ID: nht91-3.18

DATE: April 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerald L. Mikesell -- Assistant Superintendent, Sierra Vista Public Schools, District Administration Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Jerald L. Mikesell, to Erika Z. Jones(OCC 5874)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 25, 1991 requesting "a copy of the federal regulations regarding school vans being used for transporting students." Your letter notes that you "are especially interested in the number of students which can be transported before a van is considered a school bus."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. The capacity of a van used to transport students will determine whether the van is considered a "school bus" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" under Federal law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Given the wording of your letter, I emphasize that it is the capacity of vehicle, not the number of students actually transported, which determines whether a vehicle is a school bus. NHTSA defines "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 10 persons or less constructed on a truck chassis.

NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacturer or sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238.

To determine whether your school district may USE a vehicle other than a school bus to transport school children, you must look to state law. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of motor vehicles. In addition, use of vehicles other than school buses could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage your school district to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: GF002676

Mr. Dale W. Soos
Sr. Project Engineer
Intertek ETL SEMKO Division
3933 US Route 11
Cortland, NY 13045

Dear Mr. Soos:

This responds to your e-mail of April 17 asking about the length of hose specimens required for certification under Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. In your e-mail, you state that your client intends to manufacture a single brake hose product line that would feature length variation, so that individual brake hoses can properly fit custom-built trailers. You ask whether a single hose length can be used to certify an entire product line. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake hoses. NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new vehicles and equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards 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. In certain circumstances, a manufacturer of a noncomplying product may also face a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each noncomplying item it produces.

Standard No. 106 applies to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country.

As previously stated, NHTSA relies on self-certification process where each manufacturer certifies its product. Accordingly, we are not in position to determine whether it would be prudent for you to use a single hose length to certify the entire product line. A manufacturer is responsible for determining the testing and analysis necessary for certification. We note that in carrying out the self-certification, each manufacturer is expected to exercise due care and sound engineering judgment. If later asked to do so by the agency, a manufacturer would have to be able to show it was reasonable to believe that a shorter hose lengths meeting the specified performance requirements accurately predicted the performance of a longer hose length, or vice versa, since all hoses must comply with the performance requirements specified by the standard. Thus, NHTSA cannot comment on whether there is any appropriate representative hose length.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:106
d.6/3/03

ID: nht94-2.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott Slaughter -- Pitts Enterprises, Inc. (Pittsview, AL)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/2/94 from Scott Slaughter to Marv Shaw (OCC 9654)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a logging trailer known as the "knuckle boom loader trailer" that you manufacture is a motor vehicle that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You explained that you r trailer stays in the woods the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety, Act ("Safety Act" 13 U.S.C. S 1392 et seq.) under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

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

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

Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and brochures that this equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose. Since your trailer is not a motor v ehicle, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

If the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer is a motor vehicle, then the trailer would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle

Identification Numbers, Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 121 Air Brake System which requires automatic slack adjusters and brakes to act on all wheels.

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

ID: 9654

Mr. Scott Slaughter
Pitts Enterprises, Inc.
5734 Highway 431
P.O. Box 155
Pittsview, AL 36871

Dear Mr. Slaughter:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a logging trailer known as the "knuckle boom loader trailer" that you manufacture is a motor vehicle that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You explained that your trailer stays in the woods the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act" 13 U.S.C. 1392 et seq.) under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

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

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

Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and brochures that this equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose. Since your trailer is not a motor vehicle, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

If the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer is a motor vehicle, then the trailer would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers, Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 121 Air Brake Systems which requires automatic slack adjusters and brakes to act on all wheels.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:4/5/94

ID: nht94-7.3

DATE: April 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott Slaughter -- Pitts Enterprises, Inc. (Pittsview, AL)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/2/94 from Scott Slaughter to Marv Shaw (OCC 9654)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a logging trailer known as the "knuckle boom loader trailer" that you manufacture is a motor vehicle that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You explained that your trailer stays in the woods the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety, Act ("Safety Act" 13 U.S.C. S 1392 et seq.) under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

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

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

Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and brochures that this equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose. Since your trailer is not a motor vehicle, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

If the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer is a motor vehicle, then the trailer would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle

Identification Numbers, Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 121 Air Brake System which requires automatic slack adjusters and brakes to act on all wheels.

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

ID: nht79-4.33

DATE: 06/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Viking Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 6, 1979, asking whether a rear lamp configuration that you describe would meet the location requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Viking Truck would like to use a lighting module containing turn signal lamps, stop lamps, tail lamps, and back-up lamps mounted on its "Bridgemaster" extendable axle. This "axle" has the appearance of a small trailer and in either extended or unextended position covers about half of the rear of the concrete mixer truck to which it is attached. You stated that Viking has had problems connected with vibration and damageability when the lamps are placed on the tag axle fender, and that remounting them on the extendable axle would alleviate these problems.

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps, turn signal lamps, and tail lamps be mounted "as far apart as practicable." Because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a manufacturer self-certification scheme, the agency has traditionally deferred to a manufacturer's determination of what, in any given instance, is "practicable" except in such instances as appear to the agency to be a clear abuse of discretion. In our opinion, Viking has a reasonable basis for a determination that the location it wishes to use is practicable. In the absence of any investigation of the matter by NHTSA, or questioning of your practice, Viking's certification of compliance attached to the vehicle should ensure that the truck cannot be refused registration in any State simply because of the lighting configuration. This means, in our opinion and to answer your second question, Viking need not acquire State approval of the configuration before offering the truck for sale.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

VIKING TRUCK CORPORATION

June 6, 1979

Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219, DOT Headquarters

Gentlemen:

Enclosed you will find four photographs of a concrete mixer mounted with our "Bridgemaster" extendable axle. Two of these pictures show the axle fully extended. The other two show the axle completely retracted.

Please notice the location of the light module we have put into place. This lighting module, produced by Betts Safety Lamp, is a completely enclosed, waterproof, heavy duty lighting system. In the module are the left and right turn lights, brake lights and tail lights. The back up light and electrical junction block is also included in the module. The combination brake, turn, and tail lights are 18 1/4" from center to center. Also, please notice the rear clearance lamps on the fender of the rear driving axle.

We have had numerous problems with the lights when they are placed on the tag axle fenders. They receive a lot of vibration and have a tendency to get backed into. We believe mounting the lights in the location shown in the photographs would alleviate many of our rear lighting problems.

Would the brake, turn, and tail lights, as placed in the photographs, meet the requirements of being "as far apart as practicable" (Part 571; S108-11)? If you find these lights in accordance with the regulations, do we have to acquire approval from the individual states, particularly California?

Please contact me if you need any further information. Thank you.

Michael W. Brooks

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht73-2.31

DATE: 08/17/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Trelleboros Gummifabriks Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 9, 1973, in which you ask whether certain radial passenger car tires may be imported if they are tested to see that they meet DOT requirements (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109; 49 CFR @ CFR 571.109), and if the information required pursuant to paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109, which does not presently appear on the tires, is branded with a hot stamp on the tire sidewalls.

The NHTSA does not view with approval the importation into the United States of passenger car tires that were not originally designed and manufactured for importation into the United States. Although Standard No. 109 as presently written does not prohibit the branding of information required by the standard onto the tire, as long as the information becomes part of the actual sidewall material, it is difficult for us to understand how a manufacturer can, in branding the necessary information, readily assume that the information is in fact reflective of the tire's performance capability. To stipulate as you do that the tires will be tested to Standard No. 109 is not responsive to the issue, for in the case of the Standard No. 109 tests, which are destructive in nature, only sample testing is conducted, and the tires actually imported are not themselves tested. Consequently, the testing of tires by a manufacturer that he desires to brand and import into the United States will only provide reliable evidence of conformity if the manufacturer's testing is of uniform batches or lots.

A similar problem is presented by a manufacturer's branding onto the tire of the identification number required by Part 574. This number is required to be based on certain facts regarding the manufacture of the tire; the week and year of manufacture. Consequently, this information must be known to the manufacturer if his identification number is to be consistent with Part 574.

In summary, the NHTSA's position regarding the branding and subsequent importation of tires not originally manufactured for importation into the United States is that although the practice is not prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Standard No. 109, or the regulations regarding the importation of motor vehicle equipment (19 CFR 12.80), manufacturers who brand tires must base their representations of conformity to the standard and to the identification requirements on information which, in the exercise of due care, they know to be accurate. Because such conformity is not apparent from an examination of these tires or even from post-production testing you should be aware that the NHTSA may request documentation that supports any manufacturer's representations regarding conformity.

Sincerely,

Secretary of Transportation National Highway Safety Bureau US Department of Transportation May 9, 1973

Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

We manufacture among others, person radial tires. Today they have not all letters and numerals, required by motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, S4.3 "Labeling requirements".

Question: Is it possible for us to export these tires to U.S.A. if we

- test them and find that they meet the DOT-qualifications

- brand the required text with a hot stamp on the sidewalls of the cured tires. Reason: The letters and numerals are not molded into the sidewalls.

Tire Research

Erik (Illegible Word)

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN US DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATTENTION LAWRENCE R SCHNEIDER CHIEF CONSUL WE REFER TO OUR LETTER DATED [Illegible Words] 1973 AND ASK YOU PLEASE TO GIVE US AN ANSWER THANKS IN ADVANCE STOP

ERIK SUNDELIN [Illegible Words] JUL 4 1973 1050

ID: nht78-4.23

DATE: 12/04/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHSTA

TO: U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Material Readiness Command

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEC 4 1978

NOA-30

Mr. Robert J. Shirock Safety Director U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Material Readiness Command Department of the Army Warren, Michigan 48090

Dear Mr. Shirock:

This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1978, to the Administrator questioning whether certain trucks procured by your Command comply with paragraph S4.5.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

That paragraph states "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You wrote that "when the hazard warning lights are activated the stop lamp cannot be activated upon application of the service brakes." The system you describe would be in compliance with Standard No. 108, if the stop lamps and signal lamps are optically combined, for the following reasons. Paragraph S4.4.1 allows combination of a stop lamp with a turn signal lamp (which provides the hazard warning signal). Paragraph 4.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970 (incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 as the operative standard for stop lamps) requires that "When a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing."

This, of course, means that in a combination lamp the stop signal cannot be given while the hazard warning signal is being operated. If the Army deems it desirable it could require a different circuitry in combination lamps by which the stop lamps and hazard warning signal lamps could operate simultaneously, as military vehicles need not conform to Federal safety standards (49 CFR 571.7(c)).

Because several jurisdictions require slow-moving vehicles to use the hazard lamps while in motion, I am asking our Office of Rulemaking to review this prohibition. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

Chief Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY TANK-AUTOMOTIVE MATERIEL READINESS COMMAND WARREN, MICHIGAN 48090

DRSTA-CZ 13 November 1978

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Admin 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook

Reference is made to FMVSS 108, paragraph S4.5.4.

Referenced paragraph states "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes."

Inspection of the lighting system in some commercial trucks recently procured by this Command disclosed that when the hazard warning lights are activated the stop lamp cannot be activated upon application of the service brakes.

While it is recognized that the primary purpose of hazard warning lights is to warn approaching traffic of a disabled vehicle, several states require the use of hazard warning signal for slow moving vehicles, i.e, NY Thruway, and Pennsylvania Turnpike. Application of the service brakes under this condition would not activate the stop lamps to warn following traffic.

Request this office be provided the DOT position as to whether or not the system described above meets the requirements of FMVSS 108, S4.5.4.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT J. SHIROCK Safety Director

ID: 1983-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jim Martin Tire

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff asking about this agency's regulations applicable to regrooved tires. Specifically, you asked if a foreign casing must have a DOT symbol on the sidewall in order to be regrooved, what requirements apply to regrooved tires intended for a dealer's own use, and whether there are any restrictions on the use of regrooved tires in particular wheel locations.

49 CFR Part 569 (copy enclosed) specifies the requirements which must be met by all regrooved tires, except those intended solely for export and so tagged or labeled. The mechanics of importing casings for regrooving are explained in a previous letter of interpretation issued by the agency (copy enclosed). Once the casing is inside the customs territory of the United States, Part 569 specifies that the casing must be labeled "regroovable" on both sidewalls. This marking cannot be added to the sidewall by a regroover before regrooving, but must have been placed there by the original manufacturer or a prior retreader. It seems unlikely that foreign manufacturers or retreaders would so label their tires. This means that few, if any, imported foreign casings may legally be regrooved. As explained in the enclosed letter, there is no requirement that the DOT symbol appear on the sidewall of casings in order for the casings to be regrooved.

The requirements of Part 569 apply to all tires regrooved in the United States, and apply equally to tires regrooved for sale to another party and to tires regrooved for the regroover's own use (Part 569.7). Each violation of those requirements could subject the offender to a $ 1,000 civil penalty. Each illegally regrooved tire would be treated as a separate violation.

With respect to your question about restrictions on the application and wheel position of a regrooved tire, this agency has no regulations. The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the Federal Highway Administration has issued a regulation applicable to carriers used in interstate commerce. That regulation prohibits the use of regrooved tires above a certain load-carrying capacity on the front wheels of trucks and truck tractors. If you further information concerning this subject, please contact Mr. Kenneth L. Pierson, Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590.

Should you have any further questions regarding regrooved tires, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.

ENCLS.

ID: nht93-3.2

DATE: April 14, 1993

FROM: Lanny Kness -- Coach Design Engineer, Chance Coach, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Interpretation of S5.1 and S5.3.3 of FMVSS 101

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Larry Kness (A41; Std. 101; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Chance Coach is a manufacturer of transit buses, and we are soliciting a written interpretation of two parts of FMVSS 101.

First, S5.1 divides specific motor vehicle controls into three categories: hand-operated controls, foot-operated controls, and displays. If a specific control is furnished, then is it required to be operated per the category's operation? For example: the turn signal control would be hand-operated, the service brake would be foot-operated and the highbeam control could be either hand- or foot-operated. Or should S5.1 be interpreted to mean: if a control is furnished and it is operated in this manner (hand- or foot-), then the following sections of S5.2 and S5.3 apply?

Currently, the turn signal controls of transit buses are mounted to the floor. This position has been used in the transit bus industry since FTA (then UMTA) issued the BASELINE ADVANCED DESIGN TRANSIT COACH SPECIFICATION (referred to as the "White Book"). As stated in the White Book, the turn signals are to be foot-operated momentary contact switches. Do foot-operated turn signals meet S5.1 of FMVSS 101?

A second interpretation is required on S5.3.3 of FMVSS 101. In a transit bus, the furnished controls are located on the dash, and they are illuminated by back lighting their identification. A dimmer switch provides illumination of the identifications over a continuous range. Typically, the windshield wiper/washer controls are provided by a vendor, and they are also installed on the dash. The windshield wiper/washer identifications are located on the control knobs, and they are not backlit. At night, the control knob's identifications are barely discernible from the indirect lighting coming from the other identifications and displays, and very discernible by turning the overhead driver's controlled light on. Does this comply with S5.3.3 of FMVSS 101?

Please contact me at (316) 941-1614, if additional information is needed.

Enclosure

Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration BASELINE ADVANCED DESIGN TRANSIT COACH SPECIFICATIONS A Guideline Procurement Document for New 35- and 40-Foot Coach Designs November 1978 (pages II-35 through II-37) (TEXT OMITTED)