ID: 18163.ztv

Mr. Robert B. Seeber
Vice-President/General Manager
Monarch Specialized Motor Coach Corporation
1510 Progress Drive
Albion, IN 46701

Dear Mr. Seeber:

We are responding to your letter of June 12, 1998, in which you "request that Monarch Specialized Motor Coach Corporation . . . be exempted from the regulation allowing the Chevrolet P12 chassis to be utilized only for motor homes." You would like to introduce a line of vehicles in the near future that has been designed as trolleys.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, requires vehicles equipped with hydraulic brake systems and with a GVWR above 19,500 lbs., except motor homes, to be equipped on and after March 1, 1999, with a four-sensor antilock brake system (ABS). Vehicles with a GVWR between 10,000 lbs. and 19,500 lbs may continue to be equipped with a three-sensor ABS system with a single wheel speed sensor in the driveline to monitor wheel lockup at the drive axle. The three-sensor ABS system is also permissible until March 1, 2001, on motor homes with a GVWR of 22,500 lbs. or less. The Chevrolet chassis is rated with a GVWR of 22,500 lbs. Because your vehicle is not a "motor home" as defined by Standard No. 105, the delayed effective date does not apply to your trolley and you will be required to conform it to the four-sensor ABS requirement.

We regard your vehicles as being manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568), with General Motors (GM) (the manufacturer of the chassis) as the "initial stage manufacturer" and Monarch as the "final stage manufacturer." We assume that GM equips the chassis with the braking system. Your letter implies that GM may intend the P12 chassis primarily, if not exclusively, for use with motor homes and will supply it with a three-sensor ABS until March 1, 2001. You have also told us that Chevrolet personnel have indicated that GM may not provide a chassis in a configuration that can be used by non-motor home manufacturers (four-sensor ABS) until 2000 or possibly 2001.

If GM does not intend to furnish the P12 chassis with four-sensor ABS, you will continue to be able to manufacture trolleys from these incomplete GM vehicles after March 1, 1999, so long as GM certified the incomplete vehicle as manufactured before that date (as the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle, GM is required to furnish a document to Monarch stating, among other things, the month and year during which GM performed its last manufacturing operations on the incomplete vehicle (Sec. 568.4(a)(2)).

This means that your vehicles need not incorporate a four-sensor ABS in their braking system until GM furnishes your company with a chassis manufactured in March 1999. If GM does not intend to manufacture the P12 chassis with four-sensor ABS before March 1,2001, and Monarch still intends to use it, Monarch may apply for a temporary exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with Standard No. 105. I enclose a copy of the appropriate regulation (Part 555) for your information.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-355-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:105
d.8/3/98

ID: 18164.ztv

Mr. Ian Goldstein
Safe Passage Technologies
85 Marcus Boulevard
Hauppauge, NY 11788

Dear Mr. Goldstein:

This is in reply to your letter of June 4, 1998, with respect to whether new lighting technologies that you describe are allowed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. You have asked us to advise you "as to the best approach to gaining the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's full acceptance and support."

You should understand that our agency does not "accept" or "support" a particular product. We do advise correspondents, as in this instance, as to whether a specific invention or device may or may not be permissible under the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The first of the technologies that you mention is "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs). This technology would modulate the intensity of DRLs according to ambient light conditions. On the basis of the limited information you have provided, we see no impediment under Standard No. 108 to the incorporation of this feature into DRL systems that comply with S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108. A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs. The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified .

We note your statement that "The State of California has independently determined to mandate DRL effective January 1, 1998." We do not know the basis for this remark. Unless and until DRLs are mandated by Standard No. 108, a state cannot require that new vehicles be equipped with them. A state can require that a driver operate a vehicle's existing headlamps on the lower beam during daylight hours to serve as a DRL, but we have not heard that California has enacted such a requirement.

The second technology would address lamp failure detection and correction. This technology would indicate to or warn the driver that a lamp had failed, "and temporarily use an alternative lamp, possibly at an alternate brightness," to substitute for the failed one. Under Standard No. 108, only the failure of the turn signal lamps is required to be communicated to the driver. We are aware that, through fiber optics, some manufacturers provide a warning when other lamps fail. We see nothing in Standard No. 108 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would preclude a vehicle manufacturer from offering such a detection system.

The question of substitution for failed lamps is not so easily answered. We have recently advised Ford Motor Company that automatic activation of a lower beam filament in a two-headlamp system when the upper beam filament fails is not prohibited by S5.5.9 which states that only the upper beam light sources shall be activated when the headlamp switch is in the upper beam position. In our view, this requirement of Standard No. 108 does not apply in a failure condition, and the substitution of an alternate light source is permissible. The reverse situation is not quite the same. Because headlamps are primarily operated on the lower beam, activation of an upper beam light source when a lower beam source fails raises considerations of glare. As you note, the upper beam in this instance ideally should be activated at a markedly reduced intensity such that it does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting devices (S5.1.3), or, more specifically, that, as a lower beam substitute. it does not compromise turn signal visibility.

You also present the case in which the hazard warning lamps could be activated in the event of total failure of a light source and its alternative. There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that would preclude wiring the hazard warning lamps to flash in the event of such a failure. We note that vehicle operators can manually activate the hazard warning system in such an emergency.

The third technology is called a "severe braking alert." This technology would flash the stop lamps to indicate rapid deceleration. Standard No. 108 does not allow this system because stop lamps are required to be wired to be steady burning (S5.5.10(d)). The agency has established a docket to receive comments from the public on Advance Brake Warning Systems (Docket No. 96-41) such as your "severe braking alert.". I enclose a copy of two notices, published in December 1996 and October 1997, that discuss the subject in detail.

If you have questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.7/21/98

ID: 18165.135

Mr. Peter Böhm
Manager Regulations
ITT Automotive Europe GmbH
Postfach 90 01 20
60441 Frankfurt am Main
Hausadresse: Guerickstraße 7
60488 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Dear Mr. Böhm:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this office in which you asked whether parking brake systems your company is developing comply with the requirements of paragraph S5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 135, Light vehicle brake systems.

You stated that ITT is developing parking brake systems that are activated electrically. One version consists of an electrically-activated disc brake. You stated that when the vehicle is locked in a parking position by a friction-type brake, an interlock device is actuated to lock the wheels or the gearbox. Then, when the interlock has reached its locking position, the friction brake is released. You stated, therefore, that the parking brake is of a friction type and the vehicle is held with solely mechanical means. You also stated that it is the interlock device and not the friction brake that holds the vehicle stationary. You further stated that unlike ECE R-13 and 72/320 EEC, Standard No. 135 has only static requirements for the parking brake. You commented, however, that the requirement to use a friction brake as a parking brake might be something like a dynamic requirement because it makes activation of the parking brake possible while the vehicle is still moving. Also, you stated that if this was the intention to require a friction brake for the parking brake, the interlock device should be allowed to hold the vehicle stationary provided that dynamic application is ensured by other means. You then asked whether such a system meets the requirements of S5.2, Standard No. 135. The answer is no.

As you probably know, Standard No. 135 is a new standard. Compliance will become mandatory for passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 2000, and for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less manufactured on and after September 1, 2002. Until those dates, vehicle manufacturers have the option of complying either with Standard No. 135 or Standard No. 105, Hydraulic brake systems.

Paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 135 was patterned after paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 105 and provides that "Each vehicle shall be equipped with a parking brake system of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain engagement." The term "parking brake" is defined in 49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.3 as "a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle." Thus, with respect to paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 135, the parking brake must prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle by means of friction. Your design, however, would prevent movement of a stationary vehicle by means of the interlock device rather than by friction. I also note that, under S5.2, the parking brake system must have a "solely mechanical means to retain engagement," meaning that although the parking brake may be applied and released by non-mechanical means, it must be held by solely mechanical means. It cannot be held by non-mechanical means such as fluid, air, or electricity.

With respect to your comment that the requirement for a friction brake resembles a dynamic requirement because it makes activation possible while the vehicle is still moving, NHTSA has addressed that issue. In our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of May 10, 1985 (50 Federal Register (FR) 19744), and again in our Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of January 14, 1987 (52 FR 1474), the agency proposed a dynamic test intended to ensure that a driver could use the parking brake to stop a moving vehicle in emergency situations. Several commenters opposed that proposal, arguing that the purpose of parking brakes is to statically hold a vehicle in place, not to decelerate a moving vehicle. They stated that it could be dangerous for drivers to apply parking brakes in dynamic situations because of the difficulty of modulating the application force, which could lead to uncontrollable rear wheel lockup and loss of vehicle control. NHTSA was persuaded by those comments and in the final rule of February 2, 1995 (60 FR 6411), withdrew the proposal to require a parking brake dynamic test.

You stated that your system uses a friction-type brake until the interlock device has reached its locking position, after which the friction brake is released. Whether or not the interlock device is a mechanical means, Standard No. 135 requires the parking brake to be of a friction type. Therefore, if the interlock device disengages the friction brake, the system does not comply with Standard No. 135.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:105#135
d.12/22/98

ID: 18167.ztv

Mr. Mitch L. Williams
President & CEO
Hella, Inc.
P.O. Box 2665
Peachtree City, GA 30269

Dear Mr. Williams:

I am replying to your letter of June 9, 1998, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You write about Hella's new green rear lamp assemblies that do not conform to SAE standards. These lamps are "available in several colors," and "illuminate in the normal stop, tail, and turn signal lamp colors." You would like to sell the product for "show cars" and label the lamp "For Off-road use only. Not for use on public highways. This product does not conform to any U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard." You believe that this situation is legal "assuming that no car dealer, vehicle manufacturer or repair shop installs these lamps."

You also write that "this is a standard Hella accessory product in other parts of the world" and that they meet Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) requirements. You have furnished Mr. Van Iderstine with a unit intended for installation on a Volkswagen Golf passenger car. This is a sufficient basis for us to conclude that the rear lamp assemblies that meet ECE passenger car requirements are intended as replacement equipment for original equipment rear lamp assemblies, and are "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of regulation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Under the laws that we administer, it is illegal to import into the United States motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We note that a statement indicating that the lamps "are not for use on public highways" is not sufficient to exclude them from the standard's applicability if they are, in fact, capable of being used as replacement lamps. The two primary exceptions provided by statute are if the equipment is intended solely for export and so labeled (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(3)) or if the equipment requires further manufacturing (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(8)). Neither of these exceptions apply here. This means that Hella may not import or sell this item of motor vehicle equipment in the United States in the replacement market until such time as Hella certifies compliance of the lamp assembly's functions with all relevant requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 . A civil penalty of up to $1,100 per violation may be imposed for violation of these requirements, up to a total of $880,000 for any related series of violations.

Under the third exception, noncomplying motor vehicle equipment may be temporarily imported for purposes of research, investigation, demonstrations, training, or competitive racing event. (49 U.S.C. 30114). This has been implemented by 49 CFR 591.6(j). Congress recently amended Sec. 30114 to allow importation of nonconforming vehicles and equipment for show and display as well. We are in the process of amending Sec. 591(6)(j) to reflect the amendment.

Under the amendment, Hella, with NHTSA' permission ( Sec. 591.6(j)(2)) might be permitted to import some vehicles with green taillamps for show or display, even though sale of the vehicle or the lamps is not permitted. We would be disinclined to permit importation of the lamps alone since they are shown or displayed to best advantage only when they are installed on motor vehicles.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/17/98
ref:591

ID: 18170.wkm

Mr. M. Kikkawa
Mazda North American Operations (ESE)
1203 Woodridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kikkawa:

This responds to Mazda's letter asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, as it applies to sliding side doors. You ask what loads would be applied to such a door, and where on the door the loads would be applied.

Paragraph S4.3 of the standard provides: "The track and slide combination or other supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total transverse load of 17,800 Newtons (4,000 pounds) is applied, with the door in the closed position."

The doors are tested to that requirement in accordance with S5.3, which specifies that: "Compliance with S4.3 shall be demonstrated by applying an outward transverse load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) to the load-bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (17,800 Newtons (4,000 pounds) total). . . ."

You suggest that test loads should be applied at three positions on the door. Your letter enclosed drawings, Figures 1 and 2, depicting a sliding door on a van-like vehicle. Marked on figure 1 are: (a) the location on the door where the roller in the upper front edge of the door is located; (b) the location where the roller in the lower front edge of the door is located; and (c) the location of the center roller and door lock in the rear center edge of the door. You suggest on figure 2 that a test load of 1,000 pounds (lb.) should be applied at both the (a) and (b) locations and a load of 2,000 lb. applied at the (c) location.

The requirement in S4.3 applies to "the track and slide combination or other supporting means for each sliding door." Applying this to figure 1, we agree with you that S4.3 provides that the track and slide combination at locations (a) and (b) and the supporting means for the door at location (c) are required to withstand the 4,000 lb. applied load.

With regard how the load is applied to these positions, S5.3 requires that a load of 2,000 pound lb. be applied "to the load-bearing members at the opposite edges of the door." Locations (a) and (b) are at the opposite edge of the door from (c). NHTSA would test your door by applying a 2,000 lb. load to the front edge of the door at locations (a) and (b), and a 2,000 lb. load to the rear edge of the door at location (c). Instead of applying a 1,000 lb. load at (a) and (b) as you suggest, we would attach a bar between (a) and (b) and would apply the 2,000 lb. load to the center of the bar so as to ensure that the loads at attachment points (a) and (b) are nominally equal.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:#206
d.9/21/98

ID: 18185a

Mark A. M. Ezra, CEng, MIMechE.
Senne, Kelsey & Associates, Inc.
1154 North Warson Road
St. Louis, MO 63132

Dear Mr. Ezra:

This responds to your request for information regarding installation of a hand operated accelerator control system for mobility impaired persons. I apologize for the delay in responding. You wish to know whether a vehicle that has such a system would meet Federal requirements. Our answer is that it appears our requirements would not be met.

Background: Description of Control System

Your letter explains that you are investigating crashes involving two vehicles modified for quadriplegic drivers. Both crashes involved a system called the Electronic Gas and Brake (EGB) Control, manufactured by EMC, Incorporated. The system for each of the two vehicles was apparently placed on the vehicles by a party other than the original vehicle manufacturer.

Your review determined that both crashes involved failures of the electronic throttle system, resulting from the throttle staying in the open position despite reported efforts by the vehicle operators and their able bodied passengers to return the controls to a position which should have brought the engine to idle and applied the brakes.

Your letter describes the EGB Control system as consisting of a dual battery power supply feeding a control box on which is mounted a single plane joy stick. Movement of the joy stick forwards or rearwards causes a servomotor to rotate to a position proportional to the joystick displacement and open the engine's throttle. You describe the system as follows:

The servomotor is positioned near the vehicle's normal brake pedal and accelerator pedal. It has a drum on the output shaft which has a lever attached to it. When the servomotor turns in the desired direction to cause acceleration of the vehicle, a cable connected to the servomotor drum and the vehicle's accelerator pedal is wound onto the servomotor's drum. This action pulls the accelerator pedal of the vehicle down thus accelerating the vehicle. When the vehicle is to be slowed, the servomotor drives in the opposite direction unwinding the cable from the drum. Attached to the servo drum is an arm. After the drum passes the position corresponding to idle for the accelerator, the arm attached to the servo drum bears on the vehicle's brake pedal arm. As the joy stick is moved rearwards of the neutral position (optionally forward depending on selected settings), this lever pushes proportionally more and more on the brake pedal and so applies the brakes of the vehicle harder and harder. The braking is proportional to the joy stick displacement from its neutral position.

You further write that in the crashes under investigation, you believe that either the electrical power cable to the controller or the electrical servomotor cable from the controller to the servomotor became partially or completely detached. According to your letter, when the power cable becomes disconnected the servomotor will remain in the position it was in last when electrical disconnection took place. If this occurs while the vehicle is being accelerated, the vehicle will continue to accelerate indefinitely and in an uncontrolled manner. If this disconnection occurs while in cruise, then the vehicle can not be slowed since the motor cannot be returned to idle nor the brakes applied.

NHTSA obtained a copy of the EGB-IIF "Installation Guide," issued by EMC, Inc. Page three of the guide describes an EGB-IIF cable called the J1 that is the power connection. The guide describes this cable as "the only cable that will interface the vehicle system directly." Apparently this means that there is only one EGB cable that connects to the source of power on the modified motor vehicle.

Discussion

With this background information, I will address your question, which asks whether a throttle system operating as you describe complies with Standard No. 124.

NHTSA cannot make a determination in an interpretation letter whether a particular vehicle complies with a standard. Matters of compliance with our safety standards can only be determined in the context of an enforcement proceeding. However, we will make general observations about Standard No. 124's requirements, as they would apply to a vehicle with a throttle system such as the one you describe.

Standard No. 124 establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control, or in the event of a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system.⁽¹⁾ The purpose of the standard is to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from engine overspeed caused by malfunctions in the accelerator control system. The standard requires each new vehicle to meet the requirements specified in S5 of the standard.

S5.1 states:

There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. In the event of failure of one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the throttle shall return to the idle position within the time limits specified by S5.3, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force.

Paragraph S5.2 of the standard states:

The throttle shall return to the idle position from any accelerator position or any speed of which the engine is capable whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point. The return to idle shall occur within the time limit specified by S5.3, measured either from the time of severance or disconnection or from the first removal of the opposing actuating force by the driver.

The term "driver-operated accelerator control system" is defined in S4 of the standard as "all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force." The EGB control is included within this definition of an accelerator control system. The terms "throttle" and "idle position" are also defined in the standard. We assume that your use of those terms in your letter is consistent with these definitions.

It is unclear from your letter whether the EGB system was installed before or after the first sale of the vehicle to the consumer. A person installing the system on a new, completed, motor vehicle would be considered an "alterer" under 49 CFR Part 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles. Part 567.7 provides that an alterer must place an alterer's label on the vehicle, stating that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration.

It does not appear that a new vehicle, altered by installation of the EGB system, will meet the requirements of Standard No. 124. The installation guide describes the J1 Power cable as "the only cable that will interface the vehicle system directly." It is unclear whether the EGB system meets S5.1, which requires two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position and a return to idle in the event of failure of one source of energy. It also appears that if the cable connector is disconnected at the J1 connector of the controller, the throttle will not return to idle as required by S5.2 of the standard.

After the sale of the vehicle to the first purchaser, a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair business modifying the vehicle must not "knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." (See 49 USC 30122, Making safety devices and elements inoperative.) A "motor vehicle repair business" is defined as a "person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment" (49 USC 30122(a)). A person in any of the above-mentioned categories who makes inoperative the vehicle's compliance with S5.1 or S5.2, or any other applicable standard, is subject to civil penalties for violating 30122.

On September 28, 1998 (63 FR 51547), NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to exempt some modifications for handicapped persons from the "make inoperative" prohibition. This proposal would generally permit some modifications that have an unavoidable adverse effect on safety equipment or features installed pursuant to certain safety standards. In the proposal, NHTSA tentatively concluded that an exemption would not be made for making inoperative safety features installed pursuant to Standard No. 124, because the agency tentatively believes that compliance with the standard can be maintained without adversely affecting the ability of handicapped persons to operate a vehicle. The agency is reviewing the public comments in response to the notice. We will place of a copy of your letter in the public file for the proposal (docket number NHTSA-98-4332), along with a copy of this response.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:124
d.3/26/99

1. Standard No. 124 applies to new, completed motor vehicles, and not to aftermarket components of accelerator control systems. We have not issued a Federal safety standard that directly applies to hand controls. However, hand controls are items of "motor vehicle equipment." Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the safety-related defect and remedying the defect free of charge. (This "recall" responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the equipment is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

ID: 18202.ztv

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman
House of Representatives
377 Route 59
Monsey, NY 10952-3498

Dear Mr. Gilman:

This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1997, to the Department of Transportation on behalf of your constituent, Michael Sarafan of Spring Valley. Mr. Sarafan is president of Sarafan Truck & Equipment, Inc. Mr. Sarafan seeks to import two military trucks from Canada which were manufactured in the United States. You have asked us for a report. We are pleased to do so.

As a general rule, motor vehicles must comply, and be certified as complying, with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported into the United States. At the time of their manufacture, motor vehicles produced under contracts with and sold to the Armed Forces of the United States are exempt from compliance with these standards. This exemption has been effective from the issuance of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and was based upon a comment by the Department of Defense that, under some situations, compliance with a safety standard might prevent a military vehicle from full accomplishment of its mission. When a military truck is sold outside the United States to a civilian for civilian uses, it loses its status as a military vehicle. If the vehicle is then presented for importation into the United States, it will not be readmitted unless it has been brought into compliance with the standards that would have applied to it at the time of its manufacture had it not been a military vehicle. That is the reason that the U.S. Customs Service will not admit the two trucks that concern Mr. Sarafan.

Mr. Sarafan comments that this is a common form of business for him and that he has "returned many other U.S. made trucks to the U.S. from Canada previously." At the time that Mr. Sarafan wrote you on September 18, Mr. Vinson of this office was on leave and thus could not take his call, but he did talk with Mr. Sarafan on September 22 and understood that Mr. Sarafan was referring to military trucks (civilian U.S.-made trucks can be expected to bear a certification of compliance and can be reimported without problems). As Mr. Vinson explained to Mr. Sarafan, there has been no change in the law, and our interpretation is one of long-standing. It is possible that this interpretation was not previously understood, or applied, at the port of entry where he has been importing vehicles from Canada.

In order to import these trucks, Mr. Sarafan must follow Federal importation procedures. This requires him to contract with a "registered importer" who will undertake to obtain a decision from the agency that the trucks are capable of being converted to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If they are found capable of being so modified, the registered importer will bring the trucks into compliance with the standards. Mr. Sarafan has previously spoken with Mr. Van Orden of this agency, and he should contact him for further information.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.10/20/97

ID: 18237.ztv

Mr. Guy Wilkins, P.E.
Owner
Wilkins Golf Specialties
1719 Binford Street
Ogden, UT 84401

Dear Mr. Wilkins:

Thank you for your letter of June 17, 1998, and accompanying video, telling us of your product, a hitch that allows passenger cars or pickup trucks to haul golf cars on the public roads.

As you note, your hitch affords an alternative to either driving a golf car on the public roads or hauling it on a trailer. The proposed regulation to which you refer was made final on June 17, and is called Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500 Low-Speed Vehicles. Standard No. 500 applies to vehicles with a maximum speed of more than 20 miles per hour and not more than 25 miles per hour.

The final rule preserves the right of the individual states to regulate the use of golf cars on their public streets. It would appear that your hitch affords a viable alternative to trailering a golf car in those states that do not permit golf cars on the public roads, even for the limited purpose of going to and from the golf course, and to those owners who may not want to drive on the public roads even if they are permitted to do so.

We consider your hitch to be motor vehicle equipment under the laws that we administer. This means that if either you or we determine that a safety related defect exists in your hitch, you must notify and remedy according to statutory requirements. I enclose some information on our laws and programs that apply to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment.

We are returning your video, and appreciate your writing us.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:500
d.7/24/98

ID: 18260b.drn

Mr. Bob Douglas
Director of Product Integrity
AmTran Corporation
P. O. Box 6000
Conway, AR 72033

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your new school bus emergency exit door locking system (the "VANDAL-LOCK") meets S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 217, "Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release," without the addition of a key device. I regret the delay in this response. As explained below, the answer is yes.

Your letter describes the VANDAL-LOCK as a locking system that consists of a "dead bolt, cover and ludwig snap bolted to the body, and a guide mounted to the door." The cover contains a switch that is activated if the dead bolt is moved to the locked position. Activation of the switch prevents the operation of the engine starting system. If the engine is not already operating, it cannot be started as long as the dead bolt is applied to the exit. If the engine is operating and the dead bolt is closed, a warning buzzer will sound at the driver's compartment. The ludwig snap is a device used to keep a bolt in place so that an open bolt does not inadvertently close and a closed bolt does not inadvertently open.

You state that some States want VANDAL-LOCK to be modified by replacing the ludwig snap with a key device, which would allow the driver to have control of the dead bolt's position, since the key would be the only means of operating the dead bolt. You believe that the VANDAL-LOCK system without the key device meets S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 217 and wish NHTSA to confirm your position.

S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 217 states:

The engine starting system of a bus shall not operate if any emergency exit is locked from either inside or outside the bus. For purposes of this requirement, "locked" means that the release mechanism cannot be activated and the exit opened by a person at the exit without a special device such as such as a key or special information such as a combination.

This section requires an engine interlock that prevents the engine from being started if any emergency exit is locked from inside or outside the bus. Your VANDAL-LOCK would prevent the starting of a vehicle as long as the door is in the locked position (i.e., the engine cannot be started as long as the dead bolt is applied to the exit). A school bus with such a system would meet S5.2.3.3 (assuming, of course, that the interlock system performs as required on the vehicle). That section does not require a specific means of unlocking a door, e.g., by means of a key.

As to whether Standard No. 217 prohibits a key-operated device, the answer is no. We have addressed "vandal locks" in previous interpretation letters. Our position has been that nothing in Standard No. 217 prohibits the installation of locking doors as long as the vehicle cannot be started with the emergency door in the locked position. I have enclosed copies of our December 17, 1982 letter to Mr. M.B. Mathieson and our November 27, 1990 letter to Mr. Cal Karl on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek or Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:217#VSA
d.3/30/99

ID: 18264-r.wkm

Mr. Mike Keenan
Van Raden Industries, Inc.
Post Office Box 6346
Portland, OR 97228

Dear Mr. Keenan:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether directly controlling different axles with an antilock braking system (ABS) on a 3-axle stinger-steered log trailer that your company manufactures would be permitted under the trailer ABS requirements. It is our opinion that your trailer is a pole trailer which is excluded from the ABS requirements.

You stated that your 3-axle log trailer consists of a collapsible drawbar, a tandem axle pony, ball-bearing turntable, log bunk, mainframe gooseneck, and last axle. You attached a drawing of the trailer which shows that the mainframe gooseneck on which is mounted the last axle is permanently attached to the trailer by the turntable. The first 2 of the 3 axles concerned, designated in your drawing as axles 5 and 6, are attached to the trailer while the last axle, designated in your drawing as axle 7, is permanently connected to axles 5 and 6 by means of the turntable. You presented a scenario in which axle 6 is directly controlled by ABS while axles 5 and 7 are indirectly controlled by ABS. In a second scenario axle 7 is directly controlled by ABS while axles 5 and 6 are indirectly controlled. Your specific question was whether either or both of these scenarios would comply with the ABS requirements.

Your description of your trailer and the drawings that you enclosed with your letter show that the trailer meets the definition of a "pole trailer," which is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

[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.

Your trailer appears to meet the above definition in the following respects:

a. The trailer is designed to be drawn by another motor vehicle, and even if the drawbar would not meet the definition of a reach, pole, or boom, it could be considered to fall within the "otherwise secured to the towing vehicle" definition;

b. The logs that the trailer transports are "long or irregularly shaped loads" and, in addition, would be generally capable of sustaining themselves as beams between supporting connections.

Paragraph S5.2.3.1(a) and (b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, require that semitrailers and full trailers manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 be equipped with antilock brake systems (ABS). The definitions of semitrailers and full trailers both exclude pole trailers from the terms of those respective definitions. Thus, pole trailers are excluded from the requirement to be equipped with ABS. Since your trailer is excluded from compliance with Standard No. 121, you would be free to install either of the systems described in your scenarios. Of course, sound engineering judgment would be warranted to assure that the system installed does not contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

The towing vehicle depicted in your drawing appears to be a truck rather than a truck tractor since it has load-carrying capacity other than as a towing vehicle only. You should be aware, therefore, that the ABS equipment and road test requirements for tractors differ from those for straight trucks, especially in their stopping distance requirements.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.4/21/99