ID: 9719

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter of February 21, 1994, requesting further clarification of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Section S5.5.3(c) states that "(e)ach opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape."The July 7, 1993 letter also stated that the agency planned to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. This notice has not yet been published. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. Your letter referenced our July 7, 1993 letter to you in which we stated that S5.5.3(c) permits interruptions in the tape necessary to accommodate curved surfaces and functional components. You requested confirmation "that retro-reflective tape around the perimeter of the rear of a school bus can be used to satisfy the requirements of S5.5.3(c)."

I cannot interpret the requirements of S5.5.3(c) as you request, since for many, if not most, designs the nearest possible location will be closer than the perimeter of the bus. While we appreciate your concerns about durability if numerous cuts or notches are made to accommodate rivets, our July 7 letter stated that manufacturers have the option of placing the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets. As an example, from the illustrations you enclosed, it appears that it may be possible to apply retroreflective tape outside the rivets adjacent to the lower portions of the door. Thus, that would be the nearest possible location, rather than the perimeter of the bus itself. I note, however, that the illustrations do not provide sufficient detail of all obstructions for us to determine the nearest possible location for each design.

I also note that your letter stated in support of your request that all school buses are required to have a rear emergency exit. While this is true, the type of emergency exit will vary and retroreflective tape at the perimeter of the exit would allow rescuers to immediately know the precise location of the exit. Moreover, retroreflective tape at the perimeter would enable rescuers to immediately know which type of exit is in this location. This information could be vitally important. Because push-out windows are not required to have a means of releasing the exit from outside the bus (S5.3.3.2), this information would allow rescuers to quickly determine that they should move to the sides of the bus to locate an exit they can open.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if we did not interpret the standard as you requested. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:3/28/94

ID: nht94-7.18

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/21/94 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack (OCC 9719)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 21, 1994, requesting further clarification of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Section S5.5.3(c) states that "(e)ach opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape." *1 Your letter referenced our July 7, 1993 letter to you in which we stated that S5.5.3(c) permits interruptions in the tape necessary to accommodate curved surfaces and functional components. You requested confirmation "that retro-reflective tape around the perimeter of the rear of a school bus can be used to satisfy the requirements of S5.5.3(c)."

I cannot interpret the requirements of S5.5.3(c) as you request, since for many, if not most, designs the nearest possible location will be closer than the perimeter of the bus. While we appreciate your concerns about durability if numerous cuts or notches are made to accommodate rivets, our July 7 letter stated that manufacturers have the option of placing the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets. As an example, from the illustrations you enclosed, it appears that it may be possible to apply retroreflective tape outside the rivets adjacent to the lower portions of the door. Thus, that would be the nearest possible location, rather than the perimeter of the bus itself. I note, however, that the illustrations do not provide sufficient detail of all obstructions for us to determine the nearest possible location for each design.

I also note that your letter stated in support of your request that all school buses are required to have a rear emergency exit. While this is true, the type of emergency exit will vary and retroreflective tape at the perimeter of the exit would allow rescuers to immediately know the precise location of the exit. Moreover, retroreflective tape at the perimeter would enable rescuers to immediately know which type of exit is in this location. This information could be vitally important. Because push-out windows are not required to have a means of releasing the exit from outside the bus (S5.3.3.2), this information would allow rescuers to quickly determine that they should move to the sides of the bus to locate an exit they can open.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if we did not interpret the standard as you requested. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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

*1 The July 7, 1993 letter also stated that the agency planned to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. This notice has not yet been published. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

ID: GF007048

Jose M. Hernndez, President
Service Public Commission
PO Box 190870
San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00919-0870
ATTN: Maria Roln-Castillo, Esq.

Dear Mr. Hernndez:

This responds to your letter regarding certain rules and procedures that may be applicable to ambulance manufacturers. Specifically, you ask about the certification process for ambulance manufacturers. You also ask whether an ambulance manufacturer must obtain permission or a license in order to manufacture ambulances, and whether non-registered parties can rebuild existing ambulances using replacement chassis. We apologize for the delay in responding.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a "self-certification" process under which all motor vehicle manufacturers, including ambulance manufacturers, are responsible for certifying that their vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

An ambulance manufacturer need not obtain permission or a license from NHTSA in order to manufacture ambulances. However, under the requirements of Part 566 (a copy of which is enclosed), all manufacturers of motor vehicles must submit to NHTSA certain identifying information and a description of the items they produce. Specifically, a manufacturer must indicate: (a) the full individual, partnership, or corporate name of the manufacturer; (b) the residence address of the manufacturer and state of incorporation, if applicable; (c) a description of the motor vehicle produced, including approximate ranges of the gross vehicle weight rating. The vehicle description should be specific enough to indicate the intended use. [1]

NHTSA does not generally regulate rebuilding or re-manufacturing of used motor vehicles. However, if the rebuilding or re-manufacturing involved sufficient manufacturing operations, the vehicle could be considered to be newly manufactured. This would mean that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of rebuilding (re-manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards.Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case by case basis.

In the event your use of the term "rebuild" refers to converting, prior to first retail sale, a new vehicle or the completion of an incomplete vehicle chassis into an ambulance, then such a manufacturer would be considered either a "vehicle alterer" or a "final stage manufacturer." These entities are subject to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 567 and Part 568, which generally require the entities to certify that the given completed or modified vehicle meets or continues to meet all applicable FMVSS.

We also note that under 49 U.S.C. 30122, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle" pursuant to an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, a manufacturer who undertakes to "rebuild" or convert a previously sold vehicle into an ambulance is subject to the prohibitions of this "make inoperative provision."

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:566
d.12/8/03





---

[1] Please note that if the vehicle in question is produced in two or more stages (which is often the case with ambulances), the manufacturer must indicate the stage of completion for which this ambulance manufacturer is responsible (presumably the final stage), and include a brief description of the work performed.

ID: nht76-5.77

DATE: December 9, 1976

FROM: Frank A. Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Leon W. Steenbock -- Engineering, FWD Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-93 from John Womack to Bob Brinton (A41; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 3-16-93 from Bob Brinton to NHTSA (OCC 8436)

TEXT: This responds to FWD Corporation's October 15, 1976, request to know whether a truck that complies with the requirements of Standard No. 121, AIR BRAKE SYSTEMS, would continue to comply after the addition or another parking brake system (hand-operated mechanical, operating on the driveline) or another service brake control (piped to either or both sides of a split system).

Standard No. 121's requirements for braking systems does not preclude the addition of an additional braking system. The agency would not consider the requirements of S5.6.4 to prohibit an additional parking brake control.

Standard No. 121 does not prohibit installation of more than one service brake control. The installation of a hand-operated control lever that your letter appears to describe would not of itself violate the standard's requirements. If the hand control were piped into both systems, however, a failure introduced into the control would probably result in violation of S5.7.1, which requires certain secondary braking performance following a single failure introduced into the service brake system.

ID: nht79-4.48

DATE: 07/20/79

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA, DOT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: J. C. ECKHOLD -- FORD MOTOR COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 5/23/79 FROM J. C. ECKHOLD OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO JOAN B. CLAYBROOK OF NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Eckhold:

This is in response to your letter of May 23, 1979, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. Specifically, you requested a clarification of Section 5.3.3 which states that each tell-tale and its identification must be "visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions." You indicated that under certain conditions the intensity and color characteristics of sun lighting could cause transitory reflections that obscure either the intensity or color, or both, of the tell-tale.

It is the interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the manufacturer must manufacture a tell-tale with a light intensity that ensures visibility under the most adverse general lighting conditions. This means that the tell-tales and their identification need not be visible to the driver when the tell-tales are struck by direct sunlight. Since conditions such as these are typically short-lived, the NHTSA does not believe that the length of time the driver may be unable to view the tell-tales is significant enough to warrant requiring the manufacturer to prevent their occurrence.

Sincerely,

ID: righthanddrive

Mr. Michael Dropik
Goodyear Police Department
P.O. Box 5100
Goodyear, AZ 85338




Dear Mr. Dropik:

This responds to your e-mail message to the Federal Highway Administration, dated October 27, 2005. Your message was forwarded to our office for a response. In your message, you asked whether it was legal for a vehicle manufacturer to install the steering wheel on the right side of the vehicle instead of the left. Yes, it is legal to install the steering wheel on the right side of a motor vehicle.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to prescribe motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to certify that their vehicles comply with the mandatory safety standards. As NHTSA has not issued safety standards that prohibit the use of a right hand drive steering system on a motor vehicle, manufacturers are permitted to install the steering wheel on the right or left side of a vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.4/7/06

ID: nht87-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/87 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MANAGER, REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE-VOLVO

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 9, 1987 LETTER FROM SHAPIRO TO JONES IS ATTACHED

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the Part 581 Bumper Standard. You asked whether headlamp washer-wiper systems should be removed from a vehicle prior to testing. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensur e that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements.

Section 581.6 of the Bumper Standard specifies a number of conditions which apply to the standard's impact tests. One of these conditions, set forth in paragraph (a)(5), is that "(t)railer hitches, license plate brackets, and headlamp washers are remove d from the vehicle." You stated that the standard was promulgated prior to the advent of headlamp washer-wiper systems, and suggested that the interpretation of "headlamp washers" can be expanded to include headlamp washer-wiper systems. It is our opini on that for purposes of the Part 581 Bumper the term "headlamp washers" is sufficiently broad to include headlamp washer-wiper systems.

ID: 10463

Mariano Garcia, Esq.
Ricca & Whitmire, P.A.
Clearlake Plaza - Suite 800
500 South Australian Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Dear Mr. Garcia:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the Kawasaki Mule KAF 450-B1, with a top speed of 25 miles per hour, is a motor vehicle. You describe the Mule as an "off-road" light utility vehicle, and enclose a photocopy of what appears to be a Kawasaki brochure describing the Mule.

The Mule is similar to two on and off-road capable vehicles, reviewed by NHTSA for a determination whether the vehicles are motor vehicles. Enclosed are two interpretation letters, one to Mr. Matthew J. Plache, dated December 3, 1991, and one to Mr. Hiroshi Kato dated October 31, 1988. Both letters addressed vehicles which could attain a top speed of 25 miles per hour and were not intended by their manufacturers to be used on the public roads.

Both letters describe five criteria which NHTSA applies when determining whether a vehicle with on and off-road capability is a motor vehicle. We do not have sufficient information to apply the five criteria to the Mule. However, we believe that if the facts are known, the criteria are easily applied, and a determination whether the Mule is a motor vehicle may be made.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

ref:VSA d:1/17/95

ID: 21340.ztv

Mr. Louis De Cuzzi
D.R.R. LLC
900 Theora Drive
Brunswick, Ohio 44212

Dear Mr. De Cuzzi:

We are replying to your fax of March 6, 2000, asking us for an interpretation on two types of vehicles you wish to import. You identify each as "all-terrain vehicles and are intended for that use only." You have also included photographs of these vehicles.

These vehicles are not subject to our jurisdiction. We regulate "motor vehicles" which are defined, in part, as vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." All-terrain vehicles are manufactured for use off the public roads, not on them. Accordingly, we do not and have not regulated all-terrain vehicles.

All-terrain vehicles are under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). We are not conversant with the regulations, if any, that must be met by all-terrain vehicles at the time of their importation, and recommend that you consult the CPSC. For purposes of this agency, if the U.S. Customs Service requires you to execute the DOT HS-7 Form "Declaration" at the time of entry, you may check Box 8 stating that the vehicles being imported are not "motor vehicles" subject to our requirements.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571#591
d.5/19/00

ID: nht79-1.30

DATE: 01/17/79

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

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 17 1979

Clarence W. Woody Maryland Department of Transportation 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E. Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062

Dear Mr. Woody:

This is in response to your letter of December 5, 1978, asking whether the abbreviated odometer disclosure statement currently used on Maryland certificates of title may also be used on a Uniform Manufacturer's Statement of Origin. Motor vehicle manufacturers are not required to provide dealers with odometer disclosure statements for new vehicles. Section 580.5 of Title 49 specifically exempts these transactions. Therefore, since there is no Federal requirement that any odometer disclosure statement be issued, you may include the abbreviated statement on the Uniform Manufacturer's Statement of Origin. Manufacturers, however, would not be required by Federal law to complete it.

You should be interested to know that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will shortly issue a proposed notice of rulemaking that will allow use of the abbreviated form on all transfer of ownership documents, not merely the certificate of title.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel