ID: nht94-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 28, 1994

FROM: Paul N. Wagner, President, Bornemann Products, Inc.

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: F.M.V.S.S. #207 Seating Systems

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/23/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO PAUL N. WAGNER (A42; STD. 207); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8/26/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO GLENN L. DUNCAN

TEXT: Request for Comment From Chief Counsel:

Earlier this year, the Agency amended F.M.V.S.S. #208 for seat belt comfort and fit by requiring in the future that designated seating positions have either an adjustable "D" ring or seat belts integrated into the seat (integrated seats). This letter is directed to an issue concerning integrated seats. An integrated seat is defined for now as a seat or seat system that the seat belts are located on the seating structure, in an all-belts-to-seat application; the pelvic portion of the belt may be attache d to the seat bottom, seat slides, or seat riser, while the "D" ring and shoulder belt is actually attached to the back of the seat itself.

Our firm is a manufacturer of seating systems for light trucks manufactured in more than one stage, and is considering the manufacture of integrated seating systems.

The questions we pose, which may already be before the Agency, are ones that relate to testing requirements for integrated seating. Referring to F.M.V.S.S. #207, S4.2.1, which states:

"SEAT ADJUSTMENT. Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, the seat shall remain in its adjusted position during the application of each force specified in S4.2."

Subparagraph S4.2 refers to specific static requirements for seating systems. When a seat belt system, such as those on integrated seats, are attached to the seating system, then the static loads of F.M.V.S.S. #207, S4.2, and F.M.V.S.S. #210, S4.2, are p erformed simultaneously.

ID: nht94-4.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 29, 1994

FROM: Samson Helfgott -- Helfgott and Karas

TO: John Womak, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Our Ref. No.: 12.065

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/8/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO SAMSON HELFGOTT (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: I received your letter of July 20, 1994 for which I thank you (a copy of which is enclosed for your reference). At the time we had requested information with respect to the utilization of the red and amber lighting arrangement to be placed along the sid e of trucks and other vehicles. At the time, you indicated that we did not state the number and candela of the lamps and how they would be arranged along the side of the vehicle.

I now enclose an information sheet with respect to the lighting indicating what we have in mind for placement on the sides of the vehicle. The side front of the vehicle will have only yellow lights and the side rear only red. The red and yellow ligh ts will be placed in conjunction along the center of the side of the vehicle. The running lights are to be in keeping with NHTSA and/or EEC specifications.

As we previously explained, during normal vehicle operation the amber (yellow) side lamps of the system would be activated. When the brake pedal is applied, the amber (yellow) lights are extinguished and the required stop lamps and red side lamps of the system would be activated.

I would appreciate your comments whether you believe this system would be in violation of any of the Standards. I look forward to receiving your reply.

ENCLOSURE

TANKER TRAILER SIDE SAFETY SIGNALIGHT SYSTEM IN CONJUNCTION WITH NHTSA THREE LIGHT STANDARD 108 RS (RIGHT SIDE) MAJORITY OF IMPACTS LS (LEFT SIDE) BALANCE

Auxiliary Lighting System designed for sides of HAZMAT Tankers to comply or accomplish a no objections from NHTSA Standard 108

[TEXT OMITTED - SEE ORIGINAL SOURCE]

ID: nht94-4.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 29, 1994

FROM: Alberto Negro -- Chief Executive Officer, Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: 49 CFR Part 583 - Automobile Parts Content Labeling Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/14/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO ALBERTO NEGRO (PART 583; REDBOOK (2))

TEXT: I am writing to ask that you verify whether the 1000 unit threshold of 49 CFR 583.5(g) applies to the Alfa Romeo and Ferrari marques separately or collectively, as those marques are both owned by Fiat S.p.A. Fiat S.p.A. is the stockholder of Fiat Auto S. p.A., which produces Alfa Romeo cars, and of Ferrari S.p.A. which produces Ferrari cars.

I thank you for your consideration and I remain at your disposal for all additional information that you require.

ID: nht94-4.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard J Quigley

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/1/94: Fax from Richard Quigley to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your request for reconsideration of our July 15, 1994 interpretation letter on Standard No. 218, Motorcycle helmets. In that letter, we stated that a drawing you provided would not meet the requirement in S5.6.1(e) of the standard that m otorcycle helmets be labeled with the symbol DOT. You enclosed a new drawing and ask whether it meets S5.6.1(e). The answer is no.

The new version of the drawing consists of three figures that you believe constitute the symbol "DOT." Your new drawing continues to incorporate a corporate logo in lieu of the letter "O." As explained in our July 15, 1994 letter, because the symbol DOT constitutes the manufacturer's certification that the helmet conforms to Standard No. 218, there must be no ambiguity in the symbol. Using the corporate logo in lieu of the letter "O" introduces ambiguity as to whether the manufacturer has certified the helmet. Thus, the new version of the drawing you provided does not meet S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218.

I hope this answers your question.

ID: nht94-4.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 30, 1994

FROM: Arthur W. Perkins -- Perkins, Philips and Puckhaber

TO: John Womack -- Assistant Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Robert E. Dwyer, Administrator of the Estate of Sean P. Dwyer, Kelly Nedeau, Steven Nedeau and Diane E. Surran, Administratrix of the estate of Ronald G. Reed, Jr. v. Dobles Chevrolet, Inc., Van-Go, Inc., and Arthur "Lucky" Young, d/b/a Custom 's Unlimited

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Arthur W. Perkins (A43; Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 301; Part 567.7); Also attached to 7/12/91 letter from Paul Jackson Rice to Samuel Albury

TEXT: Dear Assistant Chief Womack:

This office has had numerous conversations with Attorneys Marvin Shaw and Mary Versaille of your office relative to the applicability of various federal regulations to a motor vehicle that was converted from its original intended purpose as a cargo va n to a passenger vehicle. My office represents the interests of two estates and two injured parties in a products liability and negligence action which has been brought against a retail automobile dealership and the customizing company.

During our conversations with Mr. Shaw and Ms. Versaille, they informed me that by directing a letter to you outlining certain issues, we could obtain an opinion letter relative to the application of various sections of the Federal Motor Vehicle safet y Standards Act.

I expect this case will go to trial sometime in late 1994 or early 1995, and I would appreciate receiving a response from you at your earliest convenience.

Factual Summary

Defendant Dobles Chevrolet, Inc. of Manchester, New Hampshire ordered a 1985 cargo Astro Van from General Motors. (See Exhibit 1A and 1B General Motors invoice to Dobles Chevrolet, Inc.) Dobles Chevrolet, Inc., after having the cargo van in its inven tory for approximately three months, permitted Arthur "Lucky" Young, d/b/a Custom's Unlimited, to take the van for the purpose of converting it from a cargo to a passenger van. (See Exhibit 2, Dobles Chevrolet Purchase Order (#43031) to Customs Unlimite d). Mr. Young was a jobber and had an arrangement with Defendant Van-Go of New England, Inc. of Saugus, Massachusetts to customize cargo vans to passenger vans for a fixed price. (See Exhibit 3, Customs Unlimited sales order of 7/25/85).

1. Van-Go Accessories performed the following modifications:

The two Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) front driver and front passenger seats were removed and were replaced with "after market" captains style seats which were attached to rotating pedestals that were mounted on the original seat floor studs m anufactured by General Motors.

2. The van was further modified as follows:

A. The exterior of the van was cut to install three windows two 26" x 18" and one 30" x 18".

B. The ceiling and interior walls were covered with fabric.

C. The corrugated metal floor was covered with plywood (held in place with sheet rock screws) over which there was an application of foam pad and carpeting.

D. Two "after market" bench seats, middle and rear, (which folded to a platform bedding) were installed by using four mounting clips per seat frame. The mounting clips were held in place by one non-graded bolt, which passed through the elongated slot in the clip, through the carpet, the pad, the wood floor and the corrugated floor of the van and was bolted underneath using a washer and nut. (See Exhibit 4A, B & C, photos of bench seats and clips.)

E. Type 2 seatbelts for each seating position, two in the middle and three in the back, were attached to the frames of these seats. (See Exhibit 5A & B, photos of bench seats with attached seatbelts.)

The van was returned to Arthur Young, d/b/a Custom's Unlimited, absent any certification or any disclosure indicating that any work had been performed by Van-Go. Arthur Young performed some exterior painting, striping, put on new wheels, and affixed a 1 1/2" x 6" placard advertising that his firm had worked on the vehicle. Mr. Young then delivered the van to Dobles Chevrolet who prominently placed it in the showroom area and offered it for sale as a new vehicle.

Mr. Paul Nadeau went to Dobles Chevrolet for the purpose of acquiring a family vehicle, and purchased the van on August 31, 1985 (see Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7.)

The placard affixed by Mr. Young was removed from the vehicle prior to Mr. Nadeau purchasing the vehicle.

The motor vehicle was being used by Paul Nadeau's son, Scott Nadeau, on September 20, 1987 when he was driving the vehicle together with four passengers, one of whom was buckled in the front passenger seat. The other three passengers, two in the midd le seat and one in the rear seat, were not wearing seatbelts. Scott Nadeau lost control of the vehicle at approximately 45 miles per hour, and the vehicle struck a tree in a rearward rotating fashion at approximately 28 miles per hour, whereupon the sea ts rotated from underneath the clip and came loose from the floor, allowing the two bench seats and their three occupants to load against the rear cargo doors. The front passenger was ejected rearward from underneath her belt, when her seat back collaps ed and was catapulted to the rear of the van. As the vehicle rotated from the point of impact with the tree, an accelerated force was exerted by the four bodies and the two bench seats on the rear door, and the welds holding the latching mechanism yield ed, allowing the four occupants to be ejected out the rear cargo doors.

Two of the passengers were killed and the other two sustained serious personal injuries. The back of the front passenger seat collapsed, in part because of the negligent manner in which the seat was affixed to the pedestal (only three nuts were insta lled although it was designed to be held by four), allowing the front passenger to slide under of the searbelt and be ejected out the rear door. The two occupants of the middle seats were ejected and killed, and the rear passenger, lying down on the ben ch seat, was ejected and sustained a head injury.

The Plaintiffs have brought an action against the dealer (Dobles), the converter (Van-Go), and the broker (Arthur Young, d/b/a Custom's Unlimited) in strict liability in tort because the seats and the seat anchoring mechanism were inherently dangerous .

The Plaintiffs claim 1) that the seats lacked sufficient strength, and 2) the anchoring system used for the seats in the vehicle did not comply with the minimum federal safety standards.

The Defendants are using the following as defenses:

1. The seats met Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 because they withstood the force of 20 g's times the weight of the seat. The seat weighed 50 pounds, therefore, if the seats and seat backs could withstand 1000 pounds of force, they com plied with the FMVSS. (The manufacturer tested the seats when they were attached to a metal surface with a clamp arrangement using two bolts and the seas withstood 20 times their weight. The manufacturer assumed that seatbelts would be attached to the floor and not to the frame of the seats. The seats were never tested as attached using a clamp with a single bolt to the plywood and carpeted surface of the customized van. Nor were the seats tested after the seatbelts were attached to them.

2. The components installed by Van-Go are "readily attachable" components and they are accordingly exempt by @ 567.7 from certifying the vehicle.

3. Since the Plaintiffs on the bench seats were not wearing seatbelts, the FMVSS relative to the strength of the frames of the seat, seat backs and anchoring system are not applicable, as they apply to forward forces only.

The Plaintiffs request your opinion on the following with respect to Defendant Van-Go Accessories of New England, Inc.:

1. Are the items installed by Van-Go on the cargo van (e.g. windows, sub-flooring, padding, carpeting, seats, changing the seating arrangements, and attaching the seatbelts to the frames of the bench seats not designed to accommodate seatbelts) class ified as "readily attachable" and therefore exempt under @ 567.7?

2. If the items installed on the cargo van by Van-Go are not classified as "readily attachable", is Van-Go required under @ 567.7 to certify that they altered the vehicle? If so, what is the procedure for such certification?

3. Is it required that the vehicle as altered, including the seats and seat anchoring systems, be subjected to and be able to withstand the forces which would be applied to them under the fuel integrity test as set forth in Regulation 308?

4. Pursuant to the seat anchoring system requirements as set forth in Section 210, although they are applied in a forward direction, is it a reasonable assumption that the seat anchoring system should likewise resist the same forces in a rearward dir ection?

5. Do the requirements of Regulation 308 mean that the seats and seat backs must be able to withstand the forces which would be applied to them under fuel integrity testing in Regulation 308?

The Plaintiffs request your opinion on the following with respect to Defendant Arthur "Lucky" Young, d/b/a Custom's Unlimited:

1. Are the items installed on the cargo van (e.g. exterior painting, striping and new wheels) by Arthur Young classified as "readily attachable" and therefore exempt under @ 567.7?

2. If the items installed on the cargo van by Arthur Young are not classified as "readily attachable", is Arthur Young required under@ 567.7 to certify that he altered the vehicle?

3. If the van has been altered by Van-Go, is Arthur Young as the broker between Dobles and Van-Go required to certify the van prior to returning it to Dobles?

The Plaintiffs request your opinion on the following with respect to Defendant Dobles Chevrolet:

1. Is Dobles Chevrolet, as a dealer and first time seller of new motor vehicles, required to make certain that before it sells a new motor vehicle which has been altered, that the vehicle complies with the FMVSS as of the date of the alteration?

2. Who is ultimately responsible for making certain that a new vehicle, once certified by the manufacturer (General Motors) but subsequently altered, meets the FMVSS requirements prior to sale - the converter or the seller of the new vehicle?

If you need any additional information please contact us and we will be pleased to immediately answer your requests. If the questions we have posed are too burdensome and you would like us to narrow our focus, please let us know right away and we wou ld be happy to modify our questions posed. It is my understanding that your department can normally respond to inquiries such as this within a sixty day time period. If that is not possible would you please contact us and let us know the expected date of your reply.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht94-4.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 01, 1994 EST

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: March, Gary D. -- Director, Illinois Dept. of Transportation, Division of Traffic Safety

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 2/14/94 Letter From Gary D. March To John Womack (Occ 9667)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the compliance date for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages of a recent final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufa ctured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with "the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two date s." (49 CFR Part @ 568.6). The choice of a date is the manufacturers.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 1, 1994 EST

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Littler, C. N. -- Motor Coach Industries, Administrator Regulatory Affairs, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 1/6/94 Letter From C. N. Littler To Mary Versailles

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning whether a New York State law addressing the in-use stopping ability of privately owned motor coaches is preempted by Federal law. I apologize for the delay in our response. The New York law states that a vehicle must be capable of stopping "at a rate of deceleration equivalent to a stop within 22.2 feet from a speed of 20 miles per hour." You believe that @103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") preempts the New York law, sinc e the state law is not identical to Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Please note that the Safety Act has been codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. and that the citation for 103(d) is now 49 U.S.C. @ 30103.

As explained below, Standard No. 121 currently does not have stopping distance requirements in effect; therefore, the New York law is not currently preempted by a Federal safety standard. Nevertheless, the agency has issued a proposal to reinstate stopp ing distance requirements in Standard No. 121. (58 FR 11003, February 23, 1993). If the agency issues a final rule to reinstate stopping distances, then any more stringent requirements in the New York law (addressing the same aspects of performance as Standard No. 121) would be preempted.

Title 49 U.S.C. @ 30103 states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipm ent any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

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. If you wish to contact someone in the Federal Highway Administratio n's Office of Chief Counsel concerning the motor carrier standards, please call Charles Medalen at (202) 366-1354.

ID: nht94-4.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 4, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ashpy Lowrimore -- Senior Vice President, Southern National Bank, Florence, SC

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/11/94 letter from Ashpy Lowrimore to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC 10267)

TEXT: This responds to your August 11, 1994 letter regarding our requirements for school vehicles. You explain that your church owns a "commercial bus" and a 15-passenger van and would like to use these vehicles to transport children attending a kindergarten and after school care program that the church operates. You ask to be advised of any requirements applicable to those two vehicles, and have three questions, which I will answer below.

I would like to begin with background information about our requirements. Our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that affect school vehicles. The first of these, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVS S's) issued under 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Our agency was directed by Congress in 1974 to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The standards we issued apply to all new vehicles designed to carry 11 or more persons and sold for pupil transportation purposes. Under our requirements, such a vehicle is a "school bus," and any person selling such a vehicle must ens ure that the new vehicle is certified as meeting the FMVSS's for school buses.

The second set of regulations issued by this agency was promulgated under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. These "regulations" are actually recommendations from NHTSA to the States for use in developing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Progr am Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), applies to school vehicles, and contains recommendations for the design, identification and operation of school vehicles. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of Guideline N o. 17 as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. With that background in mind, I turn now to your specific questions:

1. Can we transport children who are related with our various schools by utilizing the van?

ANSWER: The answer depends on State law, because the States regulate the use of motor vehicles, not NHTSA. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Any person selling a new bus or a new 15-passenger van to your church for purposes that include transporting kindergarten students to and from school or related events must sell buses that meet our FMVSS's for school buses, or face substantial civil fines and injunctive sanctions. NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate vehicle user s, and thus does not mandate what vehicle can be used to transport school children. Thus, our regulations impose no requirement on schools that require them to transport students in complying school buses.

While NHTSA does not require the use of any particular type of vehicle to transport students, we believe that school buses are the safest motor vehicle transportation currently available. We have included in Guideline No. 17 a recommendation that States require any bus (or van carrying 11 or more persons) used to carry school children to comply with all FMVSS's applicable to school buses at the time of their manufacture (see, recommendation number IV.B.1.h). However, since Guideline No. 17 will affect your church's school vehicles only if South Carolina has adopted it, you should check to see what State requirements are set for the operation of the school vehicles in question.

Mr. Perry Brown, Deputy Director of South Carolina's Office of a Highway Safety Programs, would be able to provide information about your State's requirements. He can be contacted at the following address:

Mr. Perry Brown

Edgar A. Brown State Office Building

1205 Pendleton St., Rm. 453

Columbia, SC 29201

2. Are there restrictions associated with the use of the bus in the transportation of children, young adults or senior adults?

As explained above, NHTSA has no restriction on the use of motor vehicles. Restrictions on the use of a vehicle are matters of State law. Among other things, the State could require a special driver's license for persons operating buses as you described . A South Carolina official would be able to provide the information you need.

3. If there are special restrictions, can you elaborate on the type of equipment that we must obtain in order to meet any regulations or requirements that are in place?

ANSWER: Again, NHTSA has no restrictions on the use of the vehicles by the church. Further, NHTSA does not require schools operating their vehicles to ensure that the vehicles are specially identified or equipped as school vehicles. However, Guideline No. 17 contains recommendations for identifying school buses and equipping them with safety equipment, including school bus lamps and mirrors and emergency equipment. South Carolina may have adopted some of these recommendations in its highway safety pr ogram for school vehicles.

In summary, NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate the use of school vehicles owned and operated by your church. You should check with South Carolina officials to find out which, if any, State requirements apply to your church's activities.

We hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 4, 1994

FROM: Brigitte Neifer -- Safety Standards/Certifications, Sekurit Saint-Gobain Deutschland

TO: Dan Colhen -- Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: 1) Docket 89-15; 2) AAMVA activities

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/17/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO BRIGITTE NEIFER (A43; STD. 205)

TEXT: 1) [Illegible Words] Please inform me if NHTSA is planning further activity on this docket. I have not heard of further activities - published in the FR - since July 1992.

2) AAMVA: I have been informed that AAMVA have given up involvement in the Safety Equipment Compliance Program, which has obviously lost importance, due to the increasing preemption of state regulations by the federal government. I therefore intend to limit our a ctivities to having our products tested by ANSI standard in independent laboratories such as ETL in Cortland or other European labs. I understand that the 5-year rhythm of renewal was an AAMVA procedure and not an official requirement. Am I right?

I nevertheless intend to have our products regularly tested by independent laboratories and think DOT inspectors in USA will accept (cars equipped with) our glazings when accompanied only with a test report. Is this correct?

I would appreciate any comment, information, advice and warning of NHTSA concerning my evaluation of the situation. I know rather little about US legal requirements of showing compliance of production with ANSI Z26.1 apart from test reports.

ID: nht94-4.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 4, 1994

FROM: Larry W. Overbay -- Director, Automotive and Support Equipment Directorate, U.S. Dept. of The Army

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/17/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO LARRY W. OVERBAY (A43; STD. 121)

TEXT: We are requesting a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) written response to several questions we have concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121 and NHSTA Test Procedure TP 121-02. These questions were discuss ed in a telephone conversation between Mr. Dwayne Perrin, NHSTA, and Mr. Richard Kimball, this office, on September 19, 1994.

U.S. Army Combat Systems Test Activity (CSTA) is a test agency for the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM). One of the missions of CSTA is to test developmental tactical vehicles. Recently we were requested by U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Com mand (TACOM) to test for a vehicle manufacturer's compliance to FMVSS No. 121.

The vehicle under test is one variant of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV). The vehicle is a three axle truck with a five ton payload capacity and a GVW of 32,000 lbs. According to our test results, the vehicle fails to conform to the re quired emergency, stopping distances. Our test procedures for assessing the performance of the emergency stopping distances involved disconnecting the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. A pneumatic system schematic is provided as an enclosure. This essentially eliminated rear braking during all stops. The vehicle then became totally reliant on the front brakes for stopping.

Preliminary results were reported to TACOM who queried the manufacturer about their nonconformance. The response from the manufacturer stated that the test was invalid since the testing had not been conducted in accordance with the NHTSA Test Procedu re TP 121-02, which recommends rapid bleeding of the vehicle's air reservoirs. TACOM requested CSTA to solicit a NHTSA position on the issue.

We therefore request your position on the following:

a. Is the NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02 the governing document for single point failure testing or does FMVSS No. 121 take precedence?

b. What is the intended purpose of the NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02?

C. Does NHTSA consider the removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifolded line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve a valid test of the emergency system requirements under the provisions in FMVSS No . 121.

Due to test schedule constraints, a response within 60 days is requested. We look forward to your reply. The points of contact for our organization are Mr. Richard B. Kimball or Roger C. Link, (410) 278-5152 and (410) 278-4857, respectively.