth, that dealer need not sell a new school bus.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles, including school buses. Although NHTSA does not consider the residential treatment program to be a "school" for purposes of our statute, the State of Michigan may have transportation requirements for such youngsters.

The second issue is whether school buses are required in transporting youngsters in the Alternative Education Program to and from public schools. I would agree with your assessment that the answer is yes, any new bus that is likely to be "used significantly" to transport AEP students "to or from school" is covered by our school bus requirements. This means that any person selling a new bus that is likely to be used significantly for the purpose of carrying AEP students to or from public schools must sell a school bus, or be subject to civil penalties for selling a vehicle that does not comply with applicable safety standards.

You indicate that typically school buses associated with the public schools are in fact used to carry your youngsters to school. However, you also indicate that Starr Commonwealth "occasionally" transports them to school-related events (you did not specify the extent of the "occasional" use.) We consider any bus that is likely to be "used significantly" to transport students to or from school or related events a "school bus." If your buses are only occasionally used for school-related events, such use would not be significant. However, if your vehicles are used on a regular basis to transport students to school-related events, the buses would be school buses. Any person selling a new bus for regular use transporting students to school-related events would be required to sell a certified school bus.

I hope this information is helpful. Please accept my apologies for the earlier letter on air bags that was inadvertently sent to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/8/98