ID: nht87-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: DECEMBER 11, 1987

FROM: LLOYD J. OSBORN -- CHIEF, CUSTOMS AND QUARANTINE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM

TO: OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS -- DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-11-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, TO LLOYD J. OSBORN, VSA 101(3)

TEXT: Please provide us with information concerning the list of vehicles which have been determined by NHSSA to be excluded as motor vehicles.

We need this information for our Customs procedures that we are formulating.

Your prompt response in this matter would be appreciated.

ID: 18237.ztv

Mr. Guy Wilkins, P.E.
Owner
Wilkins Golf Specialties
1719 Binford Street
Ogden, UT 84401

Dear Mr. Wilkins:

Thank you for your letter of June 17, 1998, and accompanying video, telling us of your product, a hitch that allows passenger cars or pickup trucks to haul golf cars on the public roads.

As you note, your hitch affords an alternative to either driving a golf car on the public roads or hauling it on a trailer. The proposed regulation to which you refer was made final on June 17, and is called Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500 Low-Speed Vehicles. Standard No. 500 applies to vehicles with a maximum speed of more than 20 miles per hour and not more than 25 miles per hour.

The final rule preserves the right of the individual states to regulate the use of golf cars on their public streets. It would appear that your hitch affords a viable alternative to trailering a golf car in those states that do not permit golf cars on the public roads, even for the limited purpose of going to and from the golf course, and to those owners who may not want to drive on the public roads even if they are permitted to do so.

We consider your hitch to be motor vehicle equipment under the laws that we administer. This means that if either you or we determine that a safety related defect exists in your hitch, you must notify and remedy according to statutory requirements. I enclose some information on our laws and programs that apply to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment.

We are returning your video, and appreciate your writing us.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:500
d.7/24/98

ID: nht79-2.14

DATE: 12/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 5 1979

Mr. W. G. Milby Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your October 9, 1979, letter relating to the proper classification of school buses on certification labels.

Your letter is accurate in that school buses may be designated as "school buses" on their certification labels. The agency thinks that for the purpose of clarity the term "school bus" should be included on the label to further clarify the particular design of the bus. All other buses that comply only with standards applicable to non-school buses must be certified as "buses".

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 9, 1979

Mr. Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: PARTS 567 and 568

Dear Mr. Tilton: The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation of our recent telephone conversation that it is acceptable to use the word "SCHOOL BUS" as a vehicle classification on Federal certification labels required by the subject parts.

Per our conversation, "SCHOOL BUS" may be used as a vehicle classification in certifying buses meeting school bus standards. Buses not meeting school bus standards must be certified using the vehicle classification "BUS".

Thank you for your reply.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

fvc

ID: nht72-3.6

DATE: 02/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of January 14, 1972, to Mr. Douglas (Illegible Word), Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the language of S5.1.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117.

We concur with your comments that taken literally, the tolerance of -9% and -10% for the section width could be misinterpreted. We are placing your comments into the Docket and and editorial revision will be considered in future amendments to the standard.

ID: 2415y

Ms Joan E. Fogelman
Lund & Pullara, Inc.
P.O. Box 10148
Riviera Beach, FL 33404

FAX 305-842-9836

Dear Ms. Fogelman:

This is in reply to your FAX of April 2, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with reference to a l985 Mercedes-Benz 280SE sedan being imported from the Bahamas temporarily, for the purpose of repair. You have stated that "U.S. Customs wants a reassurance that they will not be held accountable if for some unforseen happening, this vehicle is not properly exported."

Although the new DOT vehicle importation regulations effective January 31, l990, make no specific provision for temporary importation of a nonconforming motor vehicle for repairs, when such a vehicle is owned by a nonresident of the United States and registered in a country other than the U.S., it is acceptable to this agency for the nonresident owner to enter it under the provisions of 49 CFR 591.5(d), the declaration by an importer who provides his passport number and country of issue that he is a nonresident importing the vehicle for personal use for a period not to exceed one year and will not sell the vehicle during that time. Such an entry is not accompanied by the new DOT conformance bond, which is required only for entries pursuant to 591.5(f) and (g).

I do not know what Customs means by being held "accountable" if the vehicle is not properly exported. You have stated that it will be accompanied by a Customs bond, and I assume that if the terms of that bond are violated Customs will take whatever enforcement action against the vehicle and its owner is deemed appropriate under the bond.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:591 d:4/26/90

ID: nht92-7.36

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Hank Hessey -- President, Hebco Products, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: Subject: D.O.T. 106/S7 Air brake hose

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/9/92 from Paul J. Rice to Hank Hessey (A39; Std. 106)

TEXT:

I'm writing in regards to the manufacturing of air brake hose no. 106. I would like to have an official opinion on what requirements and testing responsibilities are placed with the manufacturing of such hose, per D.O.T. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht75-2.19

DATE: 09/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Champ Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your July 14, 1975, letter concerning the classification of your rough terrain fork lift trucks for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A copy of our September 5, 1975, letter on this subject to Congressman Danielson is enclosed. We hope it clarifies the status of your products.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

July 14, 1975

U. S. Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;

Atten: Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel

Re: D.O.T. 119 and 120

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Thank you for your answer to our letter of April 10. I was also pleased to be able to talk to Mr. Ted Herlhy in your absence last week.

We sincerely believe that the Champ lift truck should not be classified as a motor vehicle for purposes of these rulings because of the distinctive configuration and the intended use. Since it is necessary to incorporate automotive type transmissions into the Champ product to make it function as a tractor in rough terrain, these same components do permit the Champ to operate at speeds in excess of 20 MPH. These speeds would be reached if the Champ were driven down the highway in fourth gear. However, this is both impractical and possibly dangerous. The Champ is not intended to be driven on the public streets or highways. It is, however, intended to be towed occasionally from work site to work site. In these cases, the Champ is equipped with towing brakes; stop, tail and turn lights; and mud flaps.

The Champ models which would use off the road tires are designed for either construction work or agriculture. As such, their performance is limited to off the road functions. Such periods of operation may vary from weeks to months to permanent assignments.

In 28 years of manufacturing and selling Champs, we find no records of an upset caused by a blown off the road drive tire. While being towed empty it carries approximately 1/3 of its rated tire loading. Twelve and fourteen-ply tires are used for added safety.

To rule out the use of off the road tires in our construction models would eliminate the production of the major portion of our business. Such a blow would be disastrous.

Should you feel we could better present our case if we were to visit your office, we would be most happy to do so.

Please contact us if you would like additional information.

Sincerely, CHAMP CORPORATION; Mike M. Simovich -- President

(Brochure Omitted)

ID: nht90-4.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 17, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gerald F. Vinci -- Sun Refining and Marketing Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-17-79 from F. Berndt (Signature by S.P. Wood); Also attached to letter dated 8-14-90 from G.F. Vinci to P.J. Rice (OCC 5121)

TEXT:

This responds to your August 14, 1990 letter and telephone calls about your plans to convert the fuel system on a vehicle from gasoline to propane. You said your company ("Sun Refining") would like to purchase a new vehicle and convert it for purposes o f your own research, and will not be reselling the vehicle. You ask about the requirements that would apply to the conversion.

We do not have any requirements that would apply to the conversion if the conversion is made by Sun itself. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA's regulations generally do not apply to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to a cons umer (e.g., Sun) for purposes other than resale. Although the Act prohibits certain entities from tampering with or removing federally required safety features, the prohibition does not apply to modifications by a vehicle owner to his or her own vehicle .

However, in the event you have the conversion done by a party other than your company, Federal law may apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering in operative federally required safety features when modifying a vehicle. I have enclosed an information sheet that discusses the application of S108(a)(2)(A) to fuel system conversions.

NHTSA wishes to learn more about the safety of propane fuel systems and is considering a public announcement seeking information on various safety issues. We would, therefore, be interested in the results of your research when they're completed.

Even though your conversion would not be covered by the FMVSS's, we suggest you consult State law to see if the State has requirements for propane vehicles. In addition, other Federal agencies may have regulations for your vehicle. If your vehicle woul d be a commercial vehicle, the regulations of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may apply. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to FHWA for their reply. You might also contact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for information about the conversion. EPA's general telephone number is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ID: nht70-1.43

DATE: 02/25/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. C. Turner; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: PETITION FOR RULEMAKING

This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1969, requesting an exception from Paragraph S3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 ("Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses"), to allow the use of Lemen and Plexiglas in certain specified locations in twenty-one (21) fire fighting vehicles to be delivered to the city of New York.

You state the purpose of your request is to provide better protection for occupants of these fire fighting vehicles from objects thrown at them when, for example, the vehicles are enroute to a fire. Further, you state the use of these materials would eliminate replacing safety glass, which can be broken when hit by small objects. Because you are requesting a change in an existing standard your letter has been treated as a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR @@ 353.31, 353.33. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.

It is not completely clear from your letter and the enclosed drawing where the interior or canopy partitions in which you wish to use Lexen and Plexiglas are located. Standard No. 205 presently permits the use of rigid plastics in interior partitions of fire fighting vehicles if these materials meet the requirements for plastics designated AS4 and AS5 (the latter can only be used when not requisite for driving visibility) in American Standards Association Test Z26.1-1966, July 15, 1966. We understand that Plexiglas meets these requirements and may therefore be used in this location. We also understand, however, that Lexen does not, failing specifically to meet certain chemical and abrasion resistance requirements applicable to AS4 and AS5 rigid plastics under the Standard. If our understanding regarding Lexen is correct, we believe its failure to meet these minimum requirements renders its unsuitable for use in areas of motor vehicles where a possible loss of transparency may affect the safe operation of the vehicle.

With reference to glazing in side and door windows of fire fighting vehicles, Standard No. 205 allows the use of glazing specified AS1, AS2, and AS10 in ASA Test-226.1-1966 and also allows the use of AS11 and AS3 glazing at levels not requisite for driving visibility. This glazing may be either laminated, tempered, or bullet resistant safety glass meeting the applicable requirements. Plastics meeting AS4 and AS5 requirements, while appropriate for certain locations such as partitions, are not considered appropriate for use in side and door windows as they do not possess chemical and abrasion resistance qualities necessary for exterior glazing and which the types of safety glass specified above possess. The occupant protection which you desire can be provided by using AS10 (and AS11 where appropriate) bullet resistant glass which contains both structural advantages over normally used safety glazing and satisfactory chemical and abrasion resistance for use in side and door windows.

ID: nht93-4.32

DATE: June 13, 1993

FROM: Charlie McBay -- Chief Engineer, Barrett Trailers, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Conspicuity

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-14-93 from John Womack to Charlie McBay (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This letter asks that the Office of Chief Counsel review the enclosed drawings (Model 80MP6-DD & GNXS-207) for compliance of the upcoming conspicuity treatment.

As you can see, both models have "outside post" design and air gaps that run through the sides and rear of the trailer. Air gap quantity and locations vary with different designs.

2" red and white alternating pattern used on sides and rear. 2" white on upper rear corners.

Note: Location of side material as close to 4ft. off the ground as possible. In the center the location stays on the bottom rail (due to air gaps) and ranges from 14" to 20" off the ground.

Reflector material to be a 14" strip placed in center of each opening between side post. This length meets the 50% coverage requirements.

Note that post spacing throughout the length of the trailer is not the same. Evenly distributed material will be in most areas, but breaks between material vary. Will this suffice for evenly distributed? Also, if we have an area where a minimum 12" strip will not fit, can we install smaller material or must this area stay blank?

Note that white strips in upper rear corners do not meet. Must white be touching or can there be a gap between the strips? Our design makes it near impossible to make a nice continuous square corner. Installation of the white corners is also closer than 3" from red top rail lights. Is there any tolerance on the 3" dimensions? One full width red and white strip on rear of trailer on both models as close to 4ft. off the ground as possible.

Enclosed are drawings of proposed installation as close as we can get to meeting the requirements outlined. (The yellow hi-lited areas represent reflective Material)

I would welcome any comments and ask that our installation have your approval.

Attachments omitted:

Drawing of Model 80MP6-DD and drawing of GNXS-207.