ID: nht71-3.49

DATE: 07/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter of May 26, 1971, you requested our interpretation of S7.2.3 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as it affects motor homes and campers that have a forward control configuration. The section provides that forward control vehicles under 10,000 pounds GVWR manufactured after August 15, 1977, may continue to use seat belt assemblies and used not provide passive protection, but that motor homes and vehicles carrying chassis-mount campers must provide passive protection, at least in head-on impacts. Your question is whether a motor home or chassis-mount camper that is also a forward control vehicle must provide passive protection.

The exemption granted by S7.2.3 to forward control vehicles was based on the difficulties inherent in providing adequate passive protection for(Illegible Word) vehicles, regardless of their anticipated use. If a forward control vehicle is manufactured in the form of a motor home or camper, the exemption continues to apply and such a vehicle would not be required to conform to the passive protection requirements of S4.1.2.2.

Please advise us if you have further questions on this subject.

ID: nht71-2.28

DATE: 04/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Allied Chemical Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1971, requesting our interpretation of S4.5.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. You have asked whether the requirement of S4.5.2 that "all electrical circuits" must be monitored would mean that a bridgewire circuit in an electroexplosive device would have to be monitored. Our answer is that such a circuit must be monitored, although it should be noted that monitoring need not be continous, but may be designed to occur, for example, only when the ignition is in the "start" position.

Your letter points out several potential problems with the inclusion of such a bridgewire circuit among the monitored systems. We are giving consideration to the self-monitoring requirement in the light of the comments we have received, with a view to possible amendments that may be found advisable.

ID: nht89-1.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/18/89

FROM: BOB SANDBLOM -- BOOKLAND PRESIDENT

TO: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BOB SANDBLOM; REDBOOK A33 [B]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 09/03/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DAVID M. ROMANSKY; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Department of Transportation-

I thought you might want to know about a disturbing trend I have noticed in the Phoenix area and suspect exists across the country. Car dealers are putting their name and logo on the red lens of the high mounted brake light inside the rear window. Not only is this a nuisance for the car buyer to get rid of but the black letters and logo can take up more than half of the light producing area.

Surely it is not legal for a car dealer to defeat this federally mandated safety feature any more than it would be legal for them to remove a car's seat belts before offering it for sale. I have seen several different dealers' names in the lights but th e one I remember from seeing the most recently is Pitre Buick of Scottsdale.

Just thought you would like to know.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-1.21

DATE: January 28, 1993

FROM: Steve Flint -- Century Products Co.

TO: Dee Fujita -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Car Seat Registration Card

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-24-93 from John Womack to Steve Flint (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT: Attached is our latest registration card version. As I stated, we can add borders (or colors) to separate the English/U.S. card from the other languages.

Please review and let me know your thoughts. Thank you for your time and I appreciate your efforts.

Attachment: Century Products Registration Card (Text omitted.)

ID: nht89-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/89

FROM: ALLEN R. ANDRLIK -- MARKETING MANAGER AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION

TO: DEE FUJITA -- OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNCIL - NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/09/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ALLEN R. ANDRLIK -- AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 201; VSA 108 [2] [A]; PART 567.7

TEXT: Dear Ms. Fujita:

As we discussed on the telephone last week, I am now writing to obtain a ruling from your office that the Milford Cargo Barrier does not fall under any NHTSA standards.

I understand, that in order to obtain a written ruling from you, that I must submit a copy of the Milford Cargo Barrier product brochure so that you will understand exactly what it is and how it is designed to protect both the driver and front seat passe nger of any station wagon, van, or panel truck from the contents of the cargo area, which could injure them during an accident. I also believe that this product is not covered under DOT Standard Number 201 or Standard 208.

I look forward to receiving your written opinion after you have had a chance to review the attached product brochure. I will then forward your reply directly to the manufacturer in Australia.

Yours sincerely,

ID: nht76-5.27

DATE: 11/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Patton; Boggs & Blow

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 1976, to the Administrator with respect to the Ryan tote-trailer manufactured by your client, Outboard Marine Corporation. You have asked whether the tote-trailer is a "motor vehicle" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3); if the answer is affirmative you have asked whether the tote trailer is a "pole trailer" as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b); if the answer is negative, you have asked that any failure to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

In our opinion the tote-trailer is a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of @ 1391(3). Although the equipment that it carries is intended for off-road use, the tote trailer with load is hauled from place to place by motor vehicles, as depicted in the sales literature, that operate on the public roads. It has been our continuing opinion that vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. As your letter indicates, the trailer is purchased by rental agencies and "is likely to be towed on the public roads and highways." We therefore have concluded that the tote trailer is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways" and falls within the coverage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

It is also our conclusion that the tote trailer is not a "pole trailer" as defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b). The tote trailer is attached to the towing vehicle by a conventional tongue and not "by means of a reach or pole, or by being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle." In addition, the load does not appear capable of sustaining itself as a beam between the supporting connections.

Therefore, it appears from your letter that all tote trailers manufactured since January 1, 1969, have not been equipped with lighting devices required by 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, that those manufactured since January 1, 1972, have not been provided with GAWR and GVWR figures on the certification labels required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and that those manufactured since September 1, 1976, may have not been equipped with tires required by 49 CFR 571.120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

If your client wishes to submit a petition for inconsequentiality we request that it follow the format in proposed 49 CFR Part 556, copy enclosed. You may refer any questions on this matter to Mr. Vinson of my staff.

SINCERELY,

PATTON, BOGGS & BLOW October 19, 1976

John W. Snow Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Request for Interpretation and, if Necessary, for Exemption from Requirements as to a Failure to Comply with a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

Outboard Marine Corporation ("OMC") 100 Sea-Horse Drive, Waukegan, Illinois 60085, by its counsel, hereby requests: (i) a determination whether the vehicle described herein, manufactured under the trade name "Ryan" is a motor vehicle as that term is defined in @ 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the "Act"); (ii) if so, a ruling as to the proper classification of the vehicle for purposes of the regulations and standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"); and (iii) if such standards are applicable, a determination that any failure to comply therewith is "inconsequential" within the meaning of @ 157 of the Act and an exemption from any requirement with respect to such failure to comply. In support of this request, the following information is provided.

A. Description

This request relates to a vehicle known as a "tote trailer," which is manufactured as a complement to the turf care equipment line manufactured by OMC under the trade-name "Ryan." Turf care equipment includes a variety of machines specially designed for use in the growth and maintenance of turf grasses. While some items of Ryan equipment are designed for residential use, such as lawnowners and edgers, the principal employment of Ryan equipment is in the maintenance and care of the turf grasses on golf courses, athletic fields, parks, sod farms, and similar locations. The equipment includes power rakes, thatchers, spreaders, golf green aerators, tractor drawn aerators, sod cutters, and levelers. The attached brochure (Annex A) describes the Ryan equipment line and provides illustrations of typical usage.

The principal plant facility for the manufacture of the Ryan equipment line is in Minnesota. For some years this plant has manufactured a small, inexpensive "tote trailer" designed exclusively for the carriage of certain Ryan machines. The tote trailer is sold in three versions, each designed solely for a specific machine. For example, the junior sod cutter tote trailer is designed to carry only that machine (the junior sod cutter) and could not be conveniently used for any other kind of equipment (see Annex A, page 13).

The trailer is very simple: it consists of a triangular frame, two upright bars, an axle and two wheels. The trailer does not have a deck and is configured solely to accommodate the specific item of Ryan equipment for which it is designed. The trailer has always been considered an accessory to the equipment it is designed to carry. In fact, the only purpose of the trailer is to permit convenient transportation of bulky and heavy equipment. In these circumstances, the trailer can be logically considered as an accessory of the equipment it is designed to carry rather than a discrete item.

The basic function of the tote trailer is to transport the specific item of Ryan equipment for which it is designed from one location to another. The transportation may be on private lanes within a golf course or park not involving public roads and highways. However, the tote trailer is also purchased by rental agencies that lease the Ryan equipment including the tote trailer to the public. In this circumstance, the tote trailer and the Ryan equipment for which it is designed is likely to be towed on the public roads and highways.

The tote trailer has been sold without lights, license plate holder, fenders, or any of the other usual indicia of an on-road vehicle. The hitch arrangement is equally adaptable to towing behind a tractor as behind an automobile, although the arrangement is fully compatible with automotive hitches. In the past, an optional fender and light unit has been offered but there has been little interest in this option and few kits have been sold. OMC has now, however, taken the decision that the tote trailer will in the future be manufactured as a motor vehicle in the trailer class and units manufactured after December 1, 1976, will be in compliance with all regulations and standards applicable to trailers.

B. The Tote Trailer is not a Motor Vehicle in the Usual Sense

Since the tote trailer is designed to carry only one item of equipment, it is essentially an accessory to that piece of equipment. As a general rule, the tote trailer would not be purchased or utilized other than in association with a specific item of Ryan equipment. All such equipment is designed and intended for use on lawns, golf courses, etc., and while generally self propelled on wheels, is obviously not in the category of motor vehicle as defined in the Act. Because of these characteristics of the basic equipment, it was not unreasonable for petitioner's manufacturing and sales personnel - who are not routinely engaged in motor vehicle manufacture - to consider the tote trailer as being other than a motor vehicle for purposes of the Act.

Petitioners do not have specific knowledge of the ultimate usage of the tote trailer in all cases. However, it is known that some of the units in use are utlized on golf courses or other similar locations and seldom, if ever, appear on public roads. Other tote trailers are owned by rental companies that rent the trailer in conjunction with the Ryan equipment for which it is designed. This group of trailers probably do appear on public roads since their ordinary function is to transport the equipment from the rental office to the residence of the user.

Under the NHTSA regulations and interpretations, the determination as to whether an item of equipment is a "motor vehicle" as that term is defined in the Act is based, in part, on the use of the vehicle. Because the tote trailer is an accessory to a specific piece of equipment, it would not be illogical to conclude that the trailer plus the equipment constitute the "vehicle" and that the primary use of the unit as a whole is in off road situations. Put another way, the unit as a whole is occasionally used on public roads, but primarily is not. In these circumstances, OMC requests that the Administrator determine that to date, the tote trailer was not "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets . . ." and, therefore, has not been a motor vehicle as that term is defined in @ 102(3) of the Act.

C. Classification In the event the Administrator concludes that the tote trailer is a motor vehicle, we urge that it be classified as a "pole trailer" as defined in @ 571.3(b). A pole trailer is:

"a motor vehicle without motive power designed to be drawn by another motor vehicle and attached to the towing vehicle by means of a reach or pole, or by being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle, for transporting long or irregularly shaped loads such as poles, pipes, or structural members capable generally of sustaining themselves as beams between the supporting connections."

As will be shown below, the tote trailer has each of the characteristics of a pole trailer as so defined.

First, the tote trailer is designed for transporting irregularly shaped loads. As the illustrations on pages 13 and 15 of Annex A clearly show, the Ryan equipment that is carried on the tote trailer is obviously bulky and irregularly shaped. Second, since the tote trailer is simply a frame without a deck, it is clear that the load (i.e., a piece of Ryan equipment) is capable of sustaining itself between the supporting connections. Third, the trailer is secured to the towing vehicle by a hitch attached to the frame members that in turn support the load. Thus, each of the criteria for a pole trailer classification are met by the tote trailer and it should be so classified.

While there has not, to our knowledge, been developed a body of precedent as to classifications under the Act and NHTSA Regulations, there has developed such case law in the area of Customs administration where classifications are routinely made as to imported merchandise. Under the Customs precedents, the principle has always been that where an article falls within both a general and specific class, it is always classified in the latter. That is, the more specific definition prevails. See, e.g., Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v. United States, 59 C.C.P.A. 130, 460 F.2d 1070 (1972). This principle of construction seems equally appropriate for the NHTSA regulations where there is a general class, trailers, and a number of more specific classes, namely: the pole trailer, the boat trailer and the trailer converter dolly. Following the Customs law rationale, the Ryan tote trailer which fits both the general trailer and more specific pole trailer definitions, logically should be classified as the latter.

Accordingly, in the event the Administrator determines that the Ryan tote trailer is a motor vehicle, then we submit it should be classified as a pole trailer at least with respect to those units produced to date. While pole trailers are subject to certain requirements under the NHTSA regulations, they are excluded from compliance with Standard 108 (see @ 571.108, S2). Because of this exclusion from the principal standard applicable to trailers, the failure to comply with the certification and manufacturer identification requirements is obviously inconsequential. Accordingly, the Administrator, should, pursuant to @ 157 of the Act, exempt petitioner from any compliance with the requirements of notification and remedy in Part B of the Act.

D. Even if the Tote Trailer is Classified Other than a Pole Trailer, then Any Failure to Comply is Inconsequential

Without in any way compromising our position that the tote trailer, if a motor vehicle, is properly classified as a pole trailer, we would urge that even if classified as a regular trailer, any failure to comply with the motor vehicle safety standards is inconsequential. Accordingly, the Administrator would be justified in exempting the petitioner from any requirement as to notice or remedy under part B of the Act.

Petitioner has manufactured the tote trailer for some years as an accessory to a product line wholly unrelated to the motor vehicle industry. It has been manufactured for a specific class of customers that have not requested lighting (Standard 108) or a title certificate. To petitioner's knowledge, there has never been a product liability case or, for that matter, accident involving the tote trailer. And, as noted, above, the petitioner has now determined to establish a classification of the tote trailer as a trailer (general class) and to manufacture it in compliance with the applicable regulations.

E. Conclusion

OMC submits that it would not be unreasonable for the Administrator to issue a determination that the tote trailer was either not a motor vehicle or, if so, was a pole trailer for the reasons stated herein. In the event such a determination would require additional information or discussion, a conference is hereby requested. Kindly contact the undersigned if there are any questions in connection with the foregoing.

Charles O. Verrill, Jr.

ID: nht93-7.18

DATE: October 8, 1993

FROM: Frank Williams -- President, Safety Brake Set

TO: Office Of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/21/94 From John Womack To Frank Williams (A42; Redbook (2); Std. 121

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

I have a patent applied for and am presently marketing a device which sets the brakes on an air brake vehicle when the driver exits the cat.

The device does not [Illegible Word] into the [Illegible Word] system but [Illegible Word] the [Illegible Word] button out if the driver is off the seat and the door is open. The brake then must be manually disengaged.

[Illegible Words]

Thank you,

ID: nht91-6.15

DATE: October 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jon Nisper -- K.B. Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-23-91 from Jon Nisper to Jerry Medelin (OCC 6403)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of August 23, 1991, to Jere Medlin of this agency. You have enclosed a drawing of a combination headlamp/turn signal lamp assembly that depicts two possible positions ("Case l," "Case 2") for the inboard wall. With respect to each, you have asked "where should the 100mm separation be measured for turn signal headlamp position?"

Let me begin by noting that there is no requirement in Standard No. 108 that front turn signal lamps be separated from headlamps by at least 100mm. However, if there is less than a 100mm separation of those lamps, S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 provides that the multiplier applied to obtain the required minimum luminous intensities for the lamps shall be 2.5. NHTSA determines the distance of the separation pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 5.1.5.4.2 of SAE Standard J588 NOV84, "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width." That paragraph provides the following means of measuring spacing:

"Spacing for a front turn signal lamp which primarily employs a reflector (for example, one of parabolic section) in conjunction with a lens to meet photometric requirements, shall be measured from the geomeric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area to the lighted edge of the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the lower beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp."

We would apply this as follows. You stated in your letter that the inboard walls in your proposed headlamp/turn signal assembly serve no functional purpose. We interpret this as meaning that neither the inboard wall in Case 1 or Case 2 shown in your drawing would be used optically in the headlamp. Under this assumption, and the assumption that no direct light from the bulb filament illuminates the outer edges of the headlamp lens nearest the turn signal, the lighted edge of the headlamp reflector would end where the relevant inboard wall meets the reflector. Pursuant to SAE Standard J588 NOV 84, one would then take a vertical plane that is parallel to the axis of the headlamp bulb, and project it from the end of the lighted edge of the reflector (i.e., where the respective inboard wall meets the reflector) onto the lens. You have already drawn this as a line in the drawing enclosed with your FAX. Next, take the axis of the turn signal bulb and project it onto the lens (this line also exists in your enclosed drawing). To determine the separation, one would then measure the distance between the projected points on each lens. Should the headlamp lens area between the turn signal and the projected vertical wall line onto the headlamp lens be lighted, either on purpose or inadvertently, then the actual lighted edge of the headlamp would be used for measurement purposes.

ID: aiam0919

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in response to your letter of October 30, 1972, in which yo raise a number of questions regarding Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I have numbered my answers to correspond with the numbering of your questions.; 1. You assume that when two latches requiring separate forc applications are used on a single exit, under S5.3.2 each latch mechanism may require forces less than or equal to the magnitudes specified in S5.3.2(a)(3) and (b)(3). Your assumption is correct.; 2. You state that the torque value 20 inch-pounds in S5.3.2(a)(3) i too low and suggest that it be raised to 225 inch-pounds. The problem to which you refer will be dealt with in an amendment to Standard 217 which is presently being prepared.; 3. You ask for a definition of the term reach distances used in S5.4 The term refers to the space envelopes (the shaded areas) in the Figures accompanying the standard. All movements required to release and open the emergency exits must occur within these space envelopes.; 4. You assume that the legibility requirements of S5.5.2 are to be me when the normal night time illumination is in the ON' position. This is correct.; 5. You ask for a clarification of Figures 1 and 2 to clarify th location of the bus wall in relation to the seat. The amendment currently being prepared will clarify the figures in a manner which should answer your question.; 6. You request a clarification of Figure 3A to indicate the floor an wall of an upright bus and the wall and roof of an overturned bus. The amendment currently being prepared will clarify the figures in a manner which should answer this question.; 7. You describe a horizontally hinged rear emergency window with tw latches at the bottom of the window spaced horizontally 53 3/8 inches apart. You ask if the 53 3/8 inch latch spacing is permitted if the exit you describe meets the requirements of Standard 217 in all other respects. The answer to your question is yes.; Sincerely, Richard B.Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht93-5.25

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 15, 1993

FROM: Pat McCue -- Allied Service Systems Manufacturing

TO: Ed Jettner -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/10/94 from John Womack to Pat McCue (A42; Std. 302; Std. 208; Std.. 209; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

The intent of this letter is to advise your agency of the need for regulation on an occupant restraint system in ambulances. Hopefully, your technical staff can feed back information on how the regulations are put into effect and what criteria you use to test products or components that make up the restraint system.

The NFPA, National Fire Protection Agency, has required an occupant restraint system in ambulances for medics and attendants riding on the bench seat in the back of ambulances. Unlike other occupant restraint systems, the user must have the ability to move about to provide patient care while the vehicle is moving.

A fatal accident in Phoenix, Arizona on June 24, 1992, caused the Phoenix Fire Department to actively pursue a system to protect their personnel riding in the back of ambulances. This incident identified the need for a restraint system.

Allied Service Systems has produced a patented product which will meet the needs of the user. However, I know of no product specifications.

Enclosed are photos of our system, material specifications, and a copy of the NFPA requirement.

Please advise me of any input your agency can provide in terms of how regulations are established and how products are tested to meet standards.