ID: nht92-7.44

DATE: April 10, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Watt -- Director of Engineering, The Flxible Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/11/92 from Lance Watt to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6972)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 11, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to several scenarios regarding the wiring and use of optional brake retarder transmissions on city transit buses manufactured by your company.

In your current design, the retarder is designed so that it is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, the service brakes are activated, and this in turn illuminates the stop lamps. You have enclosed a copy of my letter of September 20. 1990, confirming that this design conforms to Standard No. 108, specifically S5.5.4 which states that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes."

Since that time, several additional scenarios have presented themselves. First, some customers have requested that the transmission retarder be activated when the accelerator pedal is released, rather than when the brake pedal is applied. In this configuration, the stop lamps would not be illuminated, "and therefore, following vehicles may be unaware of this sudden reduction in vehicle speed", unless the service brakes were also applied. However, some customers wishing this option would like to have the stop lamps illuminated by the retarder, that is to say, when the accelerator is released. Second, some customers have also requested a retarder cut-off switch in order to disable the retarder during icy or slippery road conditions. In such a case, the stop lamps would also be activated at the time of accelerator release "with minimal if any change in vehicle forward speed, and again, potentially with no intent on the part of the driver to use the service brakes."

To date, your company has resisted these requests, but these customers, without a specific NHTSA interpretation on the point, threaten to declare your company a nonresponsive bidder on transit bus procurements. You have asked whether a noncompliance with section S5.5.4 would result "if the stop lamps were activated without depressing the brake pedal as requested by our customers."

The purpose of the retarder feature is to provide supplemental braking to city transit buses. This braking results in the deceleration of the vehicle. A stop lamp is defined by SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width as one that indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Whenever the brake retarder is activated with the intent of diminishing speed by braking, Standard No. 108 does not require that the stop lamps be activated. The only mandate of the standard (S5.5.4) is that when the service brakes are applied, the stop lamps must be illuminated.

Nor does Standard No. 108 prohibit illumination of the stop lamps by release of the accelerator pedal followed by activation of the retarder. This is because the intention of the driver is to diminish speed by the braking action of the retarder. We distinguish this situation from the one in an interpretation provided Larry Snowhite, Esq. on January 25, 1990, in which a device activated the stop lamps whenever the accelerator pedal was released, regardless of the intent of the driver. Activation of the stop lamps initiated by release of the accelerator pedal is permissible only when the intent of the driver is to reduce the speed of the vehicle by an immediate subsequent act of braking, whether that is achieved through his use of the service brake system, use of retarders, or a combination of the two.

However, a configuration where the stop lamps operate in the absence of service brake application or activation of a retarder system (as appears to occur when a retarder cut off switch has been activated) would be subject to S5.1.3 of the standard. This prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In this instance, the retarder cut off feature would permit the stop lamps to send the false signal that the operator intended to stop or reduce vehicle speed when, in fact, there was no intent to do so.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht76-3.33

DATE: 03/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Clarence J. Baudhuin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 29, 1976, letter to Secretary Coleman, concerning problems with your 22 foot Executive "MINI" Motorhome.

@@ 567.4(g)(3) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, provide that a motor vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) shall

not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.

Your letter and its enclosures indicate that your vehicle's weight is 9180 pounds, its designated seating capacity is six, and the GVWR specified by Executive is 9000 pounds. From this information, there appears to be a violation by Executive of Part 567. In addition, the possibility that the rear axle may be overloaded under normal conditions of use may constitute a defect related to motor vehicle safety. I have forwarded your letter to our Office of Standards Enforcement for such further action as may be appropriate.

Please note that a final-stage manufacturer is not automatically prohibited from certifying a GVWR that differs from that specified by the chassis manufacturer. For the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, Executive is free to certify a lower GVWR, provided the above-cited constraint is observed.

The remaining questions presented in your letter are not matters over which we have jurisdiction, and probably are most appropriately handled by a private attorney.

ID: 1984-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: T.M. Johnson, Jr. -- Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. M. Johnson, Jr. Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation Box 1109 Buffalo, N.Y. 14240-1109

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Specifically, you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of section S5.1 of Standard No. 119, which requires that a listing of the rims which may be used with each tire produced by a manufacturer be provided to the public. That section gives manufacturers the option of using the data provided for the tire size and the corresponding rims published in certain standardization organization yearbooks or listing the appropriate information "in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon request, and in duplicate to NHTSA." You enclosed a copy of a paper label you propose to affix to a 15-inch motorcycle tire which is not currently listed in any of the standardization organization publications, and asked if this would satisfy the requirement that the information be contained in a document furnished to dealers and to any person upon request. The proposed paper label would satisfy the requirements of section S5.1 of the standard.

In the past, manufacturers electing to list the appropriate information for the tire size have sent bulletins to their dealers and distributors with the necessary information. The reason for requiring this wide dissemination of the appropriate information when a tire size is not listed in a standardization organization publication is to ensure that the tire will be mounted only on appropriate rims and that the tire will be mounted only on vehicles where its load-carrying capacity will be adequate. The paper label you furnished along with your letter shows the appropriate dimensional and load-carrying data for the tire and rims, so it appears to serve the purposes of section S5.1. Further, as you noted in your letter, the paper label should reach outlets beyond your distributor network, whereas a service bulletin might not reach those outlets. Accordingly, I conclude that a paper label affixed to a tire, which lists the appropriate dimensional and loading information for the tire and suitable rims, would satisfy the requirement that the appropriate information be listed in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires.

July, 23 1984

Stephen Kratzke, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel 5219 407th Street SW Washington, DC 20590

RE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION MVSS119; S5.1, S5.1(a)

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

This confirms our prior conversations regarding Dunlop's intention to market a size MV85-15, load range C, motorcycle tire. This size is not currently listed in one of the publications referenced in MVSS119 S5.1(b). Enclosed is a copy of the tread label we hope to affix to every such tire and which contains the information we will supply to NHTSA and the public.

Paragraph S5.1(a) states "listed in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon request and in duplicate to" NHTSA. Rather than issuing a bulletin that may not reach actual points of sale (motorcycle accessory shops) beyond our Distributor network, we propose that the information be printed on the tire's tread label. Whoever fits the tire to a rim and motorcycle will have the required information readily available. Upon request, the label may be detached and provided to the customer.

Therefore, we are at this time requesting your office to provide an interpretation of the Standard with respect to inclusion of meaning of "document".

Your expeditious response to this proposal will be much appreciated, since we will begin distribution in August.

Very truly yours,

DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION

T. M. Johnson, Jr., Tire Performance Manager

ID: 86-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Frederick Goldfeder, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Frederick Goldfeder, Esq. Legal Proceedings Bureau New York Department of Transportation Albany, New York 12232

Dear Mr. Goldfeder:

This responds to your January 28, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the definition of "truck" set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.3 of our regulations. You asked whether manufacturers may certify "passenger vans," which have seating capacities of more than 10 persons, as trucks.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567), the classification of a motor vehicle is determined by its manufacturer. Part 567 requires manufacturers to certify that their motor vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, and classify their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in Part 571.3 of our regulations. The agency may, of course, question a manufacturer's classification of its vehicle if it appears that the vehicle has not been properly certified under our regulations. This would generally arise in the context of compliance or enforcement proceedings.

We define a "truck" in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle ... designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." Based on the information in your letter, it does not appear that the vans meet that definition, given their passenger capacities. Our regulatory definition of a truck would be only appropriate for vehicles designed primarily for transporting property or equipment, which does not appear to be the case for the vans you described.

The situation you described appears to raise question of compliance with Federal law by the persons certifying the vehicles. We are interested in learning more about the sale of the vans, and would appreciate your contacting NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with any information you may have, at the address given above.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 28, 1986

Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We would Appreciate An interpretation of the term "truck" (49 CFR S371.3).

Specifically, we have in mind vehicles commonly known as a "passenger van" having s seating capacity of more than ten persons.

These vehicles are commonly sold, by a dealer, with the manufacturers' certification being that of a "truck". In this connection, we note that the definition of "bus" in said section is:

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than ten persons."

The vehicles sold as a "passenger van" do not meet all of the specifications of a "bus" as set forth in Part 571.

May a manufacturer properly certify such "passenger van" as a truck, under Federal Statutes and Regulations?

This question is arising with great frequency in connection with our safety certification of vehicles operating intrastate New York. Accordingly, your interpretation of your regulations would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

FREDERICK GOLDFEDER Associate Attorney Legal Proceedings Bureau

ID: 24366.ztv

Mr. Brian Kavanaugh
Trade Advisor
Deringer Logistics Consulting Group
1 Lincoln Road, Suite 225
Rouses Point, NY 12979




Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:

This is in reply to your letter asking for an interpretation covering MR-100 and MO-100 compact trailers. You stated that "the MR-100 is for use on the highway and is equipped with DOT approved tail and marker lights." You further stated that "The MO-100 off road trailer is not equipped with any lighting." We understand that you wish to import these trailers into the United States from Canada.

We appreciate your sending us illustrations of both trailers, as that enables us to provide you with a more definitive response to your questions.

We first address your opinion that "the MO-100 off road will not require any DOT approval as it is not for use on the highway." However, you have provided no arguments in support of your conclusion. We do not accept such statements of use at face value when it appears to us that a vehicle is capable of being used both on and off the public roads. As we see them, the MO-100 and the MR-100 are both capable of on and off road use; they are almost identical in appearance and size, and their interior dimensions and volume are identical. There are, to be sure, some distinctions between the two trailers. The rear fender well molding on which the MR-100s rear lamp is mounted has been removed from the MO-100, opening the wheelwell (which might facilitate brush clearance) and the MO-100 is equipped with "AT-22 x 11-8 2 ply tires." However, there does not appear to be any practical reason why the owner of an MO-100 could not replace these tires and their rims with the "5.30 x 12 6 ply tires" of the MR-100. These features taken alone fail to establish that the MO-100 is not likely to be used on the public streets , roads, and highways. I also note that the MO-100 is advertised as having "high speed quality hubs & bearings," which suggests on-road capability.

We would consider such arguments as you care to present in support of your opinion that the MO-100 "is not for use on the highway." We have issued numerous interpretations on the issue of whether particular vehicles are "motor vehicles." I am enclosing one of these interpretations for your consideration (letter to Ronald Sheldon, dated May 4, 2000). For purposes of this letter, we consider that both the MO-100 and MR-100s are motor vehicles and required to comply with the FMVSS that apply to trailers and to be certified as complying with these FMVSS.

You have asked four questions:

"1) Are these trailers in compliance with DOT requirements?"

We do not know. The MO and MR trailers must be manufactured to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 (lamps and reflectors), 119 (tires), and 120 (rims). The MO and MR trailers are too long and too wide to qualify for the exceptions for lighting equipment allowed for smaller trailers under S5.1.1.14 and S5.1.1.15 of Standard No. 108. The manufacturer of the trailers must ensure that they are equipped with all lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 and that they are equipped with tires and rims that meet Standards Nos. 119 and 120 as well.

"2) Do they need a DOT Approval letter to import these trailers into the United States as the Original Manufacturer."

No. There are no "DOT Approval" letters. Each trailer must have a manufacturers certification label affixed to it in the form and manner prescribed by 49 CFR Part 567. That will enable the trailer to be readily imported into the United States.

Nor are there "DOT-approved tail and marker lights" as you referred to them in your letter. A DOT symbol appearing on an item of lighting equipment represents its manufacturers certification of compliance with U.S. Federal requirements. It does not represent any "approval" by DOT. We have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" vehicles or equipment.

"3) Will they have to be entered through a Registered Importer?"

A trailer that has been certified by its original manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (see answer to Question 2 above) may be directly imported into the United States. Vehicles that have not been so certified must be imported through a registered importer, and many other requirements may apply.

"4) Do they have to assign a designated agent for a foreign manufacturer? (Service of Process)?"

Yes. The Canadian manufacturer of the trailers must file such a designation, and the designation must follow the form and content specified in 49 CFR 551.45.

I enclose a copy of information that the agency provides prospective manufacturers of motor vehicles.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.8/15/02

ID: 9128

Mr. Christopher S. Spencer
Engineering
4100 Troy Road #206
Springfield, Ohio 45502

This responds to your letter about the brake reservoir requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are developing a new reservoir design to improve reservoir volume without increasing the need for space. You asked how to test your reservoirs since you believe that "(t)he safety standard does not clarify the test criteria specifically how the reservoir is to be sealed."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The standard's reservoir requirements for trucks and buses are set forth in section S5.1.2. That section requires these vehicles to be equipped with one or more service reservoir systems that meet specified performance requirements. Section S5.1.2.2 specifies the following:

Each reservoir shall be capable of withstanding an internal hydrostatic pressure of five times the compressor cutout pressure or 500 psi, whichever is greater, for 10 minutes.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that an air brake system reservoir has a minimum level of structural integrity. NHTSA has long interpreted the term "withstand" to require that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceeding one percent. At one point, the agency issued an interpretation concluding that the term "withstand" meant that a reservoir can deform only slightly and must contain the applied pressure with only a limited pressure drop at any time during the test. However, NHTSA later withdrew that interpretation because it inadvertently increased the severity of the requirement. See 42 FR 64630, December 27, 1977, and 43 FR 9149, March 6, 1978.

You asked about this requirement in connection with a reservoir design that includes a bushing on the inside of an endcap. A weld is placed around the bushing.

You describe two different procedures you have used to seal the reservoir. In what you describe as "Test Criteria 1," a socket head plug is put into the bushing with 3 full wraps of tape. With this first method, you state that as the pressure is applied to the reservoir, the endcap starts to expand out. The bushing stretches with the endcap, and as the bushing stretches the threads are pulled away from the plug. The plug must therefore be retightened several times before the required pressure is reached. In your "Test Criteria 2," you state that a rubber grommet or washer is placed on the inside of the bushing and forced to expand to seal the bushings from the inside. You stated that this method checks the weld but removes the threads from the test. With the second method, you state that there was no failure at over five times the working pressure.

While Standard No. 121 does not specify a particular test procedure for this requirement, the language of S5.1.2.2 makes it clear that a reservoir must "withstand" for 10 minutes a condition where the reservoir is pressurized at the specified level. Therefore, in conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would pressurize a reservoir to the specified level. This would necessitate sealing the reservoir.

In considering how a particular reservoir would be sealed, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to evaluate the reservoir's structural integrity and ability to withstand pressurization. I can offer you the following comments on the two alternative test methods you described. The first method (Test Criteria 1) would appear to evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization. The threaded plug would appear to reasonably approximate how the reservoir would be sealed in an actual use situation. I note that the mere fact that the plug needs to be tightened during the test to achieve the specified level of pressure would not indicate a failure but would simply reflect minor air leakage around the plug.

The second method (Test Criteria 2) would not fully evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization, since it would, as you recognized, remove the threads from the test, thereby creating an artificial seal. It is our opinion that a reservoir would not be capable of "withstanding" the specified hydrostatic internal pressure if the threads failed under such pressurization. This would represent a structural failure equivalent to a rupture.

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

ref:121 d:4/25/94

ID: 9495

Mr. Perry McGlothan
Quality Assurance Test Specialist
Century Products Company
9600 Valley View Road
Macedonia, OH 44056

Dear Mr. McGlothan:

This responds to your letter to me about the head impact protection and protrusion limitation requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. We received under separate cover the three child seats you sent for illustration purposes, samples of Models 4560, 4590 and the STE 1000.

You discuss in your letter a new method you would like to use to attach the head impact protection foam to the child restraint shell. The foam would be attached to the shell by means of two push-in pins, each 1/2 inch in length and with a 3/4 inch diameter head, as distinguished from the padding being glued to the shell as in the past. You stated that this change would better secure the foam padding to the shell and help your manufacturing process. You asked us whether the new method would meet the head impact protection requirement of S5.2.3 (for restraints recommended for children weighing less than 20 pounds) and the protrusion limitations of S5.2.4.

As you know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product. NHTSA may examine the manufacturer's certification in the course of any enforcement action. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and is subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine production units of these models and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control.

You first inquire, "Please advise as to compression deflection," which we understand as asking whether S5.2.3.2 would permit you to secure the foam with the pins. We cannot tell you whether the foam padding would satisfy S5.2.3 of Standard 213. The compression deflection resistance and thickness of the material can only be determined in a compliance laboratory, using the laboratory procedures described in the standard. S5.2.3.2 states that each system surface, except for protrusions that comply with S5.2.4, which is contactable by a dummy head must be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material with specified characteristics. As explained in the next paragraph, the pins we examined appear to satisfy S5.2.4. Further, the pins might not be contactable by the dummy head in Standard 213's dynamic test. However, whether they are contactable can only be determined in the standard's dynamic test.

S5.2.4 requires that any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to S5.2.3 shall meet specified limits on height and radius of exposed edge. Based on our visual inspection, the pins we saw appear to be within those limits. Again, however, the Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for determining compliance in the first instance on you, the manufacturer of the child restraint.

We still have the three seats that you sent us. We plan to dispose of them unless we hear from you.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:4/8/94

ID: nht94-6.45

DATE: April 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Perry McGlothan -- Quality Assurance Test Specialist, Century Products Company (Macedonia, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/15/93 from Perry McGlothan to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9495)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to me about the head impact protection and protrusion limitation requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. We received under separate cover the three child seats you sent for illustration purposes, samples of Models 4560, 4590 and the STE 1000.

You discuss in your letter a new method you would like to use to attach the head impact protection foam to the child restraint shell. The foam would be attached to the shell by means of two push-in pins, each 1/2 inch in length and with a 3/4 inch diameter head, as distinguished from the padding being glued to the shell as in the past. You stated that this change would better secure the foam padding to the shell and help your manufacturing process. You asked us whether the new method would meet the head impact protection requirement of S5.2.3 (for restraints recommended for children weighing less than 20 pounds) and the protrusion limitations of S5.2.4.

As you know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product. NHTSA may examine the manufacturer's certification in the course of any enforcement action. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and it subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine production units of these models and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control.

You first inquire, "Please advise as to compression deflection," which we understand as asking whether S5.2.3.2 would permit you to secure the foam with the pins. (*1) S5.2.3.2 states that each system surface, except for protrusions that comply with S5.2.4, which is contactable by a dummy head must be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material with specified characteristics. As explained in the next paragraph, the pins we examined appear to satisfy S5.2.4. Further, the pins might not be contactable by the dummy head in Standard 213's dynamic test. However, whether they are contactable can only be determined in the standard's dynamic test.

S5.2.4 requires that any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to S5.2.3 shall meet specified limits on height and radius of exposed edge. Based on our visual inspection, the pins we saw appear

to be within those limits. Again, however, the Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for determining compliance in the first instance on you, the manufacturer of the child restraint.

We still have the three seats that you sent us. We plan to dispose of them unless we hear from you.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

* 1 We cannot tell you whether the foam padding would satisfy S5.2.3 of Standard 213. The compression deflection resistance and thickness of the material can only be determined in a compliance laboratory, using the laboratory procedures described in the standard.

ID: nht90-1.30

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 29, 1990

FROM: Cal Karl -- District 4700 - Commercial Vehicle Section, State of Minnesota, State Patrol Division

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-18-90 from R. E. Meadows; Also attached to letter dated 1-8-90 from R. Marion to C. Karl; Also attached to memo dated 11-28-8? from C. Karl to All School Bus LCR II's; Also attached to letter dated 11-27-90 from P.J. Rice to C. Karl (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 12-7-82 from F. Berndt to M.B. Mathieson

TEXT:

I am in charge of the school bus inspection program for the Minnesota State Patrol. In that capacity I am asking for your interpretation of 49 CFR 571.217 S5.2.3.2 regarding vandal locks.

I have become aware of vandal locks by some bus body manufacturers that I feel do not meet the requirements of 217. My interpretation is disputed by the manufacturers and therefore I ask for your interpretation.

We are finding many of the vandal locks that even though they are unlocked, and the bus can start and run, the lock may be relocked by a student while the bus is running. Granted, it would not kill the bus engine but would render the starting mechanism inoperable if the engine is shut off or would die. This situation appears loaded with potential danger if the driver finds himself in a precarious situation and kills the engine only to find it won't restart.

Some manufacturers combat that by incorporating an interlock that activates a buzzer in the driver compartment if the lock is locked. This warns the driver that lock has been locked but doesn't prevent him from getting into a predicament before he is ab le to cause the door to be unlocked.

While standard 217 prohibits a bus from starting if the vandal lock is locked, can the lock be relocked after the bus is running or should it be locked in the open position?

While standard 217 requires that a key or special information by the driver is required to unlock the device, may it then be relocked without the key or special information?

I have enclosed copies of Minnesota minimum standards and letters from Wayne Bus Co. and Thomas Built Bus Co.

I appreciate your consideration.

Attachment

Minnesota Minimum Standards for School Bus 3520.5010 Doors

The emergency door must be equipped with a slide-bar cam-operated lock. The slide bar must have a minimum stroke of one inch. The emergency door lock must be equipped with a suitable electric plunger type switch connected with a buzzer located in the dr iver's compartment. The switch must be enclosed in a metal case, and the wires leading from the switch must be concealed in the bus body. The switch must be installed so that the plunger contacts the farthest edge of the slide bar so that any movement of the slide bar immediately closes the circuit on the switch and sets off the buzzer.

The emergency door lock must be equipped with an interior handle that extends approximately to the center of the emergency door. The handle shall lift up to release the lock.

The service door and the emergency door (side or rear) may be equipped with vandal locks if the locks comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 217, Code of Federal Regulations, title 49, part 571.

MS s 169.45

13 SR 1860

3520.5020 (Repealed, 13 SR 1860)

3520.5100 (Repealed, 13 SR 1860)

3520.5110 (Repealed, 13 SR 1860)

3520.5111 FIRE EXTINGUISHER.

A minimum of one 2-1/2 pound dry chemical type fire extinguisher, with not less than a 10-B-C rating, is required. It must be approved by underwriters Laboratories, Inc. or an equivalent testing laboratory.

The extinguisher must be mounted in a bracket, located in the driver's compartment and readily accessible to the driver and passengers. A pressure indicator is required and must be easily read without removing the extinguisher from its mounted position.

MS s 169.45

13 SR 1860

3520.5120 FIRST AID KIT.

The bus must carry a removable Grade A metal, or other material of equal strength, dust-proof first aid kit, mounted in full view or in a labeled accessible place in the driver's compartment.

The first aid kit must have the following units and packages per unit:

ID: nht79-1.25

DATE: 12/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alternative Automotive, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dec. 14, 1979

Mr. John F. Croonquist, President Alternative Automotive, Inc. 999 N. Pacific Street, 33-D Oceanside, California 92054

Dear Mr. Croonquist:

This responds to your November 9, 1979, letter asking whether a vehicle that you plan to produce would be classified as a truck for purposes of applying the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In your letter, you state that your vehicle looks somewhat like a Jeep. You state further that it is constructed on a Volkswagen truck chassis, carries two passengers, and is designed to transport property. As you know, the agency defines truck to be a vehicle that is designed primarily to transport property or speciality equipment. Since the vehicle that you plan to manufacture appears to be designed for the transportation of property and since it is constructed on a truck chassis, the agency concludes that it would be a truck for the purposes of applying the safety standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

9 November, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Roger Fairchild

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

If you will recall I talked with you on the phone about one and a half months ago concerning getting a ruling as to the classification from the NHTSA on a vehicle I am in the process of building; and therefore before proceeding further I will need a ruling from your office.

A general description of the vehicle would be a fiberglass body (similiar to a Jeep) placed on my own fabricated chassis (2" by 4"-.120 wall box tubing) which is truely a truck chassis. The design of the chassis follows closely that of the VW Bus or what Volkswagen calls their type 2 vehicle and uses VW bus front torsion, rear torsion, brakes, steering, pedal assembly and other VW bus components.

Various data supplied herein points out why we feel the vehicle should be classified as a truck; especially in light of the recent classification of the American Motors Corp. "Eagle" as a truck.

Various reasons stated are as follows: 1. Vehicle is designed to carry two persons 2. Vehicle is designed to transport property a. by using the roll bar as a super-structure to build a cargo containment area b. this will be done by placing wood siding on the roll bar sides and rear 3. Ground clearance using L78-15 tires is 14.75 in. under the front torsion and 12 in. under the rear torsion (also 12 in. is the minimum ground clearance) 4. Ground clearance on my vehicle will be equal to or greater than nearly all trucks manufactured in the U.S.A. 5. Approach angle of 64 degrees 6. Chassis is designed to carry over 2000 pounds on the front axle and 2000 pounds plus on the rear axle

Projected production calls for less than 500 vehicles per year and our projected market area will be the U.S. Territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; the reason being that the vehicle fits perfectly the climate and geography and also after traveling to these areas we have found local governments with high under-employment and more than willing to help in setting up an vehicle manufacturing facility.

However in making this facility a reality we need and actively seek the help of NHTSA, its administrators, advisors, and counsel to render assistance and relevant decisions to SMALL businesses who do not have access to corporate lawyers, the lobby folly, or other channels that big business often uses to purge the SMALL manufacturer, and more often uses to gouge the consumer.

We will await your ruling and would appreciate your earliest concern on this matter.

Sincerely,

John F. Croonquist-President