ID: nht79-2.36

DATE: 11/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/4/91 letter from Paul J. Rice to Richard Cahalan (A37; Part 567); Also attached to 8/20/90 letter from Oscar W. Harrell, Jr. to NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC 5073); Also attached to 7/25/90 letter from George C. Shifflett to Oscar Harell (Harrell) Jr.; Also attached to 9/4/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Vincent Foster

TEXT:

November 26, 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 3, 1979 letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to permit the production of a limited number of school buses that do not comply with Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The buses would be designed to transport severely handicapped students.

As you know, Standard No. 222 permits side-facing seats for handicapped students. However, the standard does not permit other variations of seating for the transportation of the handicapped. The agency's notice of July 12, 1976 (41 FR 28506) specifically limited its action with respect to handicapped student transportation to the provision of side-facing seats.

In your letter, you state that you intend to have forward and rearward facing seats surrounded by a cubicle to restrain children that are severely handicapped. Since only side-facing seats are acceptable as a variation from the standard's required seating, the standard cannot be interpreted in such manner that would permit the type of seats that you propose to install in your bus. Further, according to our regulation governing exemptions from the safety standards, it would appear that you would not qualify under any of the criteria that have been established. Therefore, it would not be useful to seek an exemption or waiver from the standards.

The agency has been confronted with the special problems for the handicapped many times and in a variety of vehicles. The NHTSA realizes the special needs of these individuals and further understands that these needs require the agency to be flexible in the enforcement of standards applicable to vehicles used by the handicapped. As a result the agency has stated in the past, that it will overlook some noncompliances in vehicles that are serving the special needs of the handicapped. The agency concludes that compliance with Standard No. 222 will not be enforced in certain circumstances for buses designed to transport the handicapped.

The above exemption from enforcement of compliance with Standard No. 222 is limited. The seating in such special buses must be distinctly different from that of typical school buses. For example, your placement of the seats in cubicles would provide such a distinction from normal school bus seats. The mere increase of seat spacing with the use of traditional school bus seats, on the other hand, would not qualify for freedom from compliance with the standard. With respect to your bus, the agency concludes that all other passenger seats beyond these constructed in the cubicles must comply with the standard. The agency further notes that the use of this type of bus is appropriate only for the most extreme cases of handicapped transportation and is not necessary for the transportation of all handicapped school children.

Although it would not be required by regulation, manufacturers should label these unique buses for the handicapped in some manner that will identify them as appropriate only for the transportation of handicapped students and not as a regular school bus. Such a label would be important in alerting both the Federal and State government officials to the fact that this is not a regular school bus and thus might be subject to different considerations with respect to the enforcement of compliance with safety standards. You should also check with State officials to ensure that they will permit the use of such buses.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 3, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

REF: Telephone conversations of October 2, 1979, with Mr. Roger Tilton and Mr. Taylor Vinson

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Public Law 94-142 is precipitating requests for specially built buses to transport handicapped passengers. Some of these buses, because of their special needs, cannot meet certain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We currently have a request to build two buses which are described by the enclosed sketch. These buses would have plexiglass shields in the front to protect the driver and special seating cubicles in the center portion of the bus with back to back seating and padded walls. These seats would also be equipped with seat belts. In the rear of the bus would be seating provisions for a matron and also a cabinet sink to be used for cleaning and caring for passengers who do not have control of bodily functions.

Our immediate need is to get an interpretation for these two buses which would render them to be in compliance with FMVSS 222. We feel the intent of this interpretation is established in paragraph S4 of FMVSS 222 wherein an exemption is provided for seating to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers.

Beyond the immediate need for these two buses there is a long range need to provide more flexibility for FMVSS exemptions or waivers for buses built to accommodate passengers which will be transported under the provisions of Public Law 94-142.

We will appreciate your early response to this immediate need and your comments concerning what action might be appropriate in handling more requests of this nature.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: 77-4.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to AM General Corporation's July 18, 1977, request for confirmation that certain aspects of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus conform to the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. In an October 3, 1977, telephone call with Mr. Herlihy of this office, it was determined that the request for interpretation is now limited to confirmation that the four-way pressure protection valve described in M.A.N.'s June 22, 1977, letter would meet the location and functional requirements of S5.1.2.3 of Standard No. 121. Section S5.1.2.3 specifies --

S5.1.2.3 Each service reservoir shall be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices.

I am enclosing prior interpretations of the location requirement of S5.1.2.3. While the agency cannot "approve" systems based on schematic drawings, it appears that the location of the four-way protection valve in the M.A.N. drawings does not violate the provisions contained in S5.1.2.3.

As we understand the description and capabilities of the four-way valve, it appears to be a pressure protection device that is "equivalent" to the check valve otherwise required by S5.1.2.3.

SINCERELY,

AM General Corporation

July 18, 1977

Duane E. Perrin NHTSA Handling & Stability Division

As you may be aware, AM General has entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nuernberg (M.A.N.) of West Germany for the purpose of importing roughly 400 articulated buses into the United States which, after completion in our Marshall, Texas facility, will be delivered to eleven domestic transit properties. Contractually, the responsibility for compliance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is divided between AM General and M.A.N. relative to areas of design and manufacturing responsibility. As M.A.N. is primarily responsible for the major mechanical components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension, braking systems, etc., compliance with Federal and State Safety Standards in these specific areas rests with them.

During design of the braking system, it has been determined that clarification relative to Paragraph S5.1.2.3 of FMVSS 121 is required. More specifically, approval is requested for utilization of a 4-way air pressure protection valve in lieu of the simple service reservoir check valves described in the standard.

The functioning configuration of this 4-way protection valve is completely outlined in the attached material from M.A.N.

Additionally, consideration and approval is requested relative to the outlined testing procedure which will be utilized to demonstrate proof of compliance to FMVSS 124.

I believe the attached material is fairly self-explanatory; however, should you have any questions or require additional information, do not hesitate to call me at area code (313) 722-4900.

Your prompt consideration and approval will be greatly appreciated.

M. J. Shillinger Project Engineer

ATTACH.

To the Department of Transportation

June 22, 1977

Re: Clarification for compliance with FMVSS 121 and 124:

Dear Sirs:

M.A.N. is supplier of articulated buses to AM General, Wayne, Mich., importing these vehicles for the first time to the US, and therefore is confronted to proof compliance with all FMVSS standards applicable.

Due to the fact, that this is the first time we have some specific problems with the interpretation of certain paragraphs, which could not even be clarified absolutely by the friendly assistance of our partner AMG, we are relaying our requests now to you.

Enclosed please find two write-ups of our interpretation of certain details of FMVSS 124 and 121.

The problem area regarding FMVSS 124 concerns the test conditions where we would like to ask you either to approve our interpretation or to inform us of an acceptable solution.

Regarding FMVSS 121 we are quite aware of the tests we have to perform to verify compliance, but we would like you to check the basic schematics of our brake system. Please give special attention to the fact, that this schematic does not allow the incorporation of additional check valves on the inlets of the individual air tanks as air flow in both directions occurs. We assume, however, that these tanks are to be regarded as one system and are sufficiently protected by the four circuit protection valve.

To our knowledge the system as described incorporates safety features superior to the systems presently operating in the US. We would like to thank you for your efforts and to point out the urgency the matter has for us.

MASCHINENFABRIK AUGSBURG-NURNBERG Aktiengesellschaft Werk Munchen

ppa.

(Dr. Hagen)

(i.A.)

(Dr. Domandl)

[ENCLOSURES OMITTED.]

ID: nht95-4.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 6, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey S. Bakst -- Attorney at Law

TO: Dorothy Nakama -- NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS Standard 124 "Accelerator Control Systems"/Mitsubishi Motorist Corporation Carburetor

ATTACHMT: 12/28/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Jeffrey S. Bakst (A44; Redbook 4; Std. 124; VSA 30118)

TEXT: First, I want to inform you we are dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988. The accident involved occurred in December, 1990. I would like to acquire the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrat ion's opinion on the following questions:

1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem?

If yes, what must a manufacturer do for the purchaser?

2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the "two sources of energy" are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accele rator control in use, does the carburetor fall to comply with FMVSS 124?

I can represent to you that we took a brand new carburetor and proved that if the secondary throttle plate were to get stuck shut for whatever reason, the primary throttle linkage would bind on the secondary throttle linkage, causing the primary throt tle plate to get stuck in a wide open throttle position, which results in engine overspeed. In essence, the two sources of energy on this carburetor are not sufficient to return the throttle to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control. Mitsubishi's own test on a brand new carburetor proved that if there was a malfunction in the secondary throttle plate, that the two (2) sources of energy were insufficient to return the throttle to idle position.

As I explained, time is truly of the essence. Mr. Bode requested his letter to attach to his Appellate Brief. I now have to respond to his brief, and I must have your report by the end of this year, if I am going to be able to use it in the appeal.

If you need additional information, please let me know.

ID: nht95-7.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 6, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey S. Bakst -- Attorney at Law

TO: Dorothy Nakama -- NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS Standard 124 "Accelerator Control Systems"/Mitsubishi Motorist Corporation Carburetor

ATTACHMT: 12/28/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Jeffrey S. Bakst (A44; Redbook 4; Std. 124; VSA 30118)

TEXT: First, I want to inform you we are dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988. The accident involved occurred in December, 1990. I would like to acquire the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's opinion on the following questions:

1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem?

If yes, what must a manufacturer do for the purchaser?

2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the "two sources of energy" are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control in use, does the carburetor fall to comply with FMVSS 124?

I can represent to you that we took a brand new carburetor and proved that if the secondary throttle plate were to get stuck shut for whatever reason, the primary throttle linkage would bind on the secondary throttle linkage, causing the primary throttle plate to get stuck in a wide open throttle position, which results in engine overspeed. In essence, the two sources of energy on this carburetor are not sufficient to return the throttle to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control. Mitsubishi's own test on a brand new carburetor proved that if there was a malfunction in the secondary throttle plate, that the two (2) sources of energy were insufficient to return the throttle to idle position.

As I explained, time is truly of the essence. Mr. Bode requested his letter to attach to his Appellate Brief. I now have to respond to his brief, and I must have your report by the end of this year, if I am going to be able to use it in the appeal.

If you need additional information, please let me know.

ID: 1984-4.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/18/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tennant Company -- Russell D. Schantz, District Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Russell D. Schantz District Manager Tennant Company 1080 North Kraemer Place P.O. Box 66066 Anaheim, CA 92B06

This responds to your letter regarding the industrial power sweeper manufactured by your company. You stated that the California Department of Motor Vehicles is insisting that your sweepers have a 17-digit VIN when an owner attempts to register and license them.

The VIN requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, apply only to "motor vehicles," which are manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. According to the sales literature and specification sheets you submitted, your product is a small sweeper, with a top speed of 8.5 mph, which is sold for use on off-road industrial sites. Some of the vehicles may incidentally use public roads to move from site to site. Based on this information, we have concluded that your low-speed sweeper is not a motor vehicle and is therefore not required to have a VIN.

This office has contacted the California Department of Motor Vehicles and learned that the form letter concerning the VIN was sent to you in error. Walt Steuben of that office said that there is an exception for vehicles which are "incidentally operated on road" between work sites. He said that the sweeper would need license plates and a sticker. He also requested that you contact him at (916) 445-2961.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel cc: Mr. Joe Kasper Tennant Company 701 North Lilac Drive P.O. Box 1452 Minneapolis, MN 55440

October 15,1984 Tennant Company P.O. Box 931 Minneapolis, MN 55440

Gentlemen:

An application for registration of the above described vehicle is being held.

The application submitted by your franchised dealer does no include a 17 position vehicle identification number (VIN)

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115 requires that manufacturers assign a 17 position alpha numeric vehicle identification number (VIN) to passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, trailers and incomplete vehicles (cab and chasses) operated on roads beginning September of 1980. This VIN must be supplied and approved by:

World Manufacturer Identifier Repository (WMI) 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, PA 15086 Phone: (412) 776-4841

The State of California is enforcing this standard beginning with 1983 year model vehicles. To complete the application, we will require the following: 1. If the vehicle has 17 position VIN approved by the WMI, complete the enclosed Statement of Facts identifying the full, true VIN. When we receive the Statement of Facts, the registration application will be processed.

2. If this vehicle does not have a WMI approved VIN, but you have recent begun assigning a WIM approved VIN, complete the enclosed Statement of Facts so stating. Also return a sample, e.g. photocopy, of the WMI approved VIN configuration. When we receive the Statement of Facts and sample, the registration application will be processed.

3. If this vehicle does not have a WMI approved VIN and your company has not applied for an approved WMI VIN configuration, contact the WMI at the above listed address and telephone numbers.

Upon receipt of your WMI VIN configuration, send a copy of your WMI configuration to us and complete the enclosed Statement of Facts stating the date you will begin the assignment of the new VIN.

When we receive the Statement of Facts and copy of your WMI configuration, the registration application will be processed.

Please refer all correspondence or inquiries to the above file number.

R. Toney TD 2/3 MP Enc cc : Schultz Building Company INSERT ATTACHMENT

ID: aiam4594

"Dear Mr. Craig: This responds to your February 3, 1989 letter to Mr George Parker, our Associate Administrator for Enforcement, seeking an interpretation of Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR /571.213). Specifically, paragraph S5.5 of that standard requires each child restraint system to be permanently labeled with certain specified information. One of the items of information required to be permanently labeled on the child restraint is the manufacturer's recommendations for the maximum weight and height of children who can safely occupy the system, and those weight and height recommendations must be expressed in English units (pounds and inches). Your letter stated that your company would like to express its maximum weight and height recommendations in both English units and equivalent metric units (kilograms and meters), and asked whether this would be permitted by Standard 213. As long as the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to cause confusion, Standard 213 does not prohibit manufacturers from expressing required information in equivalent English and metric units. For each of the labeling requirements set forth in NHTSA's regulations, this agency has consistently taken the position that manufacturers may present information in addition to the required information, provided that the additional information is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse the user. Moreover, the agency has already concluded that passenger car tires may be labeled with required information expressed in equivalent English and metric units. See the enclosed April 5, 1979 letter to Mr. Michael Petler. We would apply the same reasoning in interpreting the labeling requirements of Standard 213. That is, Standard 213 permits manufacturers to present the required information in both English and metric units, provided that the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse persons using the child restraint system. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4596

"Dear Mr. Craig: This responds to your February 3, 1989 letter to Mr George Parker, our Associate Administrator for Enforcement, seeking an interpretation of Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR /571.213). Specifically, paragraph S5.5 of that standard requires each child restraint system to be permanently labeled with certain specified information. One of the items of information required to be permanently labeled on the child restraint is the manufacturer's recommendations for the maximum weight and height of children who can safely occupy the system, and those weight and height recommendations must be expressed in English units (pounds and inches). Your letter stated that your company would like to express its maximum weight and height recommendations in both English units and equivalent metric units (kilograms and meters), and asked whether this would be permitted by Standard 213. As long as the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to cause confusion, Standard 213 does not prohibit manufacturers from expressing required information in equivalent English and metric units. For each of the labeling requirements set forth in NHTSA's regulations, this agency has consistently taken the position that manufacturers may present information in addition to the required information, provided that the additional information is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse the user. Moreover, the agency has already concluded that passenger car tires may be labeled with required information expressed in equivalent English and metric units. See the enclosed April 5, 1979 letter to Mr. Michael Petler. We would apply the same reasoning in interpreting the labeling requirements of Standard 213. That is, Standard 213 permits manufacturers to present the required information in both English and metric units, provided that the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse persons using the child restraint system. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5214

"Dear Ms. Lindsey: Your letter of June 23, 1993, to Mr. Ron Engle o the office of Transportation Safety Programs, this agency, was referred to this office for reply. You explained in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office that it has been your School Board's policy to prohibit the use of mini-vans to transport school children to and from special events, requiring instead the use of school buses. You stated that the policy is controversial among parents, however, resulting in the School Board reconsidering the issue. You therefore requested information on 'crash safety standards' of mini-vans or any other recommendations we can provide to assist the school board in making a safe and fair determination in the matter. For your information, enclosed are copies of letters to Senator Jim Sasser dated July 7, 1992, Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. dated May 29, 1992, Mrs. Alice Collins, dated August 1, 1988, a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, a fact sheet issued by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations, and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, referred to in the letter to Mr. Duncan. The enclosed materials should answer your concerns in this matter. I would like to emphasize that, as explained in the materials, it is NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Hillsborough County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles, such as mini-vans, that do not comply with school bus regulations. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4078

Dear Mr. Sundquist: This is in response to your inquiry on behalf of Josephine Jackson, th president of the Tennessee County Clerk's Association, who is concerned about the burden placed on the clerks by motor vehicle odometer disclosure requirements. Specifically, the Association has approved a resolution requesting the exemption of vehicles more than seven years old from the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. We can understand the concern which led the Association to pass the resolution.; The Federal odometer law (15 U.S.C. SS 1981-1991) requires each perso who transfers ownership of a motor vehicle to disclose the vehicle's mileage. The law does not exempt older vehicles from this requirement.; In support of its resolution, the Association notes that many olde vehicles either have nonworking odometers or have travelled beyond 99,999 miles, making the actual mileage hard to verify. This is correct in our experience, and the Federal law therefore provides that, in cases where he has reason to know that the reading is inaccurate, either through inspection of the vehicle or paperwork, the owner may state that the actual mileage is unknown.; The Association's resolution states further that most purchasers o older vehicles are not concerned with mileage, but with the condition of the vehicle. In developing our regulation on odometers, we had accepted this view for vehicles of extreme age, and had, therefore, exempted vehicles 25 years old or older. However, several Federal District Courts have subsequently questioned our authority to grant exemptions under current law. Although the Department has supported measures in pending legislation to improve odometer enforcement by making odometer fraud a felony, we have taken no position as to whether the exemption of older vehicles by law would be advisable.; I hope that you will find this information helpful in responding to th Association.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2028

Dear Mr. Danielson: This responds to your July 18, 1975, request for consideration of th view of Champ Corporation that its rough terrain forklift trucks do not qualify as 'motor vehicles' as they are defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.). Champ Corporation states that Federal motor vehicle safety standards for tires and tire selection cannot be complied with by these forklift trucks.; As you are aware, the Act defines 'motor vehicle' in S103(2) a follows:; >>>'Motor vehicle' means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanica power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.<<<; In the case of the forklift trucks manufactured by Champ Corporation they generally are considered to be motor vehicles if they use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites, because their primary function is of a mobile work-performing nature that contemplates using the highway. However, three criteria have been established to justify a determination in some cases that these vehicle types do not qualify as motor vehicles:; >>>(1) That the vehicle is intended and sold strictly for off-road use unless the manufacturer knows that a substantial proportion of his customers actually use the vehicle on the highway,; (2) That the vehicle's maximum speed does not exceed 20 mph and it abnormal configuration distinguishes it from the traffic flow, or; (3) That the vehicle only uses the highway occasionally in th immediate periphery of the work site, as is the case with some farm and construction equipment.<<<; As you can see, only the manufacturer is in a position to make thes determinations of usage in most cases. Champ Corporation should therefore make its determination based on these criteria and the actual usage for which its products are intended and sold.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel