ID: nht88-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88

FROM: JACK SATKOSKI -- SPECTRA ENTERPRISES

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Jack Satkoski (Std. 201; Std. 302; VSA 108(A)(2)(a))

TEXT: I have enclosed five sketches and a photograph of a sun visor extender being developed for market at Spectra Enterprises. The product is called the ADD-VISOR and consists of a magnetic base and moveable panel that attaches by means of velcro straps to t he existing auto, truck, or RV's sun visor. The moveable panel is designed so that it can be positioned in areas to block the sun not covered by existing sun visors.

The size of the product is 11.5 in by 4.5 in., has rounded corners, and is made from soft and flexible vinyl related magnetic materials.

Can you please advise and send me copies if applicable, any federal standards this product will have to meet prior to marketing. I also require suggestions on similar contacts to make at the state level for possible standards that may apply.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Sincerely

enclosures

ID: nht94-8.7

DATE: February 21, 1994

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

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Richard Kuykendall -- 3M

TITLE: 49 CFR Part 571.217; Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release; Federal Register Vol 57, No. 212, Monday, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Section S5.5.3(c) of the referenced final rule requires that:

"Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1."

In a May 17, 1993 letter, Blue Bird requested the following interpretations regarding the requirements of Section S5.5.3(c):

"Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening."

In support of this request, the letter stated --

"The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges, or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads."

Your response to our May 17, 1993 letter dated July 7, 1993 documented a telephone conversation between Mary Versailles of your staff and myself in which I provided the following additional information in support of our request:

"In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retro-reflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape." You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retro-reflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear pushout window or

rear door), for two reasons. First you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivet, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off."

Your response of July 7, 1993 provided the following interpretations:

"NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivet, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retro-reflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retro-reflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six-inches."

Blue Bird sincerely appreciated the above timely and conscientious response which recognized the real world manufacturing problems we were facing and which provided reasonable flexibility in meeting the requirements while maintaining strict adherence to the requisites of the November 2, 1992 final rule. The above response enabled Blue Bird to design and incorporate into production acceptable retro-reflective tape installations for side door, side window, and roof emergency exits.

However, the installation of retro-reflective tape on the rear of the school buses is still a major problem because of the limited amount of area on the rear of school buses and the many features required by federal and state standards. These features include taillights, stop lights, turn signal lights, backup lights, license plate holder and light, reflectors, large windows, extended rubrails, exit door or windows, hinges, handles, labels, and a multitude of fasteners to meet FMVSS 221 School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Attached are two pages taken from our May 17, 1993 request for interpretation that illustrate these problems that require cutting, notching, and punching of holes in the tape around the rear school bus exits. Our supplier of retro- reflective tape, 3M, has been unable to provide us a product that is cut, notched, and/or punched with sealed edges that would help ensure the longevity, durability, and effectiveness of the retro-reflective tape. In order to provide ongoing safety, the retro-reflective tape must remain on the bus and retain its reflective properties. Without proper sealing of the holes and notches, the longevity of the tape is questionable.

Since January 1993, in order to enhance the conspicuity and thereby the safety of school buses, Blue Bird has been installing retro-reflective tape down the sides and around the perimeter of the rear of new school buses as part of

standard equipment. Attached are illustrations and an advertising flyer showing the standard equipment designs we have developed to minimize installation problems and maximize conspicuity of the vehicles. The materials and patterns used are compatible with the FMVSS 108 requirements NHTSA has established for large trailers. SINCE ALL SCHOOL BUSES ARE REQUIRED BY FMVSS 217 TO HAVE A REAR EMERGENCY EXIT, Blue Bird believes that outlining the rear perimeter of the buses rather than just the perimeter of the emergency exit opening is more practical, reasonable and in the best interest of safety. We, therefore, request an interpretation stating that RETRO-REFLECTIVE TAPE AROUND THAT PERIMETER OF THE REAR OF A SCHOOL BUS CAN BE USED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF S5.5.3(C). Such an interpretation would meet the intent of the November 2, 1992 final rule by allowing the retro-reflective tape to continue to satisfy the requisite of identifying the location of the rear emergency exits to rescuers while substantially improving its ability to increase the on- the-road conspicuity of the bus. We believe such an interpretation is also consistent with your July 7, 1993 interpretation which said "....the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter." Based on the problems we are having on the rear of the school buses, we now consider the locations chosen for our standard equipment perimeter marking "AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE" to the exit perimeter.

Thank you for consideration of this request for interpretation. Our purpose in making this request is to enhance the effectiveness of the material we install to meet S5.5.3(c) and make school buses safer. The length, width, and total area of reflective tape we are proposing to install on the rear of school buses by requesting the above interpretation is significantly greater than what would be required to outline only the perimeter of the exit opening. The new FMVSS 217 requirements become effective May 2, 1994 and therefore an early and favorable response is urgently requested. We believe our request can be resolved with an interpretation because it is compatible with both the wording and the intent of the standard. If, however, it cannot be handled as an interpretation, we request that this letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking per 49 CFR Part 552. Thank you.

ATTACHMENTS

Illustrations omitted.

ID: nht94-1.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 21, 1994

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

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: 49 CFR Part 571.217; Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release; Federal Register Vol 57, No. 212, Monday, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Section S5.5.3(c) of the referenced final rule requires that:

"Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, m eets the criteria specified in Table 1."

In a May 17, 1993 letter, Blue Bird requested the following interpretations regarding the requirements of Section S5.5.3(c):

"Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, inter ruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening."

In support of this request, the letter stated --

"The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges, or curved surfaces and/or must have re lief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads."

Your response to our May 17, 1993 letter dated July 7, 1993 documented a telephone conversation between Mary Versailles of your staff and myself in which I provided the following additional information in support of our request:

"In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retro-reflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape." You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retro-reflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear pushout window or

rear door), for two reasons. First you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivet, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off."

Your response of July 7, 1993 provided the following interpretations:

"NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivet, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retro-reflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retro-reflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six-inches."

Blue Bird sincerely appreciated the above timely and conscientious response which recognized the real world manufacturing problems we were facing and which provided reasonable flexibility in meeting the requirements while maintaining strict adherence to the requisites of the November 2, 1992 final rule. The above response enabled Blue Bird to design and incorporate into production acceptable retro-reflective tape installations for side door, side window, and roof emergency exits.

However, the installation of retro-reflective tape on the rear of the school buses is still a major problem because of the limited amount of area on the rear of school buses and the many features required by federal and state standards. These features i nclude taillights, stop lights, turn signal lights, backup lights, license plate holder and light, reflectors, large windows, extended rubrails, exit door or windows, hinges, handles, labels, and a multitude of fasteners to meet FMVSS 221 School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Attached are two pages taken from our May 17, 1993 request for interpretation that illustrate these problems that require cutting, notching, and punching of holes in the tape around the rear school bus exits. Our supplier of retro- reflective tape, 3M, has been unable to provide us a product that is cut, notched, and/or punched with sealed edges that would help ensure the longevity, durability, and effectiveness of the retro-reflective tape. In order to provide ongoing safety, the retro-reflective tap e must remain on the bus and retain its reflective properties. Without proper sealing of the holes and notches, the longevity of the tape is questionable.

Since January 1993, in order to enhance the conspicuity and thereby the safety of school buses, Blue Bird has been installing retro-reflective tape down the sides and around the perimeter of the rear of new school buses as part of

standard equipment. Attached are illustrations and an advertising flyer showing the standard equipment designs we have developed to minimize installation problems and maximize conspicuity of the vehicles. The materials and patterns used are compatible with the FMVSS 108 requirements NHTSA has established for large trailers. SINCE ALL SCHOOL BUSES ARE REQUIRED BY FMVSS 217 TO HAVE A REAR EMERGENCY EXIT, Blue Bird believes that outlining the rear perimeter of the buses rather than just the perimeter of the emergency exit opening is more practical, reasonable and in the best interest of safety. We, therefore, request an interpretation stating that RETRO-REFLECTIVE TAPE AROUND THAT PERIMETER OF THE REAR OF A SCHOOL BUS CAN BE USED TO SATISFY THE REQUIR EMENTS OF S5.5.3(C). Such an interpretation would meet the intent of the November 2, 1992 final rule by allowing the retro-reflective tape to continue to satisfy the requisite of identifying the location of the rear emergency exits to rescuers while sub stantially improving its ability to increase the on- the-road conspicuity of the bus. We believe such an interpretation is also consistent with your July 7, 1993 interpretation which said "....the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit p erimeter." Based on the problems we are having on the rear of the school buses, we now consider the locations chosen for our standard equipment perimeter marking "AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE" to the exit perimeter.

Thank you for consideration of this request for interpretation. Our purpose in making this request is to enhance the effectiveness of the material we install to meet S5.5.3(c) and make school buses safer. The length, width, and total area of reflective tape we are proposing to install on the rear of school buses by requesting the above interpretation is significantly greater than what would be required to outline only the perimeter of the exit opening. The new FMVSS 217 requirements become effective May 2, 1994 and therefore an early and favorable response is urgently requested. We believe our request can be resolved with an interpretation because it is compatible with both the wording and the intent of the standard. If, however, it cannot be hand led as an interpretation, we request that this letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking per 49 CFR Part 552. Thank you.

ATTACHMENTS

Illustrations omitted.

ID: nht72-4.44

DATE: 08/24/72

FROM: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER FOR RICHARD B. DYSON

TO: Safety Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 17, 1972, in which you ask whether a person who installs on new vehicles a device you manufacture called the Safti-Stabilizer is required to recertify the vehicle.

A person will be required to recertify a new, completed vehicle if he modifies it in such a manner that he becomes a "manufacturer" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A person will be considered a manufacturer if the modifications he performs produce significant changes in the vehicle's configuration or purpose. While this determination is generally made on a case by case basis examples of modifications which the NHTSA has considered to be "manufacturing" include the addition of new axles, or the changing of a completed truck van into a motor home.

The NHTSA has taken the position, in close cases, that it will accept a good-faith determination of a person modifying new vehicles as to whether the modification is of such a nature so as to make that person a manufacturer. Based on the information you have provided to us, it appears that the installation of the Safti-Stabilizer does not significantly change the vehicle's configuration or purpose. Consequently, we would accept a determination that the installation of the Safti-Stablizer does not constitute remanufacturing, and a person who installs the device on new vehicles need not recertify them.

ID: nht89-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/89

FROM: ROLF DUERR -- NOITH TRANSMISSIONS PROJECT ENGINEER

TO: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL

TITLE: DOT APPROVAL OF SWAGELOK FITTING

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/23/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ROLF DUERR -- VOITH TRANSMISSIONS; REDBOOK A34[2]; FMVSS 106

TEXT: To Whom It May Concern:

Enclosed, please find the fitting used on our product, the Voith VHBK-120 Driveline Brake Retarder. We are a European manufacturer of brake retarders and wish to make our product more adaptable to the American market. We are doing this by converting ou r metric air fittings to DOT approved fittings. Most of the air fittings we required were offered by Parker. The enclosed swagelok fitting will replace the enclosed DIN metric fitting as a positionable 90 degrees elbow.

Swagelok, as you may know, has no DOT designation standard on the fitting. Thus your approval is theoretically needed if it is attached to the air braking system of a truck. In our case, the air supply line to the retarder is tapped off of the auxiliar y air brake tank/system. Attached you will find technical specs on this swagelok fitting which we would like to use. I have also enclosed some literature on our product. Your prompt response will be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

ID: nht87-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Floyd D. Spence

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Spence:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. George Seaborn or the South Carolina Association of School Superintendents, concerning Federal regulations for school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for repl y, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In his letter to you, Mr. Seaborn expresses his concern about a Federal regulation that "excludes the use of vans capable of transporting more than 10 persons from use by schools." Mr . Seaborn explains that it would be difficult for school districts to comply with a restriction on van use since large vans are extensively used for pupil transportation. He believes that schools should be permitted to use vans since those vehicles are safe for transporting passengers other than school children.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our school bus regulations. As explained below, there is no Federal prohibition directed against schools or school districts which prevents them from using vans carrying 11 or more persons. Federal law does, howev er, affect the sale of buses to schools. NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress enacted the Schoolbus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendm ents to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety aid apply those standards to all "school buses." The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufac tured on or after that date.

The parties subject to the Vehicle Safety Act are the manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federa l law, a van designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) is a "bus," and is a "school bus" if intended for transporting students to aid from school or related events.

A person way sell a new bus (including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons) to a school or school district provided that the vehicle meets our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

Because our regulations apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit school districts from using their large vans to transport school children even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. Mat ters relating to motor vehicle use are determined by state law. However, in the event a South Carolina school district decides to buy a new school bus, we would like the district to keep in mind that the seller would be obligated under the Vehicle Safety not to sell complying school buses. The seller should know that he or she risks substantial penalties if a noncomplying bus is sold as a school bus.

Since Mr. Seaborn is interested in transporting students in vans, I would like to clarify a few additional matters concerning our school bus regulations. In his letter to you, your constituent expresses a belief that large vans (i.e., buses) should be sa fe for school children since they are safe for other passengers. The legislative history of the Schoolbus Amendments of 1974 indicate that Congress believed that special measures should be taken to protect school children who use school bus transportatio n. Fifteen-passenger vans (i.e., buses) meeting our school bus safety standards provide more safety features than other buses. School buses must meet stringent performance requirements, including those for interior protection, fuel systems, emergency exi ts, windows and windshields and seating systems.

New 15-passenger vans, conforming to our school bus standards, may be sold to school districts to transport their pupils to school related events. School districts may also purchase 9-passenger vans for school transportation, because such vans are consid ered "multipurpose passenger vehicles" (MPV's) and not "buses" or "school buses" under Federal law. We do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to carry school children nor do we require then to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Instead, they mus t meet the performance requirements set by the safety standards for MPV's, which also provide high levels of passenger safety.

I hope this information is helpful. We have provided similar letters to Representatives Robin Tallon and Butler Derrick who contacted us on behalf of Mr. Seaborn. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance to you and your constituents.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

The Honorable Floyd Spence House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Spence:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr.

George W. Seaborn.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Babbitt Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

February 2, 1987 Mr. Ed Babbitt

Director/Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation Room 10406 400 7th Street. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Babbitt:

Enclosed is the copy of a constituent letter I recently received. I would appreciate it if you could review this matter and let me know its current status. Thank you for your time.

With kindest regards. I am

Sincerely,

FLOYD D. SPENCE Member of Congress

FDS/bb Enclosure

Congressman Floyd Spence Room 2466 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Spence:

You will see from the enclosed material that in 1977, the Department of National Highway Safety adopted a standard which excludes the use of vans capable of transporting more than ten persons from use by schools. None of the administrators in South Carol ina were aware of this legislation until recently. I am sure that you know that there are hundreds of these vans being operated by South Carolina school districts and many thousands more by school districts across our land. We have three in our school di strict which belong to the state and are furnished to us for the purpose of transporting children to our child development program. We also have our own vans which are used to transport small groups such as golf team, cheerleaders, etc.

All of these vans were legally purchased on the open market in South Carolina. It seems to me that if these vehicles are unsafe to transport youngsters then they are unsafe to transport any citizens in our nation. On the other hand, if they are considere d safe to transport citizens in this country who are not school students, they should be safe to transport school students. This regulation implies that certain classes of our citizens are entitled to higher safety standards than other classes.

I have been asked by my colleagues throughout the state to urge your immediate attention to this matter as all it is doing at the present time is creating additional liability for our schools systems. There is no way I can tell the parents for instance i n our child development program that we can no longer transport their children to their child development classes. I respectfully await your prompt action concerning this matter.

Sincerely. George W. Seaborn, President South Carolina Association of School Superintendents

ID: nht92-9.19

DATE: February 7, 1992

FROM: Marc C. Gravino -- Williams & McCarthy

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Marc C. Gravino (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am seeking in your legal opinion as to the interpretation of Standard 108 of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Code, found at Title 49, S571.108 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In particular, I would like to obtain your opinion as to the following question: Does NHTSA Standard 108 contain any requirement that the parking lamps, tail lamps, or side marker lamps (otherwise sometimes commonly referred to "marker" lights or "delineation" lights) operate INDEPENDENTLY of the ignition or equivalent switch, so that when they are activated, they will remain activated regardless of whether or not the ignition switch is in the on or off position? If there is such a legal requirement, was it in effect for cars manufactured in 1988 and sold in the U.S.?

I have reviewed Standard 108, Subsection 5.5.3, 5.5.4, 5.5.5, and 5.5.7, a copy of which I have enclosed herewith for your reference.

I was referred to you by Mr. Gene Wright, who I understand is the Chairman of the signaling and marking devices committee of SAE. Thank you for your assistance in providing a legal opinion in this matter. If there is any further information you need from me, or if you would like any clarification, please feel free to write to me or call me at my office at 815/987-8900.

Attachment

Copy of 49 CFR Ch.V (10-1-89 Edition) regarding Section 571.108. (Text omitted)

ID: 1985-01.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Philip Yale Simons, Esq. -- Freeman, Wasserman and Schneider

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Philip Yale Simons, Esq. Freeman, Wasserman & Schneider 90 John Street New York, New York 10038

I am responding to your January 24, 1985, request for confirmation that the Hagglunds Bv 206 is not subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. As you describe the Bv 206, it is an all-terrain vehicle consisting of front and rear cabs, which travels on rubber tracks. You further state that the vehicle is neither designed nor intended for use on public streets, roads, and highways.

The safety standards and regulations that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues are applicable only to "motor vehicles." Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 defines "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Based on your description and the specification sheets you enclosed, the Bv 206 does not appear to be suitable for use on public roads. It therefore is not considered a "motor vehicle" and is not subject to our safety regulations.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

January 24, 1985

Attention: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Subject: Ruling Request: All-Terrain Vehicle

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is submitted on behalf of our client, ASEA Hagglunds Inc., The Woodlands, Texas ("Hagglunds"), and constitutes a request for a ruling to exclude Hagglunds Bv 206 all-terrain vehicles from the requirements of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. S1381 et. seq., hereinafter the "Act"). Hagglunds purchases the all-terrain vehicles from its Swedish manufacturer and imports them into the United States.

For the reasons stated below, we respectfully submit that the vehicles in question are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of Section 102(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. S1391(3)), and are, therefore, exempt from the requirements of the Act.

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VEHICLE

The Hagglunds all-terrain vehicle is designed specifically for off the street and off the highway use. The Bv 206 vehicle is designed to traverse rocky surfaces, snow-covered surfaces, forests, mountains and similar harsh or "adverse" terrain over which "ordinary" vehicles cannot travel. The vehicle is comprised of front and rear cabs which are joined by an articulated steering unit. The front cab is powered by a 125 horsepower diesel engine. The back cab does not contain a motor and is mechanically linked to the front cab.

The all-terrain carrier travels on tracks of molded rubber which enhance the mobility and load bearing ability of the Bv 206 in two significant ways. First, the broad (620 millimeters) rubber tracks provide a low ground contact pressure (1.7 pounds/square inch) which allows the Bv 206 to maneuver over snow-covered surfaces, marshlands and other soft terrain, without sinking. Secondly, the molded rubber tracks are designed to grip the surface to enhance the carrier's hill climbing ability. (The attached brochure provides a description of the vehicles and technical data pertaining to them.)

The Hagglunds Bv 206 all-terrain vehicle is utilized for a variety of applications, all of which involve off-road uses: forestry, transmission line installation, construction work at remote sites, forest firefighting, rescue and relief work, and crew transport to remote sites. In fact, Hagglunds has, in the past, sold all-terrain vehicles to United States purchasers for use in geophysical exploration, in national parks, for the construction of the Alaskan pipeline, and ski operations. The United States government has also purchased Hagglunds vehicles for military use.

No ordinary motor vehicle can operate over the terrains that the Hagglunds Bv 206 is designed to traverse. It is clear that the Bv 206 is not designed, nor is it suitable for operation on public streets, roads, and highways.

II. APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS

Section 12.80 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. S12.80) provides that motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 which are offered for entry into the United States Customs territory shall be denied entry under the importer or consignee files documents which indicate that the vehicles conform to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. SS1392, 1407), and set forth in Part 571 of the Department of Transportation ("DOT") Regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 571).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation January 24, 1985 Page 6

vehicle has a maximum speed of 60 kilometers/hour and the Bv 206 has a maximum speed oF 50 kilometers/hour; (ii) the CROCO vehicle and the Bv 206 are used for the same civil uses (e.g. construction, forestry, ambulance duty, etc.); (iii) both vehicles have been purchased for military use; and (iv) both vehicles are amphibious.

In addition, the Bv 206 has several unique features which render its use on streets or highways more "impractical" or "unlikely" than the CROCO vehicles. The Bv 206 travels on tracks whereas the CROCO vehicle is equipped with tires. Also, the CROCO vehicle is comprised of a single unit whereas the Bv 206 consists of two sections. If the NHTSA considers a vehicle with tires and a single cab not to be a "motor vehicle", then it is obvious that a substantially similar vehicle which has tracked road contact means and is comprised of two sections is also not a "motor vehicle."

Another NHTSA ruling also indicates that the Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Act. In a ruling dated March 25, 1982, the NHTSA held that a "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is (i) readily usable on public roads and (ii) is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of the vehicle owners. The Bv 206 is not designed for use on public

5 Letter to Leonard A. Fink dated March 25, 1982.

roads nor is it is fact used for such purposes. The Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" as set forth in the March 25, 1982 ruling because: (i) it does not have the power (its maximum speed is approximately 50 kilometers/hour) and maneuverability (it consists of two cars) to make it effective under virtually any highway condition, (ii) it is advertised specifically for offroad use, (iii) the vehicle's manufacturer does not assist and will not assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents, and (iv) it is not marketed by dealers also selling vehicles which are indisputably classified as motor vehicles.

Accordingly, the Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" because the manufacturer did not intend the vehicle to be used on the public highway part of the time and the manufacturer has no reason to expect the vehicle will be used in that way.

C. Legislative History

The legislative history of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 clearly indicates that a vehicle such as the Hagglunds Bv 206 was not the type of vehicle targeted by the legislation. In Senate Report No. 1301 the Commerce Committee stated that the subject legislation is an attempt to stem the soaring rate of death in our country's

6 Pub. L. No. 89-563, 80 Stat. 71. (1966).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation January 24, 1985 Page 8

highways.7 The legislation is not intended for off-road vehicles, especially those which are intended for use in the backwoods. Accordingly, the Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Act.

IV. CONCLUSION

We respectfully request that the NHTSA issue a ruling which excludes the all-terrain vehicles imported by Hagglunds from the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Should you contemplate issuing a ruling which is adverse to our position, we request the opportunity to discuss the matter with you prior to any final action.

We appreciate your cooperation in expediting this matter.

Very truly yours,

Philip Yale Simons

PYS/JJR/hcu Enclosure

[Brochure Omitted]

ID: nht72-1.50

DATE: 11/28/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Pride Products Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 23, 1972, requesting information on the use of sample testing for determining conformity to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. You ask if there are sampling provisions to which manufacturers should currently be adhering.

There is no specified sampling provision for manufacturers to follow in testing their products for conformity to Standard No. 213. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires each item of motor vehicle equipment (for example, each child seat) to conform to the applicable safety standard in effect on its date of manufacture. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to decide what type of testing program is necessary to be reasonably certain that each item complies. The extent of his sampling should depend on such factors as the margin by which typical samples pass the performance requirements, the amount of variation in production that is present, and the degree to which substandard items can be detected by non-destructive techniques.

ID: 11663.DRN

Bruce A. Zagar, Esq.
Garrett, Hemann, Robertson, Paulus
Jennings & Comstock, P.C.
1011 Commercial Street, N.E.
Salem, OR 97308-0749

Dear Mr. Zagar:

This responds to your letter asking whether a public school district may use a "currently-owned passenger van" which seats more than 10 persons to transport students for school activities.

The law administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) authorizes the agency to regulate the safety of new motor vehicles. The law has recently been recodified as Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code, but has not been substantively changed. Under 49 U.S.C. '30125, a Aschool bus@ is any vehicle which is designed to carry 11 or more persons and which is likely to be significantly used to transport students to and from school or related events. Thus, a person selling a vehicle meeting that definition must certify that it meets the safety standards applicable to school buses.

Our standards do not apply to vehicles after their sale to the first retail purchaser. If the purchaser of a 12-15 passenger van that is not certified to the school bus standards decides to use the van to transport students, neither our statute nor our standards would prevent such a use.

However, the states have authority to regulate motor vehicle use within their boundaries. Thus, although NHTSA cannot require the use of school buses to transport students, the State of Oregon may have exercised such authority. Your question about the permissibility of using conventional vans as school vehicles should be addressed to your state officials.

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 at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Al Shannon Oregon Director of Pupil Transportation Department of Education 255 Capitol St. NE Salem, OR 97310-0203 ref:571 d:5/17/96 ref:571.3