ID: nht92-2.35

DATE: 11/11/92

FROM: DAVID KENNEDY -- W.Y. MOBERLY, INC.

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-10-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DAVID KENNEDY (A40; STD. 120); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-30-82 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO KENNETH M. BUSH

TEXT: I am respectfully requesting an interpretation on a specific regulation that deals with Motorcycles and Other Three Wheeled Vehicles.

My client, Lehman Industries from Westlock Alberta Canada, manufactures a "Gold Wing Trike Conversion Kit". The "Kit" consists of a prefabricated fiberglass rear end assembly, complete with brakes, drums, brake lines, 15" tires and rims. The prefabricated fiberglass rear end assembly, is attached to a specific year of Honda Gold Wing Motorcycle. The rear end of the Honda Gold Wing motorcycle is taken apart, and my clients rear end assembly is attached in place of the existing one. When the rear end assembly is attached, certain modifications must be made, the drive shaft is removed, the entire rear wheel is taken off the seat, and all of the moulding etc. that was originally supplied with the Honda. In their place, my clients prefabricated rear end assembley is installed, by bolting, and changing the frame. Once the prefabricated rear end assembly is installed, a rear differential is installed as well, allowing the utilization of regular 15" automotive tires and rims. I have enclosed a picture of a completed "Trike" to show the automotive tires and rims.

Please note that my client in Canada only sells the kits, I have also enclosed a parts list for the "Kits" which shows all of the parts that are included to the purchaser. It is up to the purchaser to install the "Kit" onto the existing Honda Gold Wing. Leheman Industries normally do not do the installation. When Lehaman Industries do the installation they supply the purchaser with a "modified vehicle label" certifing that the modified vehicle conforms to all applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of modification.

The "Kits" are shipped to the actual "end users" they are not shipped to a wholesale [Illegible Word] they are shipped in a disassembled condition, except the rims and tires are attached to the rear differential, and the prefabricated rear end assembly is attached to the differential. The rubber brake hose has the DOT certification on it, as prescribed by law, the tail light lenses have the DOT certification on it as prescribed by law, the 15" automotive tires of the DOT certification on it as prescribed by law, the rims however do not, as they are actually 15" automotive rims. They are not actual motorcycle rims. I understand that motorcycle rim have got to have the DOT certification on them, but in this circumstance, do these specific rims need it? I have enclosed a statement from Lehmans supplier of the wheels as well as a technical data sheet. I relize that it is mostly in German, I was unable to obtain one that in English.

Thank you for your attention in this matter, any clarification that you can give will be greatly appreciated. Lehaman Industries are waiting to continue shipping to their customers in the U.S. based on your reply. Please contact myself if you require any additional information.

ATTACHMENTS (PHOTOS, PARTS LIST AND STATEMENT OMITTED.)

ID: nht92-2.36

DATE: 11/10/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOHN WOMACK

TO: WILBUR D. OWENS, III, ESQUIRE -- BOUHAN, WILLIAMS & LEVY, ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-15-92 FROM WILBUR D. OWENS, III TO OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, NHTSA (OCC 7761)

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated September 15, 1992, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regarding Phelps v. General Motors, et al. Reference is also made to your telephone conversation with Mr. Walter Myers of my staff on October 15, 1992.

You stated in your letter that your firm represents defendant Grumman Olson in the Phelps lawsuit which arose out of injuries suffered by the plaintiff while operating a 14-foot Grumman Kurbmaster manufactured in 1977. After explaining the theory of the plaintiff's cause of action, you stated that you have looked at current regulations, your main areas of interest being 49 CFR 571.201 through 571.220, and requested our assistance in obtaining those regulations from 1977. You pointed out that in those regulations there are a number of exceptions for walk-in vans, and you asked whether the 14-foot Kurbmaster would be considered a truck or a walk-in van, or both.

Please find enclosed, as requested, copies of 49 CFR 571.201 through 220 that were in effect as of October 1, 1977, duly certified as official Federal government documents to make them admissible in Federal court. As Mr. Myers explained to you by telephone, the cost for these copies, as certified, is $ 30.72. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 7, this charge represents one hour of search time at a cost of $ 22.22 per hour, plus copying fee of ten cents per page x 85 pages. Please remit a check in that amount, payable to Treasurer of the United States, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Financial Management, Room 6134, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D. C. 20590. To ensure that your account will be properly credited, please annotate your check with "NCC-20."

Before responding to your question about the classification of the 14-foot Kurbmaster, a bit of background information is in order. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Motor vehicles are, and were as of 1977, classified according to six basic types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. Each type is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Each safety standard applies to specified types of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Thus, manufacturers must first classify their vehicles in order to ascertain which safety standards apply and then certify that those vehicles meet all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither classifies vehicles nor does it approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer has done so. NHTSA may, however, reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of enforcement proceedings. I note that, in the case of the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster, there have been no enforcement proceedings.

The classification given the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster by the manufacturer will be found on the certification label required by 49 CFR 567.4(a), and NHTSA has not reviewed or taken issue with that classification. Assuming it was classified as a truck, a truck was in 1977, and still is, defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

As you noted in your letter, certain of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards exclude "walk-in vans" from their coverage. See, e.g., paragraph S2, Standard 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR 571.203). The term "walk-in van" is commonly used and understood within the motor vehicle industry, and for many years the Federal motor vehicle safety standards did not include any definition of the term. I note, however, that in a recent rulemaking which extended Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, to light trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, the agency added a definition of "walk-in van" to that standard. Effective September 1, 1993, Standard No. 214 defines "walk-in van" as "a van in which a person can enter the occupant compartment in an upright position." See S2.1.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.37

DATE: 11/10/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOHN WOMACK

TO: TIM BOHN -- PORTEC, INC., CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DIVISION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-17-92 FROM TIM BOHN TO CHIEF COUNCILS OFFICE, NHTSA (OCC 7765)

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about whether portable construction equipment that you manufacture would have to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, particularly those standards related to brakes. You explained that your construction equipment is transported over public roads, but only between job sites and from the factory. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you further described your equipment as a portable conveyor belt that typically spends extended periods of time at a single construction site but is occasionally towed over the public roads to other construction sites. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidential and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the above considerations, it appears that your portable conveyer belt is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This conclusion is based on your statements that your equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your portable conveyor belt on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, plese feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.38

DATE: 11/10/92

FROM: BARRY FELRICE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA

TO: DENNIS T. JOHNSTON -- ENGINEERING PLANNING AND LIAISON MANAGER, ROVER GROUP NORTH AMERICAN ENGINEERING OFFICE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-12-92 FROM DENNIS T. JOHNSTON TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TEXT: This responds to your document dated August 12, 1992, which was characterized as either a petition for reconsideration or a request for interpretation, depending on our response. The document concerned a final rule published in the Federal Register (57 FR 30917) on July 13, 1992, which responded to petitions for reconsideration concerning the extension of Standard No. 214's quasi-static side door strength requirements to light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (collectively referred to as LTV's). As discussed below, we are treating your document as a comment on a related January 1992 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and not a petition, because your concerns relate to a possible future final rule based on that NPRM.

By way of background information, NHTSA extended Standard No. 214's quasi-static side door strength requirements to LTV's in a final rule published on June 14, 1991. In the preamble to the final rule, the agency stated that it intended to propose amendments to the standard in the near future to clarify the test procedure for two types of doors, double-opening doors and doors without windows. NHTSA's NPRM was subsequently published in the Federal Register (57 FR 1716) on January 15, 1992.

As discussed in the January 1992 NPRM, the agency determined that clarification of the test procedure was needed for certain contoured doors, as well as for double-opening doors and doors without windows. Standard No. 214's test procedure works well when a door's lower edge is essentially horizontal along its entire length, or only a small portion of the door's lower edge deviates from that description by being contoured upward. Almost all passenger cars have doors of these types. However, as discussed in the January 1992 NPRM, the standard's test procedure is not appropriate when only a small portion of a door's lower edge is horizontal and the edge is contoured significantly upwards for a large part of the door. Some LTV's have such doors.

The NPRM therefore proposed amendments to clarify the test procedure for contoured doors.

The comments closing date for the January 1992 NPRM was March 16, 1992. The agency has not yet reached a decision concerning a possible final rule. On July 13, 1992, however, NHTSA published its response to a petition for reconsideration of the initial final rule extending Standard No. 214's side door strength requirements to LTV's. The petition requested that the agency phase-in the new requirements instead of applying them to all of the newly covered vehicles simultaneously. As part of its response to that petition, NHTSA delayed by one year the effective date for double opening cargo doors, doors with no windows, and certain contoured doors on those vehicles.

In your August 12, 1992 letter, you noted that the July 1992 final rule delayed the effective date of the side door strength requirements for doors for which the ratio of the width of the lowest portion of the door to the width of the door at its widest point is not greater than 0.5. You expressed concern that, in a possible final rule based on the January 1992 NPRM, the agency might use a discriminator other than the 0.5 ratio for determining which contoured doors must conform to particular tests. You stated that this could have significant cost impacts on your company.

While you characterize your document as a possible petition for reconsideration of the July 1992 final rule, the only concerns you raise relate to a possible final rule based on the January 1992 NPRM. Therefore, we do not consider your document to be a petition for reconsideration.

I note that the use of the 0.5 ratio in the July 1992 final rule was not intended as a signal concerning the final action the agency may take on the January 1992 NPRM. As indicated above, the current Standard No. 214 test procedure only creates problems for contoured doors which have a significant degree of contour. In order to delay the effective date for those doors and not ones that have only a small degree of contour, it was necessary to specify a definition. The agency selected the 0.5 ratio to ensure that the effective date was delayed for contoured doors which have a significant degree of contour.

We will consider your August 1992 submission as a comment on the January 1992 NPRM. A copy of this correspondence is being placed in the public docket.

ID: nht92-2.39

DATE: November 10, 1992

FROM: Duane Bartels -- Commercial Vehicle Inspector III, MN State Patrol

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-21-93 from John Womack to Duane Bartels (A41; Part 566; Part 567)

TEXT: A person in the State of Minnesota has requested to change the seating in a 12 or 15 passenger van to a maximum of 10 passenger. This would change the original manufacturers rating of a "Bus" because the vehicle carries more than 10 to a vehicle classification of "MPV" which is designed to carry 10 or less persons.

His proposal to do this type of work is to remove and or modify seats so the van can only carry a maximum of 10 people. When seats are removed all fastening devices and holes in the floor will be removed or covered as not to allow a seat to be readily put back in the vehicle. When a seat is modified he either modifies the seat frame or does upholstery work to reduce the number of people that can sit in the seat. (ie: a 3 passenger seat to a 2 passenger seat or a 4 passenger seat to a 3 passenger seat). Extra seat belts are removed to comply with the new seating. There is no other work done to the structure of the vehicle.

This person will then affix an additional label of the type and in the manner as prescribed in 49 CFR 567.4.

By doing the above work to a vehicle, this person believes he is allowed to do such work and recertify the vehicle according to 49 CFR 567.7. 49 CFR 567.7 are requirements for persons who alter a certified vehicle by other than addition, substitution or removal of readily attachable components.

Before he is given permission to do this type of work, some questions need to be answered.

1. By doing this altering to seats, is he doing enough work to the vehicle to qualify under 49 CFR 567.7?

2. Will this person become a manufacturer and if so, does he need to comply with 49 CFR 566.5?

3. Can he purchase a new vehicle, do the altering and resell the vehicle or must an owner bring the vehicle to him and have the altering done?

4. Can this altering and recertifying be done only to a new vehicle or can this be done to a used vehicle?

Please review 49 CFR 567.7 and return back to me your opinion on the questions I have listed.

Thank you in advance for your help in this matter.

ID: nht92-2.4

DATE: 11/25/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KEVIN MITCHELL -- GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-21-92 FROM KEVIN MITCHELL TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7759)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the hydraulic brake hose labeling requirements (S5.2) of FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses. You indicated that your current brake hoses have two stripes, on opposite sides of the hose. Each of the stripes is interrupted by a line of information. One line, which you call the "DOT print line," contains the information required by FMVSS 106. The other line, which you call the "SAE print line," contains certain information not required by FMVSS 106, including "batch and shift" information.

You asked whether it is permissible to place the batch and shift information (consisting of a mark such as "AA") on the DOT print line. You stated that moving the batch and shift mark to the DOT print line would improve the legibility of the SAE print line. This is because better print materials could be used in the SAE print line if that legend did not contain a mark that must be updated on a daily or more frequent basis, such as the batch and shift mark. As discussed below, the batch and shift information may not be placed on the same line as the required information.

NHTSA's longstanding position, stated in past rulemaking notice preambles (e.g., 39 FR 7425, February 26, 1974; 39 FR 24012, June 28, 1974), is that the DOT print line may only contain the required information. The striping requirement (S5.2.1) of FMVSS 106 states that one of the requisite stripes on a brake hose "may be interrupted by the information required by S5.2.2, and the other stripe may be interrupted by additional information at the manufacturer's option." We interpret this to mean that the stripe that is interrupted by the required information may not be interrupted by information voluntarily provided by the manufacturer. This conclusion is consistent with the preamble for the final rule establishing S5.2.1 (38 FR 31302, November 13, 1973), which refers to optional additional information as not being permitted in the legend that interrupts the first stripe. (That rule modified the labeling requirements to permit interruption of the second stripe with the optional information.) NHTSA did not permit optional information to be mixed with the required information because the mixture of optional and required labeling could obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or interfere with the appearance of complete labeling on some hose assemblies.

For your information, we have enclosed the Federal Register documents cited above. Please contact Ms. Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: nht92-2.40

DATE: 11/09/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHRISTOPHER LEONE -- NEWBOLD DESIGNS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-6-92 FROM CHRISTOPHER LEONE TO TAYLOR VINSON

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of August 6, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for rules and regulations of the Department on electric vehicles. I understand that you talked with Mr. Vinson later in the day, and received an overview of the matter. I further understand that you intend only the construction of a single experimental vehicle, and have no plans for its production.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the introduction into interstate commerce, by any person, of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is a violation, for which a civil penalty of up to $ 1,00 may be imposed. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are set out in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. There are no standards that apply to your project car are those that apply to "passenger cars" in general.

However, the manufacturer of an electric vehicle may petition us for a temporary exemption (up to 2 years) from one or more of the safety standards on the basis that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle. The temporary exemption regulations are found at 49 CFR Part 555. An exemption covers up to 2,500 vehicles per year for any 12-month period that the exemption is in effect.

Regulations governing the licensing of motor vehicles are the prerogative of the individual States. Thus, you should inquire as to what Rhode Island requires for your contemplated vehicle.

There is a regulatory gap which your situation highlights, and that is the legal status of a person who intends to build only a single motor vehicle. Such a person is not a "manufacturer" under the Act, since the operative portion of the definition of "manufacturer" is one who manufactures or assembles "motor vehicles". The temporary exemption authority appears directed towards commercial enterprises and not single motor vehicles. Nevertheless, we believe we have the authority to exempt a single motor vehicle under these provisions.

If you wish to consult us further in this matter, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to help you.

ID: nht92-2.41

DATE: 11/09/92

FROM: MARION C. BLAKEY ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TO: HONORABLE JOHN D. DINGELL -- CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COPYEE: MR. AARON GORDON

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-17-92 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL TO MARION C. BLAKEY

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 17, 1992, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Aaron Gordon concerning seat belts on school buses. You requested comments on Mr. Gordon's letter and on H.R. 896, a bill referred to in Mr. Gordon's letter.

The issue of safety belts on school buses is an important topic which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has thoroughly studied for many years. School bus transportation has been and continues to be one of the safest forms of transportation in America. Every year, approximately 370,000 public school buses travel approximately 3.5 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school-related activities. Since NHTSA began tracking traffic fatalities in 1975, an average of 16 school bus occupants per year have sustained fatal injuries. While each of these fatalities is tragic, the number of school bus occupant fatalitie is small compared to the number of occupant fatalities to children in other types of vehicles. For example, in 1989 there were 5,287 deaths among children aged five to 18 in vehicles other than school buses.

In 1977, NHTSA issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum crash protection levels for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. The effectiveness of "compartmentalization" has been confirmed by independent studies by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Under the current requirements of Standard No. 222, small school buses, those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must provide "compartmentalization" and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to "compartmentalization" in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks.

In 1987, the NTSB completed a study of the crashworthiness of large school buses, and concluded that most school bus occupant fatalities and serious injuries were "attributable to the occupants' seating position being in direct line with the crash forces. It is unlikely that the availability of any type of restraint would have improved their injury outcome."

In 1989, NAS completed a study of means to improve school bus safety and concluded that "the overall potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses are insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for mandatory installation. The funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts might better be spent on other school bus safety programs and devices that could save more lives and reduce more injuries." The NAS pointed out that since children are at greater risk of being killed in school bus loading zones (i.e., boarding and leaving the bus) than on board school buses, "a larger share of the school bus safety effort should be directed to improving the safety of bus loading zones." A summary of the NAS report is enclosed.

In response to the recommendations from the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several rulemaking actions, such as improvements to school bus visibility by the driver and requiring stop signal arms on school buses, designed to improve the safety of students in school bus loading zones. Besides the actions taken in response to the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several other rulemaking activities to improve further the safety of school buses, e.g., increasing the number of emergency exits, establishing wheelchair securement/occupant restraint requirements, and improving the body joint strength requirements.

While there are no Federal requirements for safety belts on large school buses, states are free to install them if they feel it is in the best interest in their state. However, as noted in the NAS report, if the safety belts are to be beneficial, "states and local school districts that require seat belts on school buses must ensure not only that all school bus passengers wear the belts, but that they wear them correctly."

In summary, the safety record of school buses is outstanding. As such, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that safety belts would provide even higher levels of occupant crash protection. Also, the agency agrees with the conclusion from the NAS report, that there is insufficient reason for a Federal mandate for safety belts on large school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ATTACHMENT TRB REPORT SUMMARY, DATED MAY, 1989, ENTITLED SPECIAL REPORT 222-IMPROVING SCHOOL BUS SAFETY. (TEST OMITED)

ID: nht92-2.42

DATE: November 9, 1992

FROM: Rodney T. Nash -- Vice President Engineering, Collins Industries, Inc.

TO: Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/30/92 from Stephen P. Wood (signed by John Womack) (A40; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Please forward this letter to the appropriate locations within the office of General Counsel to answer this question on vehicle designation. The final-stage manufacturer of a vehicle is required to label his vehicle with the information designated in FMVSS 115 and FMVSS 120. This information requires the final-stage manufacturer to designate the vehicle classification involved. We need to know how to classify an ambulance that is built on a truck chassis.

The ambulance carries more weight of specialized equipment for patient-care support than it carries people. The special purpose vehicles operates half of its life with no patient in the rear cargo area but always carries heart monitors, jaws of life, stretchers, respirators, and other life-support equipment. The question that needs clarification is what vehicle class (truck or MPV) should be applied to an ambulance. Should the classification change if the vehicle is focused on equipment transport over patient transport? It appears to us that the final-stage manufacturer is free to select between these categories.

Should you wish to discuss this question further, please call 316-663-5551 during normal working hours. I've taken the liberty of enclosing a piece of sales literature for a cargo intensive ambulance for you to review in issuing your opinion letter.

Thank you in advance for any prompt consideration you can give this request.

ID: nht92-2.43

DATE: 11/07/92

FROM: JORDAN J. POKRINCHAK -- PRESIDENT, JORDAN RESEARCH CORPORATION

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNCIL D.O.T.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-4-92 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO JORDON J. POKRINCHAK (A40; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO NHTSA LETTER OF 3-26-92 TO CHARLES W. O'CONNOR

TEXT: I am writing to you in regard to your recent decision to approve electronic brake controls made by Tekonsha Engineering Company in relation to stop lamp operation when braking with a trailer in tow.

I would cite Section 393.25 Paragraph (F) "Stop Lamp Operation," of Code of Federal Regulations Volume 49 (Transportation Parts 400 to 999) Revised as of October 1, 1989, for the basis of my concern as to the operation of the stop lamps when applying the trailer brakes in an emergency condition.

I believe this section of the code is quite specific when dealing with the actuation of the trailer stop lamps, either manually or automatically, and has nothing to do with the installation of controllers in regard to rendering the stop lamps inoperative in whole or in part within the meaning of Section 1397 (a) (2) (A) of 15 U.S.C. which you have cited in rendering your decision.

I also believe that in all laws and regulations, there is the letter of the law, and the intent of the law which must be considered when rendering such an important decision as you have on Tekonsha Brake Controls and its effect on the general driving public.

Tekonsha Engineering has had problems with the operation of their brake controls for some time. One way of alleviating the problem was to remove the wire that activated the control through the tow vehicle stop-light switch and which in turn operated the stop lamps on the trailer being towed. By eliminating this feature of activating the trailer stop lamps in the manual mode, they have placed the operator of the vehicle towing the trailer at risk for a rear end collision. While he (the operator) may have knowingly rendered the stop lamps on the towed vehicle inoperative for the duration of such activation of the hand control (manual mode) as stated in your decision, the driver behind the trailer has not been given any warning that the brakes on the trailer are being applied.

Tekonsha Engineering has cited your decision in regard to Section 1397 (a) (2) (A) with all due pomp and circumstance, but has failed to comply with common sense in regard to avoiding accidents. You have in effect given them the "green light" to produce their "Voyager" and "Commander" brake controls without regard to driver safety.

I believe you should reconsider all the facts in rendering your decision on the basis of driver safety and not some regulation that Tekonsha Engineering is using out of context. We do, Gentlemen, look to you for decisions that will protect lives on our highways.

You have it within your power to require Tekonsha Engineering to comply with regulations pertaining to the operation of trailer stop lamps by simply requiring that they (Tekonsha Engineering) add the wire or connection to their controls that would activate the trailer stop lamps in the manual mode. After all, they are the only manufacturer of trailer brake controls that do not activate the trailer stop lamps in the manual mode and are using you to help market a potentially dangerous product.