ID: nht90-1.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 5, 1990

FROM: R. W. SCHREYER -- SR. SALES ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION MANUFACTURING CORP. TO: HARRY THOMPSON -- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO R. W. SCHREYER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 210). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-11-89 TO FRANK BERNDT FROM JOE DABROWSKI, LETTER DATED 3-22-89 TO KEITH A. MCDOWELL FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, AND LETTER DATED 3-25-77 TO ROBERT B. KURRE, WAYNE CORPORATION, FROM FRANK BERNDT. TEXT:

Mr. Max Montgomery (State of Nevada, Dept. of Prisons) will, be procuring some prison coaches. He will be specing a Type I lap belt for passengers. Since there is no Federal Safety Standard requiring this, can you provide direction on what course of ac tion we should take. (i.e. Do we design to FMVSS Section 571.210?)

Also, please clarify test procedure in Section 571.210. Do all seats in the coach have to be tested simultaneously or can a single seat be tested at one time?

If you have any questions, please give me a call at (505) 347-2011 extension 7511.

Thank you.

ID: nht90-1.62

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 5, 1990

FROM: Jeffrey Donaldson -- Human Factors Engineer, Arcad

TO: Steve Wood --Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-17-90 from P.J. Rice to J. Donaldson (A36; Std. 101)

TEXT:

In a March 2, 1990 phone conversation with Mr. Roman Brooks, he instructed me that any questions concerning motor Vehicle Safety Standards (MVSS) 101 were to be submitted in writing to you.

My inquiry is in reference to MVSS 101 and its application to the Instrument Panel Illumination Intensity Control (Dimmer Switch). Paragraph S5.1 reads as such:

"S5.1 location. Under the conditions of S6, each of the following controls that is furnished shall be operable by the driver and each of the following displays that is furnished shall be visible to the driver. Under the conditions of S6, telltales are c onsidered visible when activated."

Later in paragraph S5.3.3 (a):

"S5.3(a) Means shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and the identification of those items visible to the driver under all driving conditions."

Given these statements, the question remains, is the instrument panel illumination intensity control required to be visible to the driver under the requirements of MVSS 101?

I appreciate your prompt attention to this and look forward to your response. Please feel free to contact me at (313) 458-6951 with any questions.

ID: nht90-1.63

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 6, 1990

FROM: Bev Wilson -- Head Start Director, Western Community Action, Inc.

TO: Dan Giles -- Christianson, Stoneberg, Giles & Myers, P.A.

TITLE: Re Head Start Busettes - Are we under Federal Law or State Law?

ATTACHMT: Attached to memo dated 2-22-90 from D. Baker to B. Wilson; Also attached to letter dated 3-18-88 from R.C. Rost to Chief Council, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 8-26-88 from E.L. Jones to R.C. Rost; Also attached to letter dated 9-7-90 fr om P.J. Rice to D.L. Giles (A36; Std. 108; VSA 103(d)); Also attached to letter from D.L. Giles to S.P. Wood; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-90 from D.L. Giles to D. Baker

TEXT:

We have two 23-passenger busettes, blue with six-light warning system. Captain Roger Hess received a call from his state office to contact me to have the flashing lights removed. He told me that David Baker, Law Compliance Representative from Mankato, w ould be contacting me. I was to follow his direction on the lights but to tape over them or be cited. They are taped over. (See Mr. Baker's correspondence.)

I called Minnesota Body and Equipment out of Shakopee and asked them to pay to have the lights removed, as our purchase agreement said busettes were to meet or exceed all Federal and State requirements. They said they have to put on the lights and would send me the Federal regulations they are under (enclosed). They would not pay to have the lights removed but did say in Minnesota we shouldn't use the lights.

In Jackson our driver was told by the police to also have a sign added "this vehicle stops at all railroad crossings" and use the lights. In Marshall the City Attorney contacted us to have the lights removed. If we are to use the Federal warning light system and stop at railroad crossings, are our busettes to be painted yellow?

Your help is appreciated.

ID: nht90-1.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 6, 1990

FROM: Anthony Riani; David Mitchell

TO: To Whom it May Concern

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-4-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to DS America, Inc., Attn: Messrs. Riani and Mitchell (A37; Part 591)

TEXT:

We are interested in importing Volkswagon Beetles' into the United States for retail sale. We have already contacted the Environmental Protection Agency as to their requirements for importing vehicles. We have also contacted the Department of Transport ation by telephone. We were told the vehicle has to be crash tested. These tests are to confirm the speeds at which the car can withstand head-on, rear-end, and side collisions. We were also told about some other problems that were experienced by impo rters in the past. We would greatly appreciate any and all information you could send to us regarding all relevant requirements for cars being imported to the United States. We would also appreciate any information about these problems that the Departm ent of Transportation has on record. We are curious to know if documentation by Volkswagon of Mexico certifying these crash requirements can replace a crash tested vehicle or vehicles. Thank you for your help.

ID: nht90-1.65

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1990

FROM: Lloyd Bentsen -- U.S. Senator

TO: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator., NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-25-90 To Lloyd Bentsen and From Stephen P. Wood; (A35; VSA 102(14), 108(a)(1)(a), 108(b)(1) ); Also attached to letter dated 2-12-90 To Lloyd Bentsen and From Johannah Bonewald; Also attached to letter To All Ford Ren t-A-Car System Members and From W.A. Jacques

TEXT:

I recently received the enclosed constituent inquiry, and I would very much appreciate your providing me with any pertinent information you might have regarding the matter.

Your kind assistance is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht90-1.66

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1990

FROM: Daniel L. Giles -- Christianson, Stoneberg, Giles & Myers, P.A.

TO: Dave Baker -- Department of Public Safety

TITLE: Re Bev Wilson/Head Start/Marshall, Minnesota

ATTACHMT: Attached to memo dated 3-6-90 from B. Wilson to D. Giles; Also attached to memo dated 2-22-90 from D. Baker to B. Wilson; Also attached to letter dated 3-18-88 from R.C. Rost to Chief Council, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 8-26-88 from E .L. Jones to R.C. Rost; Also attached to letter dated 9-7-90 from P.J. Rice to D.L. Giles (A36; Std. 108; VSA 103(d)); Also attached to letter dated 3-14-90 from D.L. Giles to S.P. Wood

TEXT:

Please find copies of the following:

1. March 6, 1990 Letter to Dan Giles from Bev Wilson.

2. Dave Baker Memorandum dated 2-22-90, with attachments.

3. U.S. Department of Transportation Letter (undated).

4. Minnesota Body Equipment Letter to U.S. Department of Transportation dated 3-18-88.

After you have reviewed the enclosed documents, you will see that the Head Start director in Marshall, Minnesota appears to have good reason to be confused about the regulations she should be complying with. Could you please call so that we could discus s what actions my client should take, if any, or the manner in which any jurisdictional questions can be resolved without adverse consequences to my client.

ID: nht90-1.67

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 9, 1990

FROM: Richard L. Martinez -- Santa Fe Insurance Agency.,Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Attorney-at-Law.,NHTSA

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated April 25, 1990 To Richard L. Martinez and From Stephen P. Wood; (A35; Part 592)

TEXT:

Thank you very much for talking with me earlier in the week about Europa's interest in importing the Mercedes-Benz G - Wagon. As I understand from the principal of Europa, they intend to apply for an independent commercial importer's license under the EPA, and also as a registered importer under the Department of Transportation. I wanted to find out if you could provide me with a little more information about the $2,000 liability policy that we spoke about. I've been making some inquiries with property and casualty insurance companies, and they are completely befuddled by the matter; so I've now gone to some of the specialty markets that provide warranty coverages. Since I've only sent out the inquiries today, it will probably be a while before I hear back from them. In the interim, here are some questions I would appreciate your reviewing: 1) Is it required that the term of the policy be for eight years from the date of purchase/sale? 2) The limit is $2,000. Would that apply annually or would it be for the entire eight-year period? The reason for this question is that the companies are wondering whether or not this is a cumulative limit, e.g., $2,000 x eight years = $16,000. 3)You mentioned that the policy was to cover non-compliance or safety defect situations. What are areas specifically to be covered: emissions controls, latent defects, brake problems, warranty situations such as drive train, etc.? 4) Europa is looking into whether or not MBNA would provide a warranty policy as they currently do for their private passenger vehicles. This present warranty covers for a 12/12 plan. If they were to extend this, is it possible that that could be acceptable as an alternative to the $2,000 limit? Some of these questions might appear to be somewhat naive, but since this is fairly new ground for ourselves and Europa, please March 9, 1990 Richard L. Martinez -- Santa Fe Insurance Agency.,Inc.

bear with us. Any further information you can provide us with would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht90-1.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/13/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: HANK KMIECIK -- STEERABLE CARRIAGES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-5-90 TO NHTSA FROM HANK KMIECIK, STEERABLE CARRIAGES, ATTACHED; [OCC 4333]

TEXT: This responds to your January 5, 1990 letter requesting our review of your rear wheel steering system for trucks, buses and special application vehicles. This system is intended to replace one rear axle on these vehicles, and when activated, enables the axle to rotate slightly on its vertical axis. It is intended to improve the maneuverability of these vehicles in low-speed situations such as making sharp turns.

During a February 9, 1990 telephone conversation with David Greenburg of this office, you explained that, while your product uses air from the vehicle's compressed air suspension system to operate the axle, it is isolated from the air brake system. You also explained that, as a result of this design, a failure in the air system connected to your product would not affect the operation of the vehicle's braking system.

By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 makes manufacture rs of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of its products conforms with all applicable safety standards.

In this instance, there are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for steerable rear axles. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a product would not have to certify that a steerable rear axle complies with any safety standard before offering it for sale to the public. However, the addition of a steerable rear axle to a vehicle before its first sale to the public could affect the vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. In such a case, the manu facturer or alterer that installed this product on a new vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle, with the steerable rear axle installed, complied with all applicable safety standards. For example, installation of the steerable axle could affect t he vehicle's

compliance with the applicable braking standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121; Air brake systems) or the tire and rim selection standard (FMVSS No. 119; New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars).

Of course, you will need to consider other safety effects that operation of the steerable axle system could have. Among these considerations would be ensuring that the trailer's gross axle weight rating (GAWR) is not exceeded when the steering system is in operation and the trailer is supported by only the steerable axle instead of by both the steerable and fixed axles.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your steerable rear axle are subject to the requirements in section 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defe ct exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

In addition, the use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from knowingly "rendering inoperative" a ny device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the steerable rear axle and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the steerable rear axle in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safet y standards. If the installation of the steerable rear axle would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the product can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

The Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether the installation of this steerable rear axle on vehicles would result in a "render inoperative" violation on your company. This agency may reexamine your determination in the conte xt of an enforcement action.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that State laws may apply to your product.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Enc.

ID: nht90-1.69

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 14, 1990

FROM: Daniel L. Giles -- Christianson, Stoneberg, Giles & Myers, P.A.

TO: Steven P. Wood -- Acting Chief, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Western Community Action, Inc./Head Start Busettes

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-7-90 from P.J. Rice to D.L. Giles (A36; Std. 108; VSA 103(3)); Also attached to letter dated 3-8-90 from D.L. Giles to D. Baker; Also attached to memo dated 3-6-90 from B. Wilson to D. Giles; Also attached to memo dat ed 2-22-90 from D. Baker to B. Wilson; Also attached to letter dated 3-18-88 from R.C. Rost to Chief Council, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 8-26-88 from E.L. Jones to R.C. Rost

TEXT:

Western Community Action, Inc. provides community services, including head start services in the Marshall, Minnesota area. They recently purchased two Wayne Busettes for use in transporting children to and from the head start facility. These buses carr y 23 children passengers or 16 adult passengers. The chasse is less than 10,000 pounds GVWR. The buses are blue in color with white lettering. As delivered by Minnesota Body and Equipment Company, each bus is equipped with an amber warning light syste m.

Western Community Action, Inc. has been warned by the Minnesota State Highway Patrol that the amber warning lights are illegal equipment in Minnesota because these vehicles are not "school buses" under Minnesota Statutes. No citation has been issued as of the date of this letter, but my client has been told that citations will issue if the amber warning light system is not removed or disabled.

I am enclosing the following documents:

1. March 8, 1990 letter to Dave Baker from Daniel L. Giles

2. March 6, 1990 letter from Bev Wilson to Dan Giles.

3. February 22, 1990 Memorandum from Dave Baker to Bev Wilson including copy of Minnesota Statutes.

4. March 18, 1988 letter from Minnesota Body & Equipment Co. to N.H.T.S.A.

5. August 26, 1988 letter from N.H.T.S.A to Minnesota Body & Equipment Co.

Mr. Dave Baker, Law Compliance Representative of the Minnesota State Highway Patrol has been provided with copies of the March 18, 1988 correspondence of Minnesota Body and Equipment Company and the August 26, 1988 correspondence from the N.H.T.S.A. Aft er reviewing this correspondence he has advised me that my client must remove or disable the amber warning light system from the Wayne Busettes it owns, or be in violation of Minnesota Statutes. Mr. Baker suggested that because these busettes are being used entirely within the State of Minnesota, they are not subject to regulation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Would you kindly review the correspondence and advise me at your

earliest convience whether the Wayne Busettes used in the head start program by Western Community Action, Inc. must be equipped with the amber warning light system, and if so, when the system is to be used. I would appreciate your response by fax, if po ssible.

ID: nht90-1.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 7, 1990

FROM: Perry E. Faulkner -- Foremost Tire & Retreading

TO: William "Bill" McCollum -- Fifth Congressional District

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-13-91 from Jamie McLaughlin Fish to Bill McCollum (A37; Std. 117; Std. 119); Also attached to letter dated 6-18-81 from Frank Berndt to Roy Littlefield (Std. 119)

TEXT:

The following question was submitted to the Department of Transportation for verification.

"Are casings purchased overseas, for recapping in the United States, required to have the Department of Transportation, D.O.T. number on the casing. This D.O.T. number signifies that the Federal Excise tax has been paid and that the tire meets or exceed s Federal standards?"

Your office gave me the phone number for Tire Compliance at 1-915-655-0546, Yates Galloway. He confirmed that in the Code of Federal Regulation, 571.117-S 5.2.3, that any tire that is recapped in the United States must have imprinted from the Factory of origination the Size of the tire and D.O.T. number. Any casing brought into the United States without the D.O.T. number cannot be sold recapped.

For our records, this is my formal request for an official letter from Mr. Galloway, for our protection. There are numerous tire dealers who are trying to sell large volume of tires from overseas market without the D.O.T. number. If the casing was to b lowout and a death was the result the person that sold the casing would have the total responsibility for selling a casing that does not meet Federal Standards.

Thanking you in advance for your valued time and consideration on this very important and life safety request. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the office.