ID: nht81-3.1

DATE: 07/26/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 19, 1981, letter making several comments about the agency's plan to modify Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, as it applies to maintenance access panels in school buses. I want to apologize for the delay in responding to your letter which was inadvertently combined with another agency action.

First, you disagree with an agency statement that manufacturers have taken advantage of the existing maintenance access panel exemption from the standard's requirements. The agency's concern arises from several types of practices. Several manufacturers have produced buses with panels that have no wiring or other mechanisms behind them requiring maintenance. Other manufacturers have declared almost the entire rear walls of their buses as access panels. We believe that this is beyond the scope of the exemption of maintenance access panels from the standard's requirements.

Second, you ask several questions about supporting data for the standard and our planned modification of the standard. The agency is gathering information at this time and will make that data public when and if a rulemaking notice is issued.

Finally, you refer to unspecified agency statements relating to enforcement issues of noncomplying buses. We are unable to respond to this series of questions, because we are not immediately familiar with the correspondence to which you refer. If you could be more specific in your reference and in your questions, we would be happy to respond to you. If the correspondence to which you refer is from our Enforcement office, you might want to direct your inquiry to them.

SINCERELY,

School Bus Manufacturers Institute

January 19, 1981

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

The School Bus Manufacturers Institute, SBMI, which represents manufacturers who produce the majority of all school buses is concerned over certain interpretive rulemaking actions and unfounded criticism that have recently appeared in NHTSA correspondence.

First, in a letter of December 19, 1979 (NOA-30), NHTSA states, in paragraph two, that is has "discovered through its compliance testing that most school bus manufacturers have been taken advantage of the maintenance access panel exemption from the Standard."

The SBMI objects strenuously to the implications of this statement, that "most school bus manufacturers" have in some underhanded or dishonest manner sought to evade their obligations to fulfill a legal and moral obligation, by cheapening or changing their bus structures to take advantage of a "loop hole" in the standard. The true facts of the matter are as follows:

1. The NHTSA was requested to join with members of the industry in interpreting the design requirements of school buses to meet the directives of the various Standards. The NHTSA declined, stating that this was not their function, but that the bus manufacturers should interpret the Standards and in good faith build their vehicles accordingly.

2. The bus manufacturers then did, in good faith, change the design of their school buses to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the Standards as they saw them but retaining the best design features where possible. In most cases, the existing access panels were retained from the original bus configurations that had been arrived at over years of building school buses to meet requirements for safe, economical and maintainable school transportation. These access panels are in almost all cases, clearly visible and need no compliance testing to determine that they are exempt from the applicable Standards. Their status may be determined by visual observation in most cases.

3. Currently, the NHTSA has decided, after 2 1/2 - 3 years of examining school buses, that they are in disagreement with the interpretation of most school bus manufacturers regarding access panel design. They have expressed the opinion that these access panels compromise the structural integrity of school buses, and have a potential for injury to occupants in the event of a wreck. Although this opinion is contrary to the great bulk of experience in school bus transportation, they have stated their intent to change or limit the exemption status of these panels as found in FMVSS 221.

In light of these facts, the SBMI denies that any of its members have attempted to take advantage of or get any special benefit from the exemption granted in FMVSS 221 for access panels in school buses. We do not deny that further changes in bus body structure can be made, but we seriously question that substantial benefit would be realized.

The NHTSA is reminded of the excellent safety record compiled by school buses, which may have been enhanced to some degree, recently, through compliance with Standards 220, 221 and 222. School buses have been built under the requirements of these standards since April, 1977. We would believe at this time that some of these vehicles have been involved in accidents, and some of these accidents have no doubt been investigated by or at request of the NHTSA. Therefore, the SBMI feels that the following questions are in order:

1. What evidence has NHTSA seen to cause or support its contention that current configurations of access panels do significantly reduce the structural integrity of school bus bodies, in the range of wreck situations that such bodies may reasonably be expected to withstand?

2. What evidence has NHTSA seen to cause or support its contention that current access panels make the bus body more hazardous for occupants in the range of wreck situations that such bodies may reasonably be expected to withstand?

3. What wreck environments, in terms of impact speeds, g-loadings, etc., has the NHTSA contemplated as the basis for FMVSS 221?

Finally, in other correspondence NHTSA has stated that certain planned designs were not in compliance with specific standards and would not qualify for exemption. However, NHTSA, using "selective enforcement", would not "find" them in noncompliance.

1. What will be the NHTSA position if such vehicles are involved in accidents causing injury, grave injury or loss of life?

2. In the event of accident of such vehicles, how will the manufacturer's liability be effected by NHTSA's finding in-advance that such design plans are in noncompliance?

3. Does NHTSA intend to rectify such a ruling by future rulemaking?

4. Does NHTSA have the moral prerogative and legal authority to apply "selective enforcement" procedure, regardless of how worthy the cause may be, to cases that are clearly in noncompliance?

5. Is NHTSA certain that a reasonable alternative cannot be found that would be in compliance?

Your timely consideration of these matters, which represent the majority view of the SBMI members, is respectfully requested for future guidance.

Berkley C. Sweet President TBEA

ID: nht93-7.50

DATE: November 3, 1993

FROM: Thomas D. Price -- President, Strait-Stop Manufacturing Co., Inc.

TO: Senator David Boren

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/23/93 from Howard M. Smolkin to David L. Boren (A41; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 4/13/93 from Howard M. Smolkin to David Boren

TEXT:

In August, 1992, I wrote to inform you of our noncomputerized antilock brake system and to enlist your aid in monitoring the activities of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during the amendment process for FMVSS 105, and FMVSS 121. Since then, and on several occasions, we have communicated our views and our concerns to the Agency as to the possible discrimination which might be employed by NHTSA regarding a definition of ABS. Our requests that the Agency become familiar with the Strait-Stop system before they reach final decisions have regularly ignored or rejected.

Meanwhile, our system has continued to prove itself as an effective antilock device that also significantly reduces maintenance expense for the vehicle operator. Whereas, the computerized systems only activate when lockup is imminent, the Strait-Stop ABS actuates almost every time the driver applies the brakes. In NHTSA's own final report on a two year test of computerized ABS on trucks, they concluded the systems activated 1.4 times per 10,000 brake applications or 1.1 times per 10,000 miles traveled. Our system activates 7.000 times more often than theirs. It is an aid with which the drivers can become familiar. It is a constant approach to maintaining enhanced stability and controlled braking, not a dire emergency, last minute device.

This brings me to the extreme concern of the moment and my purpose in approaching you. On September 28, 1993, NHTSA published in the Federal Register two NPRMs relating to FMVSS 105, and FMVSS 121. Included therein is the following proposed definition of ABS to be included both at S571.105, S4 and at S571.121, S4:

Braking System means a portion of a service brake system that automatically controls the degree of rotational wheel slip during braking by:

1. Sensing the rate of angular rotation of the wheels; 2. Transmitting signals regarding the rate of wheel angular rotation to one or more devices which interpret those signals and generate responsible controlling out put signals; and 3. Transmitting those controlling signals to one or more devices which adjust brake actuating forces in response to those signals.

This definition is absolutely restrictive and discriminatory to the benefit of only one technology. It not only excludes the Strait-Stop ABS, but also precludes the development of any future technology which might be even more effective in achieving brake safety. Although NHTSA persists in the position that they never approve nor disapprove equipment, they are, very effectively, attempting to prescribe one specific technology. The defense for such a biased

opinion is the three year testing of only one technology, which DID NOT demonstrate an irreproachable, overwhelming body of evidence that the computerized ABS is the only solution to vehicle stability and control problems. Since they have not completed nor even entertained a comparison of the computerized versus the noncomputerized technologies, one can only conclude NHTSA is proposing an arbitrary restraint favoring one vested interest.

The antilock brake industry will be a multibillion dollar business and we resent what we believe to be an overt attempt to exclude our opportunity to compete. In addition, there are several segments of the transportation market which can only use the Strait-Stop technology to their benefit. One of those segments is transit buses. The computerized systems can never be anything but an unmitigated cost, whereas, the noncomputerized system has proven it can substantially reduce operating and maintenance expense.

We will continue in our response to NHTSA's NPRMs and in our attempts to rally other transportation industry participants to our views. We desperately need immediate political intervention to avoid an economic catastrophe for our company and a deprivation of the transportation industry of a viable aid to safety and the right of self-determination as to how to best meet their needs. We are the smallest of a minority now, but we can grow to be a significant contributor to the economic welfare of Oklahoma in general and Cleveland County in particular.

Please lend us your immediate knowledgeable support in this very critical battle.

Enclosure:

ABS DEFINITION

The NHTSA is doing precisely what it has said all along it would not do. Instead of limiting itself to requiring performance standards for stopping distance, steering control and maintaining vehicle lateral stability, it is proposing a definition for ABS that adopts ONLY ONE antilock braking system technology currently available and may very well preclude the utilization of existing and future alternative, more effective systems.

ABS is an acronym for antilock braking system, which is a compound term of four words having the following meanings:

anti - opposing in effect or activity (as by inhibiting, curing, neutralizing or combating)

lock - to hold fast or inactive; to make fast by the interlacing or interlocking of parts

braking - arresting the motion of a mechanism, usually employing friction; slowing down or stopping movement or activity

system - a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces

Therefore, generically, ABS is defined as, "a group of interacting bodies (components) opposing (inhibiting) loss of activity capability necessary to arrest the motion of vehicle by employment of friction".

More specifically, ABS could be defined as, "a group of mechanical and/or electronic components, which inhibits the nullification of frictional forces employed in arresting the longitudinal and lateral motion of a motor vehicle".

Any ABS, so defined would be required to meet or exceed the performance standards for stopping, control and stability. The only elements lost by the above definition are (1) the propensity of the Agency staff to consider computerized technology as the only viable approach to ABS and (2) the economic compulsion of Rockwell/WABCO, Midland/Grau, Bendix/Knorr and Robert Bosch to limit the scope of competition, via Federal mandate, in the United States.

- - - -

The following letter transmits Mr. Price's letter to the NHTSA:

November 15, 1993

Howard Smolkin, Acting Administrator NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Smolkin:

I have again been contacted by my constituent, Mr. Thomas Price, of ABAS Marketing concerning his anti-locking braking system. Mr. Price is concerned that the proposed rule-making by the NHTSA is discriminatory and by definition would exclude his braking system from being considered for future use.

Enclosed is his most recent letter to me raising these issues and his concerns about them. In an effort to be helpful to Mr. Price, I would appreciate your review of his letter and a response that I can share with him.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. I will look forward to hearing from you. Please send your response to my Oklahoma City office, to the attention of Jim Hopper.

Sincerely,

David L. Boren United States Senator

ID: nht76-4.44

DATE: 09/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Joseph G. Bishop -- U.S. Coach Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your July 7, 1976, request for information regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to "rumble seat kits" for installation in passenger cars. The answers to your questions are as follows:

(1) "Is there any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or Regulations that would preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger cars?"

The answer to your question is no.

(2) "What are the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations that would be specifically applicable to the installation of rumble seats in passenger cars?"

Installation of the rumble seats could affect compliance of the vehicle with the following safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; and Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims.

We are assuming that the rumble seats would be installed in completed vehicles that are already certified, in which case the alterer would be required to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.7 requires one who alters a previously certified vehicle, prior to its first sale, (by other than readily attachable components) to affix an additional label to the vehicle, stating that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards after the alteration. It should be noted that any additional weight created by the rumble seats or a change in the distribution of weight could also affect the vehicle's compliance with other safety standards whose test procedures require a barrier crash test.

We also would point out that 49 CFR Part 575 requires manufacturers to provide consumer information regarding vehicle stopping distance, tire reserve load, and acceleration and passing ability, at the point of first sale of the vehicle and along with the purchased vehicle. The increased weight created by the rumble seats could require modification of the information that would have to be provided.

(3) "Is there any State or Local Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that to your knowledge may preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?"

We are not aware of any State or local regulations that would preclude installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles.

(4) Can you furnish a list of Government approved independent testing facilities for FMVSS compliance testing?" The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend that any particular testing center be utilized. You might wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators concerning this subject, at 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

(5) "Can the NHTSA make any design recommendations related to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?"

The NHTSA does not provide engineering expertise regarding the manufactuer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. However, the agency will answer specific questions that a manufacturer might have concerning the basis for a particular performance requirement.

(6) "Is there any future or pending legislation that may be related to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?"

At the present time there is no pending Federal legislation relating to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles, nor is any such legislation anticipated by the NHTSA in the immediate future.

The statements made above are directed primarily to the situation in which rumble seats would be installed prior to first sale of the vehicle, and in which the vehicle would have to be certified as being in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Please note, however, that the aftermarket installation of rumble seats might also be subject to Federal requirements.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides that, with one exception, "no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." Therefore, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may install the rumble seats in a motor vehicle if he knows that such installation would alter the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. For example, installation of rumble seats could possibly affect components of the vehicle that are subject to the requirements of safety standards such as Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, or Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

SINCERELY,

U.S. COACH CORP.

July 7, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator - Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for FMVSS Information Covering Automotive Accessories

U.S. Coach Corporation designs, engineers and manufactures automotive accessory items for installation on passenger car vehicles at distribution centers throughout the United States. Several of our products are installed on vehicles prior to sale to the original owner at the dealer level and are therefore considered O.E.M. products requiring our certification that structural modifications are in compliance with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We are currently designing and developing a "Rumble Seat Kit" that will accomodate two passengers in a seat located in the trunk or luggage compartment of passenger vehicles. My review of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as amended, did not reveal any preclusion of the use of a 'Rumble Seat Option' in passenger vehicles.

It is our intent to proceed with our program to meet the passenger restraint requirements of Standards 208, 209 and 210 with Type 1 seat belts and installed in a manner that compliance with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is preserved.

Since our Corporate intent is to manufacture and sell products that not only meet or exceed all existing Federal Safety Standards but will also afford the highest level of protection to the consumer, we are very interested in any recommendations the N.H.T.S.A. may offer pertaining to occupant protection in open vehicle passenger accomodation specifically in the "Rumble Seat" application.

Would you please respond to the following questions as well as making any comments or suggestions relating to our program:

1. Is there any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or Regulations that would preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?

2. What are the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations that would be specifically applicable to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?

3. Is there any State or Local Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that to your knowledge may preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?

4. Can you furnish a list of Government approved independent testing facilities for FMVSS compliance testing?

5. Can the N.H.T.S.A. make any design recommendations related to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?

6. Is there any furture or pending legislation that may be related to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?

We sincerely appreciate any assistance you may provide in the above matter.

Joseph G. Bishop President

ID: 10032

Mr. Larry Wessels
President
Rocky Mountain Technology Engineering Corporation
P.O. Box 280307
Lakewood, CO 80228-0307

Dear Mr. Wessels:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation about the use of your product, the "Handi-Slide." You state that your invention is a locking system for securing and releasing a sliding semitrailer undercarriage. You further state that the system is tied into the trailer's air brake system. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements.

NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your product is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.) A manufacturer of a noncomplying product that is subject to an FMVSS is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

NHTSA does not have any specific FMVSS for semitrailer undercarriages. However, since the Handi-Slide is tied to a

vehicle's air brake system, your product could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems, and specifies performance and equipment requirements for the braking systems on these vehicles. Your product could also affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for the air brake hoses, fittings and assemblies on the vehicle.

If the Handi-Slide is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 121 and 106. If the device were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then 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 Handi-Slide were installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, '108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act requires the installer not to knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles.

I note that you provide an attachment titled "Current NHTSA Locking Pin Safety Concerns" that references several Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Please note that these regulations are administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), not NHTSA. If you are interested in the FHWA requirements, you can write to that agency at the address provided in the enclosed information sheet.

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

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:121#106 d:7/6/94

ID: 11175a

Mr. Glenn J. Vick, National Account Manager
Marketing and Sales Office
Commercial Truck Vehicle Center
Ford Automotive Operations
Regent Court, Suite 950
16800 Executive Plaza Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Vick:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School bus body joint strength. You explain that Ford is planning to introduce a new E-350 super duty chassis with a cut- away cab for use by final-stage manufacturers in producing large school buses. You ask how Standard No. 221 applies to the chassis.

I am pleased to clarify our regulations for you. As explained below, Ford has responsibilities as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, but these do not include certifying that a school bus completed on your chassis will meet Standard No. 221.

As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Ford's responsibilities are described in section 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Ford must furnish certain information with the incomplete vehicle at or before the vehicle's delivery to the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer. (We will refer to the document(s) containing this information as "the incomplete vehicle document.") This information includes the vehicle type(s) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriately be manufactured, and a listing, by number, of each FMVSS that applies to any of the listed vehicle types. Further, Ford must follow this listing with one of the following three types of statements, as applicable, for each standard:

1. A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which Ford specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard; or,

3. A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that Ford makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In accordance with these requirements, your incomplete vehicle document must indicate that the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured into a school bus. It must also list, by number, each FMVSS that applies to school buses, including Standard No. 221.

As a practical matter, the third statement is the one likely to be used by a chassis manufacturer, with regard to Standard No. 221. The standard requires school bus body panel joints to be capable of holding the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel. It is likely that the conformity with the standard would not be substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle.

Nevertheless, we would encourage Ford to consult with the final-stage manufacturer on its work completing the school bus. A completed vehicle's conformity to the FMVSSs can be substantially affected by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final-stage manufacturer. Moreover, the compliance of the school bus with certain FMVSSs, such as the braking standard (FMVSS No. 105) and the fuel tank integrity standard (FMVSS No. 301), is highly dependent on the design of the incomplete vehicle. Some final-stage manufacturers may need information from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, in addition to the incomplete vehicle document, to assist them in properly completing the vehicle.

I hope this responds to your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:221#567#568 d:10/20/95 Please note that NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567, provides an incomplete vehicle manufacturer the option of assuming legal responsibility for certifying the compliance of the vehicle as finally manufactured. See 49 CFR section 567.5(e).

ID: nht94-3.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry Wessels -- President, Rocky Mountain Technology Engineering Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/24/94 from Larry L. Wessels to John Womack (OCC-10032)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation about the use of your product, the "Handi-Slide." You state that your invention is a locking system for securing and releasing a sliding semitrailer undercarriage. You further state that the syst em is tied into the trailer's air brake system. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle sa fety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements.

NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your product is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.) A manufacturer of a noncomp lying product that is subject to an FMVSS is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

NHTSA does not have any specific FMVSS for semitrailer undercarriages. However, since the Handi-Slide is tied to a

2

vehicle's air brake system, your product could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems, and specifies performance and equipment requi rements for the braking systems on these vehicles. Your product could also affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for the air brake hoses, fittings and assemblies on the vehicle.

If the Handi-Slide is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 12 1 and 106. If the device were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify t hat, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the Handi-Slide were installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act requires the installer not to knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to vehi cle owners modifying their own vehicles.

I note that you provide an attachment titled "Current NHTSA Locking Pin Safety Concerns" that references several Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Please note that these regulations are administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), n ot NHTSA. If you are interested in the FHWA requirements, you can write to that agency at the address provided in the enclosed information sheet.

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

Enclosure

ID: nht95-4.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Glenn J. Vick, -- National Account Manager, Marketing and Sales Office, Commercial Truck Vehicle Center, Ford Automotive Operations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/15/95 LETTER FROM GLENN J. VICK TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vick:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School bus body joint strength. You explain that Ford is planning to introduce a new E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab for use by final-stage manufa cturers in producing large school buses. You ask how Standard No. 221 applies to the chassis.

I am pleased to clarify our regulations for you. As explained below, Ford has responsibilities as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, but these do not include certifying that a school bus completed on your chassis will meet Standard No. 221.

As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Ford's responsibilities are described in section 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Ford must furnish certain information with the incomplete vehicle at or before the vehicle's de livery to the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer. (We will refer to the document(s) containing this information as "the incomplete vehicle document.") This information includes the vehicle type(s) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriatel y be manufactured, and a listing, by number, of each FMVSS that applies to any of the listed vehicle types. Further, Ford must follow this listing with one of the following three types of statements, as applicable, for each standard:

1. A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which Ford specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard; or,

3. A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that Ford makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In accordance with these requirements, your incomplete vehicle document must indicate that the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured into a school bus. It must also list, by number, each FMVSS that applies to school buses, including Stand ard No. 221. n1 n1 Please note that NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567, provides an incomplete vehicle manufacturer the option of assuming legal responsibility for certifying the compliance of the vehicle as finally manufactured. See 49 CFR section 56 7.5(e).

As a practical matter, the third statement is the one likely to be used by a chassis manufacturer, with regard to Standard No. 221. The standard requires school bus body panel joints to be capable of holding the body panel to the member to which it is j oined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel. It is likely that the conformity with the standard would not be substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle.

Nevertheless, we would encourage Ford to consult with the finalstage manufacturer on its work completing the school bus. A completed vehicle's conformity to the FMVSSs can be substantially affected by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the ma nner of completion by the final-stage manufacturer. Moreover, the compliance of the school bus with certain FMVSSs, such as the braking standard (FMVSS No. 105) and the fuel tank integrity standard (FMVSS No. 301), is highly dependent on the design of th e incomplete vehicle. Some final-stage manufacturers may need information from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, in addition to the incomplete vehicle document, to assist them in properly completing the vehicle.

I hope this responds to your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Glenn J. Vick, -- National Account Manager, Marketing and Sales Office, Commercial Truck Vehicle Center, Ford Automotive Operations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/15/95 LETTER FROM GLENN J. VICK TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vick:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School bus body joint strength. You explain that Ford is planning to introduce a new E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab for use by final-stage manufacturers in producing large school buses. You ask how Standard No. 221 applies to the chassis.

I am pleased to clarify our regulations for you. As explained below, Ford has responsibilities as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, but these do not include certifying that a school bus completed on your chassis will meet Standard No. 221.

As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Ford's responsibilities are described in section 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Ford must furnish certain information with the incomplete vehicle at or before the vehicle's delivery to the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer. (We will refer to the document(s) containing this information as "the incomplete vehicle document.") This information includes the vehicle type(s) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriately be manufactured, and a listing, by number, of each FMVSS that applies to any of the listed vehicle types. Further, Ford must follow this listing with one of the following three types of statements, as applicable, for each standard:

1. A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which Ford specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard; or,

3. A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that Ford makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In accordance with these requirements, your incomplete vehicle document must indicate that the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured into a school bus. It must also list, by number, each FMVSS that applies to school buses, including Standard No. 221. n1 n1 Please note that NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567, provides an incomplete vehicle manufacturer the option of assuming legal responsibility for certifying the compliance of the vehicle as finally manufactured. See 49 CFR section 567.5(e).

As a practical matter, the third statement is the one likely to be used by a chassis manufacturer, with regard to Standard No. 221. The standard requires school bus body panel joints to be capable of holding the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel. It is likely that the conformity with the standard would not be substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle.

Nevertheless, we would encourage Ford to consult with the finalstage manufacturer on its work completing the school bus. A completed vehicle's conformity to the FMVSSs can be substantially affected by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final-stage manufacturer. Moreover, the compliance of the school bus with certain FMVSSs, such as the braking standard (FMVSS No. 105) and the fuel tank integrity standard (FMVSS No. 301), is highly dependent on the design of the incomplete vehicle. Some final-stage manufacturers may need information from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, in addition to the incomplete vehicle document, to assist them in properly completing the vehicle.

I hope this responds to your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 1985-04.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jean Paul Turgeon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jean Paul Turgeon Security and Legality Manager Prevost Car Incorporated Ste-Claire, Quebec, Canada GOR 2VO

Dear Mr. Turgeon:

This responds to your August 12, 1985 letter to Administrator Steed regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217 Bus Window Retention and Release. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We apologize for the delay in our response.

Your questions concerned paragraph S5.3.2, Which applies to buses other than school buses. You asked whether the requirements of paragraph S5.5.2 may be met by: (1) release mechanisms located within the area defined by Figure 1 of the standard that are operated by a rotary or straight type of motion; and by (2) release mechanisms located within the area defined by Figure 2 operated by a straight type of motion.

Your understanding is correct. Rotary type motions may be used for release mechanisms located in regions of low force application as shown in Figures 1 or 3 of the standard. Straight motions may be used for release mechanisms located in regions of low force application shown in Figures 1 and 3, and in regions of high force application shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Your second question asked whether the force application for a release mechanism operated by a rotary motion is limited by S5.5.2 to 20 pounds. The answer is yes. Release mechanisms may be operated by a rotary type of motion in locations shown in Figure 1 or Figure 3 for low-force application. The magnitude of the force application must not be more than 20 pounds.

The second part of your question stated, "In case of straight motion, the force application is limited to 60 pounds." This statement is not entirely correct. If the release mechanism is located in the low-force application areas shown in Figures 1 or 3, S5.3.2 specifies that the force applications must not exceed 20 pounds.

Your third question concerned the type of motions that are required to operate the release mechanisms. The first part of this question asked whether a rotary motion "implies a rotation of the hand and twisting of the arm as for turning a door knob." Standard No. 217 does not restrict you from using the particular type of rotary motion you described, provided that all other requirements of the standard can be met.

The second part of this question asked whether a straight motion means "a straight pull perpendicular to the emergency exit surface." Paragraph S5.3.2(b) describes the direction of a straight high-force application as "perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface." Your understanding, therefore, appears to be in accordance with S5.3.2.

The final part of this question asked whether "a pull reasonably perpendicular, i.e., at 70 degrees instead of 90 degrees, would be acceptable " The answer to your question depends on whether one or two force applications are necessary to release the emergency exit. If only one force application is necessary, the direction of the application must meet the 90 to 180 degree directional requirement of S5.3.2. No variation from the requirements of the standard is permissible. However, paragraph S5.3.2 permits the use of two force applications for a single opening. Only one of the two force applications is required to differ by 90 to 180 degrees from the direction of the initial push-out motion of the emergency exit.

Your final question asked whether a particular type of push out window in your buses would comply with FMVSS No. 217. As you know, this agency does not pass approval on the compliance of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, each manufacturer is required to determine whether its products comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

You asked whether a push out window with a mechanism that can be released by a pull not exceeding 60 pounds in a direction opposite to the direction of the opening would meet the requirements of S5.3.2. The answer to your question depends on the location of the release mechanism. If it is located in the regions shown in Figures 1 or 3 for mechanisms released by low-force applications, the magnitude of the force application must not exceed 20 pounds. Release mechanisms located in regions of high force application must be capable of operation by force applications not more than 60 pounds. Of course, the other requirements in FMVSS No. 217 pertaining to emergency exits and release mechanisms must also be met.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 12, 1985

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADM. 2100 Second Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Attention: Mrs. Diane K. Steed Acting Administrator

Dear Mrs. Steed:

We are looking for your comments on our interpretation of F.V.M.S.S. 217 on bus window retention and release in connection with a new design to be released in 1986 or 1987.

Our interpretation of S5.3.2 is as follows:

1. Choice of occupant's action for release:

The manufacturer has a choice of two (2) types of force application: a) Either rotary motion (or straight) for location fig. 1. b) or straight motion for location fig. 2.

2. Force of application:

- For a rotary motion, the force application is to be limited to 20 lb. - In case of straight motion, the force application is limited to 60 lb.

3. Type of motions:

A rotary motion implies a rotation of the hand and twisting of the arm as for turning a door knob.

- A straight motion means a straight pull perpendicular to the emergency exit surface.

A pull reasonably perpendicular, i.e. at 70o instead of 90o would be acceptable.

In brief, one could say that a bus push out window with a lock that can be released by a pull not exceeding 60 lb. in a direction opposite to the direction of the opening would meet the requirements of S5. 3.2 of standard F.M.V.S.S. 217.

We do realize that you do not as a rule give approval but we trust that you can comment on our interpretation. Yours very truly, JEAN PAUL TURGEON Security and Legality Manager

ID: 1984-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ivie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section 1905 Lana Avenue, N.E. Salem, Oregon 97314

This responds to your letter of October 23, 1984 to Mr. Frank Turpin, which was forwarded ot this office for reply. You asked whether Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, applies to travel trailers. As explained below, trailers are not covered by Standard No. 205.

Each Federal motor vehicle safety standard has an applications section which specifies the vehicles to which it applies. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements for glazing used in a wide range of vehicles. It does not, however, apply to trailers, which our regulations define as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 23, 1984

NHTSA 400 7th Street S. W. Room 5320 Washington D. C. 20590 Att'n: Francis J. Turpin

Dear Frank:

Please advise if we are correct in assuming that FMVSS apply to non-motorized vehicles as well as motor vehicles.

Specifically, is safety glazing (per FMVSS 205 and ANSI Z26) required in Travel Trailers?

Is a travel trailer, regardless of whether it is equipped with a fifth-wheel type hitch or with a tongue type hitch considered to be within the definition of a "house trailer" or "property carrying trailer?'

These questions result from an inquiry we received from a person who had purchased a new 1984 fifth-wheel travel trailer, and found it equipped with "bronze double strength window glass." The dealership who sold the trailer advised the person that safety glazing is not required.

We thank you in advance for clarifying these questions for us.

Very truly yours,

Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section Telephone (503) 378-2057