ID: 77-5.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Burley; Smiertka; Swank and Misko P.C.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 6, 1977, letter asking whether the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) apply to your client, an alterer of motor vehicles. From the description in your letter, it appears that your client intends to alter previously certified vehicles to make them accessible to the handicapped. You ask what, if any, regulations would apply to this alteration.

There are no safety standards applicable to the installation of the devices to which you refer. Your client's responsibility for purposes of compliance with the regulations of the NHTSA would be to ensure that he does not affect the compliance of previously certified vehicles.

If your client modifies certified vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale, he would be responsible for ensuring that they continue to comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The applicable regulation, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567.7), requires that he attach an alterer's label to each vehicle indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards.

If your client modifies vehicles after their first purchase for purposes other than resale, he would not have to attach an alterer's label to them. However, he would not be allowed to render inoperative any device or element of design installed in the vehicle in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard (Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1397). Thus, whatever manufacturing operation was performed by your client, it would be necessary for him to ensure that all aspects of the vehicle covered by motor vehicle safety standards remain in compliance with those standards.

ID: nht71-1.23

DATE: 12/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mechanism Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of November 4, 1971, concerning the compliance of two dual rear door locking systems with Standard 206, has been forwarded to this office for reply.

Both systems consist of

. . . a primary locking system which when engaged renders the outside rear door handle and the inside rear door handle inoperative and a special locking device accessible from the door shut face, which when engaged renders the inside door handle imperative but does not affect the outside door handle.

The systems differ is that engagement of the special locking device in the first system prevents the engagement of the primary locking system, while engagement of the special device in the second system does not have this effect.

As stated in the preamble to the April 27, 1968 amendment (33 F.R. 6465) to the standard, S4.1.3 does not preclude the installation of a special locking mechanism in addition to the required locking mechanism. However, the required locking mechanism must be engageable or disengageable regardless of whether any additional locking mechanism is engaged or disengaged. If the special locking mechanism does not interfere with the operation of the required locking mechanism, it will not constitute a failure to comply with the standard.

Under these criteria, the first dual system would not comply with the standard since engagement of the special locking mechanism would interfere with the operation of the primary locking mechanism.

The second dual system would comply if engagement of the special locking mechanism would prevent neither the engagement nor the disengagement of the primary locking mechanism.

Please write if I can be of any further assistance.

ID: nht93-5.4

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 1, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ben F. Barrett -- Associate Director, The Legislative Research Department

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/7/93 from Ben F. Barrett to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-8164)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1993, in which you stated that a Kansas school district wants to use 15-passenger buses to transport school children, but does not want to cause those buses to meet the additional safety requirements applicable to school buses. You also stated that although the state definition of a school bus is the same as the Federal definition, it has been suggested that the state amend that definition to exclude 15-passenger vehicles. You asked our comments on the consequences of such legislation, including any sanctions, liability, or other issues that could result.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Safety Act), defines a school bus as a passenger motor vehicle "designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." This agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle "designed for carrying more than 10 persons," and a school bus is further defined as a bus that is sold "for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." Thus, the 15-passenger buses to which you referred would clearly fall within the Federal definition of "school bus.

The Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In the case of school buses, it is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell a new school bus that is not certified as complying with all applicable Federal safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the new vehicle, and the seller is subject to substantial penalties for knowingly selling a noncomplying school bus, including civil fines and injunctive sanctions.

Section 103(d) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1392(d) provides that no state shall maintain in effect any standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the state standard is identical to the Federal standard. If it is not, the Federal standard preempts the state standard unless the state standard imposes a higher level of safety and is applicable only to vehicles acquired solely for the state's own use. Therefore, even if the State of Kansas redefines a school bus to exempt 15-passenger buses, Federal law remains applicable and any new school bus sold in Kansas must comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, state law notwithstanding.

The purchaser or user of the vehicle is not under the same legal constraints as the seller. Since Federal law applies only to the manufacture and sale of a new vehicle, a school may use any vehicle it chooses to transport its students, whether or not the vehicle meets Federal safety standards. Further, there is no Federal requirement that the state or school district retrofit a vehicle to bring it into compliance with Federal standards. That is because once that vehicle has been sold new to the first customer, the use of that vehicle becomes subject to state law.

Although not required by Federal law, this agency strongly recommends that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards be used to transport school children. In that connection, please find enclosed for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. S401, et seq., which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines to which states may refer in developing their own highway safety programs. Guideline 17, jointly issued by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration, provides recommen- dations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Specifically, the Guideline recommends, among other things, that any vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and which is used as a school bus comply with all Federal safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

Finally, we would note that the use of vehicles that do not comply with Federal school bus safety standards to transport school children could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. Therefore, school districts should consult their attorneys and/or insurance carriers for advice on that issue.

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: 8764

July 1, 1993

Mr. Ben F. Barrett Associate Director The Legislative Research Department 300 West Tenth Street, Room 545-N Topeka, KS 66612-1504

Dear Mr. Barrett:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1993, in which you stated that a Kansas school district wants to use 15-passenger buses to transport school children, but does not want to cause those buses to meet the additional safety requirements applicable to school buses. You also stated that although the state definition of a school bus is the same as the Federal definition, it has been suggested that the state amend that definition to exclude 15-passenger vehicles. You asked our comments on the consequences of such legislation, including any sanctions, liability, or other issues that could result.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), defines a school bus as a passenger motor vehicle "designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." This agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle "designed for carrying more than 10 persons," and a school bus is further defined as a bus that is sold "for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." Thus, the 15-passenger buses to which you referred would clearly fall within the Federal definition of "school bus."

The Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In the case of school buses, it is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell a new school bus that is not certified as complying with all applicable Federal safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the new vehicle, and the seller is subject to substantial penalties for knowingly selling a noncomplying school bus, including civil fines and injunctive sanctions.

Section 103(d) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) provides that no state shall maintain in effect any standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the state standard is identical to the Federal standard. If it is not, the Federal standard preempts the state standard unless the state standard imposes a higher level of safety and is applicable only to vehicles acquired solely for the state's own use. Therefore, even if the State of Kansas redefines a school bus to exempt 15-passenger buses, Federal law remains applicable and any new school bus sold in Kansas must comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, state law notwithstanding.

The purchaser or user of the vehicle is not under the same legal constraints as the seller. Since Federal law applies only to the manufacture and sale of a new vehicle, a school may use any vehicle it chooses to transport its students, whether or not the vehicle meets Federal safety standards. Further, there is no Federal requirement that the state or school district retrofit a vehicle to bring it into compliance with Federal standards. That is because once that vehicle has been sold new to the first customer, the use of that vehicle becomes subject to state law.

Although not required by Federal law, this agency strongly recommends that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards be used to transport school children. In that connection, please find enclosed for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. 401, et seq., which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines to which states may refer in developing their own highway safety programs. Guideline 17, jointly issued by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration, provides recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Specifically, the Guideline recommends, among other things, that any vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and which is used as a school bus comply with all Federal safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

Finally, we would note that the use of vehicles that do not comply with Federal school bus safety standards to transport school children could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. Therefore, school districts should consult their attorneys and/or insurance carriers for advice on that issue.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:#571 d:7/l/93

ID: 2416y

Mr. Earl W. Dahl
Vice President
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

Dear Mr. Dahl:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked whether an additional symbol, which is intended to identify more precisely the year of manufacturer, is permitted to be included in the tire identification number. As explained below, the answer is yes.

The purpose of the tire identification requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. Section 574.5 requires that each tire be marked with the tire identification number. In particular, it requires that the fourth grouping contain three numerals of which the first two identify the week of the year and the third numeral identifies the year of manufacture. You believe that this requirement may lead to confusion because the third numeral, e.g. "9", could refer to more than one year, e.g., 1979 or 1989. Accordingly, you state that your company would like to be able to distinguish the year of manufacture in an interval longer than one decade. To do this, you would like to add a symbol immediately following the fourth grouping of the tire identification number to identify that this tire was produced in the decade 1990 through 1999.

Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires (49 CFR 571.109) and Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119) together with Part 574 require that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to the standards. In a May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire (copy attached), the agency explained that

The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. [These standards] permit tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall on the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.

Applying this standard to the question you have asked, we believe that the additional symbol, an isosceles right triangle, is not prohibited from appearing on the sidewall of your company's tires. As explained above, the labeling requirements are intended to provide information about the tire, including the year of manufacture, in a clear and straightforward manner. Because the suggested symbol does not appear to introduce additional information that might obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose, the agency has determined that marking a tire with an isosceles right triangle after the tire identification code is not prohibited.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:574 d:5/2/90

ID: nht76-2.3

DATE: 03/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: VIRACON, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Viracon's December 13, 1975, and January 28, 1976, requests for a copy of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and for a discussion of the distinction under NHTSA regulations between installation of a sunroof before and after "original sale of the roof." A copy of Standard No. 216 has already been mailed to Viracon under separate cover.

You suggest that there may be different regulations for installation of a sunroof prior to, and after, the sale of the roof, by which I understand you to mean the sunroof. The NHTSA does not regulate sunroofs as such, but it does regulate the roof strength of most passenger cars (Standard No. 216), and conformity with this standard can be affected by installation of the sunroof.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits, among other things, the sale of a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable standards. Anyone that modifies a passenger car roof by the addition of your product would be responsible for compliance with Standard No. 216 at the time of sale. This would include alterations of this type made to a vehicle that has been certified by the manufacturer (49 CFR Part 567). This prohibition does not apply (except in cases of importation) after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1)).

The Act also prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with applicable standards (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A)). This means that these classes of persons may not install one of your products, even after the first retail sale, if the installation takes the vehicle out of conformity with Standard No. 216 or any other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

YOURS TRULY,

VIRACON Inc.

January 28, 1976

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Division

Attached please find a copy of our letter to you dated December 13, 1975. Since we still have had no reply, may I again ask that you please send us a copy of your safety standard regulations regarding roof crush requirements relative to sunroof installation.

Thank you very much for your prompt attention.

Diane Bortle Executive Secretary

VIRACON Inc.

December 13, 1975

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Division

We are anticipating the manufacture of a laminated glass sunroof in the not-too-distant future. May I ask that you send me a copy of your safety standard regulations regarding roof crush requirements relative to sunroof installation? I understand there are different regulations for installation prior to, and after the original sale of the roof.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention.

Randall L. Johnson Executive Vice President

ID: nht95-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 23, 1995

FROM: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re.: Neon High Mounted Stop Lamps

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/18/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YOSHIAKI MATSUI. (REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

We are planning to develop high mounted stop lamps with neon tubes as their light sources.

During the last SAE meeting in Scottsdale, we heard Mr. van Iderstine mentioned that some new regulatory requirements should be provided for neon as light sources. However, we believe it is possible, even at this time, to conduct tests to such stop lamp s in accordance with FMVSS No. 108 and to determine the compliance of the tested high mounted stop lamps to FMVSS No. 108.

Therefore, we would like to ask you to give us your advice to the following questions concerning the acceptability of neon tubes as light sources.

Q1) Are neon tubes accepted as light sources by the current FMVSS No. 108?

Q2) If the answer to the above Q1) is NO, what kind of requirements should be provided to accept the neon?

Q3) If the ballast is integral and indivisible part of a neon high mounted stop lamp, like integral beam headlamps with HID, should such stop lamps be accepted under the current FMVSS No. 108 with no reservation provided the lamp is complied to all requi rements specified in the FMVSS No. 108?

Q4) If the ballast is separable from lamp assembly, should such high mounted stop lamps with neon tube be accepted under the current FMVSS No. 108 or under the amended FMVSS No. 108 allowing such stop lamps in near future?

Your answers will be highly appreciated.

ID: nht78-2.19

DATE: 05/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1978 asking whether there is any legal objection to Volvo's installation of red rear fog lamps on passenger cars it sells in the United States.

As you have noted, "the only possible objection" to these lamps is the prohibition of S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 against the installation of lamps that impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment mandated by the standard. We have no basis for disagreeing with your opinion that the red "rear fog lamps do not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment." However, the lamps would be subject to the laws of the individual States.

SINCERELY,

Volvo of America Corporation

May 3, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Re: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS #108

An item which has met with some popularity on the European market is the red rear fog lamp. This is a red lamp controlled by a separate switch on the dashboard and operated at the driver's option. The purpose of this lamp is to provide improved visibility in fog or other adverse weather.

Red rear fog lamps are standard equipment on Volvo 262/264 models for all EEC countries. These lamps are made to comply with EEC directives regarding installation and photometrics. Enclosed for your information are covering installation of lighting (Section 4.11 covers rear fog lamps); and covering photometric requirements of rear fog lamps.

These lamps do not qualify as tail lamps since they are not controlled by the same switch as the headlights. In our opinion, they would not, then, be subject to the maximum tail lamp candlepower restrictions of FMVSS #108, S4.1.1. This section also states that each vehicle be equipped with at least the number of lamps specified in the section.

As we read FMVSS #108, the only possible objection to these lamps might arise from Section 4.1.3 which states that "no additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard". In our opinion, rear fog lamps do not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. Furthermore, we believe that these lamps will greatly enhance vehicle safety. We feel that the spirit of the law is to improve vehicle visibility which these lamps will in fact do.

Please advise us as to whether you agree with our interpretation.

If I can be of any assistance in this matter, please feel free to call.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning and Development

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs

[EEC INFORMATION OMITTED]

ID: nht94-9.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard J. Dessert -- Proprietor, Sun Cycle Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/28/93 from Richard J. Dessert to NHTSA Administrator (OCC-8731) and letter dated 5/7/93 from John W. Schumann

TEXT:

This responds to your petition of May 28, 1993, to the Administrator for a temporary exemption for low emission motor vehicles that you would like to produce. These vehicles would be purchased by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The response deadline for LADWP's Request for Proposal (RFP) was June 1, 1993. You have informed us that

"As part of LADWP requirements for successful bidders, evidence of progress towards obtaining Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards certification may be provided through demonstration that an application was made with NHTSA for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards."

Because this matter affects LADWP as well as Sun Cycle Company, we are sending a copy of this response to the designated LADWP contact, Jeffrey S. Silverstone.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) did not receive your petition until June 8, and therefore had no chance to advise you with respect to it before the RFP deadline of June 1. We must inform you that the petition does not meet our procedural requirements and is not accepted for processing and action.

There are several areas in which the petition is deficient. Most importantly, it appears to be a request for a blanket exemption from compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. While the applicable law and regulation do not forbid this, you should know that the Administrator has never entertained a petition of this breadth and in all probability would never grant one. An applicant for a low-emission vehicle exemption must provide sufficient information upon which the Administrator may find that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the motor vehicle, and that the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We do not believe that the Administrator could make the requisite findings to support a blanket exemption. It is NHTSA's policy to encourage manufacturers to manufacture conforming vehicles to the extent possible, and to narrow the scope of their requests for exemption. Low-emission vehicle petitions generally cover four to 14 standards.

As part of your argument, you must set forth each individual standard from which you request exemption, and provide a detailed description of how your vehicle differs from a conforming one. You must also provide reasons why an exemption from each standard for which request is made would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle, something more than the general

statement you have made that the first prototypes will "substantially comply with all the safety standards.: Finally, you must present your views why an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act. When we have received a petition from you that fulfills these requirements, we shall be pleased to accept it for consideration and public comment. As the vehicle you intend to manufacture is completely unknown to NHTSA, your new petition should also contain photographs or descriptive literature illustrating it.

Our closing comment is that you or the LADWP may be unclear about vehicle certification. A manufacturer does not "obtain" certification from NHTSA. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which the manufacturer certifies its vehicles after satisfying itself that it conforms to the standards, aside from those from which it may have been exempted. It does not have to have permission from NHTSA to do so. You intend to test the vehicles, and such testing could provide substantiation for your certification of compliance, or, alternatively, substantiation to NHTSA that an exemption would not unduly degrade the vehicle's safety.

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

ID: nht93-8.2

DATE: November 8, 1993

FROM: Andrew Tweddle -- AV Technology Corporation

TO: Walter K. Myers -- Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from John Womack to Andrew Tweddle (A42; Part 571.7(c))

TEXT:

AV Technology is in the process of responding to a Department of the Army draft specification for an armored security vehicle. AV Technology will be proposing its combat vehicle, the Dragoon ASV. Our fully armored vehicle will be equipped with the AV Technology manufactured UGWS weapons station, which carries a 40mm grenade launching machine gun, a .50 caliber machine gun, as well as a matched bank of smoke grenade launchers. The Dragoon is capable of being fitted with weapons as heavy as a 105mm anti-tank gun. The dragoon has the capability to defeat Main Battle Tanks, with more agility, and speed than many MBTs in service today. Based on the capabilities of the Dragoon ASV combat vehicle we would like to request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration consider it for exclusion from federal motor vehicle safety standard and requirements.

The Dragoon is constructed of high hardness armor, and includes a permanently mounted weapons station. In addition to its armor and weapons capabilities, the Dragoon features a powerpack system, a configuration usually found only on main battle tanks. Because of these features, as well as the army's own definition of this vehicle as a combat vehicle rather than a tactical vehicle, (ref: Tacom Specification, Sept. 20, 1993 Pg. 12, 21), we feel there are sufficient grounds for exemption.

In a letter addressed to Verne Corporation, a division of AV Technology, dated August 7, 1989 your office stated, "If the vehicle is a motor vehicle that has been manufactured for and sold directly to the armed forces in conformity with contractual specifications, it is not required to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards." In reference to past vehicles sold to the U.S. Armed Forces, the letter states, "This means that the ASVs sold to the armed forces have not been required to conform to the federal standards." Because of the limited number of the Dragoon ASVs to be manufactured for this contract, its role as a combat vehicle, and past precedent set by Verne Corporation, AV Technology expects compliance with MIL-STD-1180, which mirrors the federal motor vehicle specifications in many respects, is adequate to meet the need for on road safety.

If you require any additional information or details on our combat vehicle please don't hesitate to contact us. Thank you for considering the Dragoon armored combat vehicle for exclusion from federal safety standards and regulations, we look forward to hearing from you soon.

ATTACHMENT Dragoon Armored Security Vehicles (ASV) brochure. (Text omitted.)