ID: nht90-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 23, 1990

FROM: GEORGE F. BALL -- GM LEGAL STAFF

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD, ESQ. -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-27-90 TO GEORGE F. BALL FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 201; PART 571.3

TEXT: General Motors Corporation is writing to obtain your interpretation of the scope and coverage of Standard 201 (49 CFR 571.201) as it applies to "interior compartment doors," and your interpretation of the definition of "interior compartment door," which is contained in 49 CFR 571.3.

General Motors plans to offer a convenience feature in one of its car lines planned for Model Year 1991. It is requested that the design details of the feature and the car line for which it is intended be treated by NHTSA as confidential business inform ation, as the information relates to a product plan for a specific model that is not yet publicly available. However, for purposes of this interpretation, the feature can be described generally as a cupholder permanently installed in the console assembl y between the driver and right front passenger. The cupholder assembly includes a pivot, which allows the cupholder to recess into the console when it is not needed. When the cupholder is recessed, the bottom face of the cupholder assembly is flush wit h the console assembly.

We are seeking your concurrence with our interpretation that the bottom face of the cupholder is not covered by @ 3.3 of FMVSS 201 because it is not an "interior compartment door" as defined by Part 571.3.

Part 571.3 provides:

Interior compartment door means any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects.

When the bottom of the cupholder is facing the driver and passenger (which is the only configuration it could be thought of as a cover), there is no storage space for personal effects. Thus, applying the language of the definition, the underside of the cupholder cannot be considered an "interior compartment door" because it is not "installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects."

Furthermore, General Motors believes this feature does not pose a hazard to occupants in crashes and is consistent with NHTSA's occupant protection interests. The purpose of the standard is to reduce the potential for injury from the interior surfaces o f the passenger compartment by encouraging the use of energy absorbing materials, rounded edges on exposed surfaces and similar designs. In its January 1988 evaluation of Standard 201, NHTSA describes the standard as:

". . . the synthesis of occupant compartment geometry, energy absorbing materials on the interior surfaces of the compartment and the integrity and controlled crush of the entire vehicle structure. It is all the parts of a vehicle - other than the re straint system - which, if well designed, combine to make the occupant compartment a potentially safe environment even in a severe crash."

(NHTSA Technical Report evaluating Standard 201, January 1988, DOT HS 807 203, page xv)

In the evaluation, NHTSA concluded that Standard 201 has been successful in improving the safety of the instrument panel, particularly for the right front passenger. NHTSA noted that much of the safety improvement is attributable to design changes made voluntarily by the manufacturers in areas not directly regulated by Standard 201, but which incorporate the instrument panel modifications contemplated by the Standard (such as use of energy absorbing materials).

Consistent with this observation, General Motors has incorporated the goals of Standard 201 in the design of the cupholder. For example, it is constructed of energy absorbing material, and with 1/8" radii on the cupholder corners facing the vehicle occu pant so as to prevent contact with sharp edges. General Motors notes that its cupholder, when in view, presents (in theory) no greater hazard than cupholders designed to be permanently fixed in place in a vehicle's console which would be allowed by FMVS S 201. In this connection, General Motors is not aware of any formal concerns expressed by NHTSA about the safety of permanently fixed cupholders. Additionally, inasmuch as the cupholder rotation is controlled by a viscous drive mechanism, it takes app roximately 3.5 seconds to open, which is substantially longer than the fraction of a second duration of an impact. This slow opening rate would negate concerns about the cupholder "flying open and striking an occupant in a crash." (See NHTSA 1/31/86 Let ter to Russ Bomhoff.)

Moreover, a review of the history of the "interior compartment door" provision of Standard 201 has persuaded General Motors that the standard was not intended to cover the bottom face of its cupholder.

When NHTSA (then the National Highway Safety Bureau) proposed to regulate the performance of glove compartment doors in 1967 (revised later in 1967 to read "interior compartment doors"), the agency received numerous public comments regarding the scope of the Standard. Many auto manufacturers and their trade associations pointed out that there was no definition of "interior compartment door" in the proposal, leading to the possible inclusion of such features as ash tray doors or covers for spare tire co mpartments. The Automobile Manufacturers Association (the predecessor to the MVMA) offered a suggested definition of "interior compartment door" which was intended to "ensure that interior compartment door assemblies not intended to come within the scop e of the Standard were not inadvertently included" in the Standard's coverage. The proposed AMA definition attempted to clarify the Standard's coverage by focusing on whether the "interior compartment door" was intended as a "closure for stowage space i ntended for personal belongings."

Although several commenters (including California Highway Patrol, the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission and the State of Illinois) urged that the Standard should cover ash trays and other such compartments, the preamble to the final rule in October 196 8 agreed that interior compartments such as ash trays and spare tire covers were not included in the Standard's coverage. The Agency adopted a variation of the industry association definition, asserting that "it was not intended that ash receivers and s pare tire compartment doors in station wagons be included in the Standard and a definition has been added to clarify the application of the Standard." (33 Fed. Reg. 15794, Oct. 25, 1968). Indeed, NHTSA/NHSB's acknowledgement in the preamble to the final rule that ash trays and spare tire compartment doors were never intended to be covered by the Standard confirms that NHTSA/NHSB was not concerned with every item that may open in the occupant compartment; rather, NHTSA/NHSB was concerned with those door s (primarily, but not limited to, glove box doors) which could themselves induce injury during a crash.

The NHTSA has had few opportunities to interpret the definition of "interior compartment door" or the pertinent provisions of Standard 201; however, those which do exist support our conclusion that the design in question is not covered. One such interpr etation was issued to Russ Bomhoff of Precision Pattern, Inc. on January 31, 1986, and concluded that fold-down tables mounted in seat backs and doors are not "interior compartment doors," presumably because they are not covers for any storage space.

A July 3, 1984 interpretation to Bruce Henderson of Automobile Importers of America concluded that a fuse box cover was also beyond the purview of Standard 201, stating that: "The definition [of interior compartment door] is meant to include such storage areas as

the "glovebox" which has a larger door which could fly open i crash, and not a portion of the vehicle's electrical system such as a fuse box, which is not used as storage space."

In an August 21, 1985, interpretation to Mazda, the Agency found an interior compartment door in connection with an expandable magazine rack; this interpretation is distinguishable because both Mazda and the Agency concluded that the magazine rack was st orage space for personal effects.

In conclusion, after a review of the Standard, its regulatory history and applicable interpretations, General Motors concludes that the new design does not constitute an "interior compartment door" within the meaning of FMVSS 201 and its associated defin ition. We respectfully request your concurrence with this conclusion by March 1.

ID: nht90-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/25/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: LARRY S. SNOWHITE, ESQ. -- MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED JULY 27, 1989 TO STEPHEN WOOD, NHTSA, FROM LARRY SNOWHITE, MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, ATTACHED; [OCC - 3763]

TEXT: This replies to your letters asking for a determination "that the sale into the aftermarket as well as aftermarket installation of the Advanced Brake Light Device ('ABLD') . . . would not violate" any of this agency's statutes or regulations.

As you have described it, the ABLD "consists of a sensor attached to the accelerator pedal that senses the rate at which the foot releases the accelerator pedal. This signal is sent to a processor unit, which determines whether the brake lights should b e turned on, and the duration of the illumination until the brake is applied. The ABLD is set so that the brake light will go off unless the brake is applied within one second of the ABLD's activation . . . ." You believe that this avoids providing a mi sleading signal. You further indicate the manufacturer's willingness to alter the time interval if NHTSA's favorable opinion is required for it.

You have not defined the term "aftermarket", but we shall assume that you mean sales to vehicle owners of equipment for installation on their vehicles (as contrasted with sales to dealers for installation on new vehicles before their delivery). There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to the system described in your letter. This means that there are no Federal restrictions upon the importation, manufacture, or sale of the ABLD. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (specifically, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), as you surmise, modifications to vehicles by a person other than the vehicle owner are permissible as long as they do not "render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device . . . installed on . . . a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ."

The essential question then is whether the installation of the ABLD renders partially or wholly inoperative the vehicle's stop lamps. As you know, in our interpretations on lighting equipment, we have noted a close relationship between the statute's ren dering inoperative prohibition for

the aftermarket with the standard's impaired effectiveness prohibition for supplementary original equipment. Primarily, maintaining that relationship is done in order to avoid regulatory inconsistency with interpretations under which installation of an item of aftermarket equipment might be deemed acceptable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, while its installation as original equipment would violate Standard No. 108.

There are two types of supplementary original, or aftermarket, lighting equipment: those that operate independently of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires, and those that operate in connection with that equipment. A separate red rear f og lamp would be an example of the former. The ABLD is an example of the latter, because it has a direct effect upon the operation of the stop lamp.

An aftermarket device that has an effect upon the operation of required lighting equipment cannot be deemed permissible unless that effect is consistent with the operation and purpose of the required equipment. As you stated, the SAE defines a stop lamp as one whose function indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking". You have argued that "The ABLD is consistent because it "clearly and unambiguously indicates" an operator's intent to apply the brake. Y our client, however, does not make that claim for the ABLD; it concedes that "there will be circumstances in which the brake will not be engaged after the ABLD is activated."

The heart of our concern is that while the standard requires the stop lamp to operate in only one particular circumstance, the ABLD causes the stop lamp to operate at an earlier time when the lamp is supposed to be unlighted. Further, the ABLD's activat ion of the stop lamp indicates only that the operator has released the accelerator. It does not necessarily follow that the brake pedal will later be applied. Under this fact situation, the stop lamps fulfill a purpose other than for which they are ins talled. This can only create the potential for confusion and dilution of the effectiveness of the stop signal. For the reasons stated above, we have concluded that installation of the ABLD in the aftermarket would render the stop lamps partially inopera tive. Because this conclusion does not depend upon whether the ABLD would be acceptable using the different parameters of performance to which it is apparently capable of being adjusted, there appears to be no reason to discuss this matter with you befo re completion of this interpretation, which would further delay our response.

We would like to discuss several other points. You have stated that "Illuminations of the brake lights for one second or less occur frequently during normal driving without the ABLD", and have sought to allay our concerns with the manufacturer's willing ness to reduce the stop lamp activation time from one second to something less if that is required for a favorable interpretation. You have also provided information that the ABLD comes into operation only when the foot is released from the pedal at a ra te consistent with an intent to apply the brake, as in an emergency situation.

While we appreciate these arguments, we do not find them persuasive. The short periods of illumination to which you refer are occasioned by application of the brake pedal, no matter how brief that application is. The offer to reduce the activation time of the ABLD if it is not followed by a brake application would reduce but not eliminate stop lamp activation for purposes other than to indicate a stop or diminished speed. As for foot-movement time, there appears to be no indication in the University of Michigan study that you submitted that the ABLD was activated in traffic emergencies. The foot-movement time measurements seem consistent with removal of the foot from the accelerator under ordinary traffic situations, and thus there should have been no instances of ABLD activation.

Your most recent letter contained a copy of a report of an independent field study of the ABLD in Israel, which "found that rear-end accidents were reduced by 75 percent." However, the report states that the ABLD-equipped vehicles ("except a few") were a lso equipped with center high-mounted stop lamps. Since any reductions in rear-end accidents that were experienced by the test fleets cannot be attributed solely to the ABLD, the data must be viewed as inconclusive.

The acceptability for use of the ABLD must also be determined under the laws of the individual States. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you get in touch with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for further advice. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

ID: nht90-1.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 25, 1990

FROM: James R. Mitzenberg -- Project Engineer, The Flxible Corporation

TO: Steven P. Wood -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-26-90 from P.J. Rice to J.R. Mitzenberg (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The Flxible Corporation is a city transit bus manufacturer and requests an interpretation concerning FMVSS 108, "Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment".

An air brake system is used on our bus. As the driver starts to apply the service brake pedal to stop the bus, a service brake stop lamp switch is activated. The stop lamp switch is installed to comply with Section S5.1.7 of FMVSS 121, "Air brake syste ms". The stop lights are activated by the stop lamp switch.

The Flxible Corporation offers an optional transmission retarder for supplemental braking, to increase brake lining life. This retardation is over and above the normal service brake system. The transmission retarder is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, air is emitted from the brake valve and the service brakes are activated.

A ruling is requested on whether a non-compliance with Section S4.5.4 of FMVSS 108 would result, if the stop lamps were activated by engagement of the retarder, prior to the activation of the service brakes. Section S4.5.4 states: "The stop lamps on eac h vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes". The driver is depressing the service brake pedal to stop or slow down the vehicle. However, if the stop lights are activated by the retarder, the stop lights could be illuminated wit hout the service brakes actually being applied during that initial travel of the service brake pedal, and up until the point in time air is actually emitted from the brake pedal and into the service brake system.

ID: nht90-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/90

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- NHTSA Acting Chief Counsel

TO: John G. Sims -- Governmental Affairs Champion Motor Coach, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM JOHN, G. SIMS -- CHAMPION MOTOR COACH INC. DATED 11/06/89 TO ROBERT F. HELLMUTH -- NHTSA; RE FMVSS 217; REFERENCE NO NEF-31 RSH; CIR 2996

TEXT: Dear Mr. Simms:

This responds to your November 6, 1989 letter to Robert Hellmuth, Director of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). In that letter, you stated that OVSC had misinterpreted and misapplied the requirements of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Standard No . 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217). I conclude that OVSC correctly interpreted those sections of Standard No. 217 and correctly applied those sections to your company's buses.

The buses in question are not school buses and have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, section S5.5.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that: " . . . each emergency door shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'E mergency Exit' . . . followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism."

Your company has designated the door immediately adjacent to the driver's seating position in these buses as an emergency exit. Operating instructions for that emergency exit are located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. However, the designation of this door as an emergency exit appears on a label located on a stanchion immediately behind the driver's seat, facing the passenger seating area. This designation does not appear within 6 inches of the release mechanism. You suggest that this arran gement complies with Standard No. 217, because S5.5.1 requires only the operating instructions, and not the emergency exit designation, to be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism.

I disagree with your suggestion. While it might be possible to construe the language of S5.5.1 in the manner you suggest, the agency has consistently interpreted S5.5.1 as requiring that both the emergency exit designation and the operating instructions be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. Nothing in the correspondence you refer to undermines this conclusion.

2

Contrary to the assertion in your letter, there is a clear safety basis for requiring the emergency exit designation to be within 6 inches of the emergency exit release mechanism. This ensures that any person reaching the exit can quickly find both the release mechanism and the instructions. In an emergency, persons are used to finding an emergency exit where they see a label with the designation "Emergency Exit." In your company's buses, a person seeing the emergency exit label located on the driver' s seat stanchion could be misled into thinking that there is an exit somewhere behind the driver's seat, rather than at the driver's door, thus wasting valuable escape time. This is exactly the type of situation S5.5.1 is intended to prevent.

Your letter also suggests that requiring the emergency exit designation within 6 inches of the release mechanism would substantially reduce the visibility of the emergency exit sign, since the operating mechanism is frequently located below the shoulder level of seated passengers. While this may be true in some cases, I do not believe it would be likely to impede emergency egress. In an emergency situation, the occupants of the seat adjacent to the exit are likely to be the first ones out of the exit, and would thus no longer impede the visibility of the exit designation for other passengers seeking to exit.

We are only focusing on the designation here. Also, once it is open, the instructions aren't needed.

Your letter also suggests that the emergency exit requirements for school buses, contained in S5.5.3, support your interpretation of S5.5.1, because the school bus emergency exit requirements specifically authorize the separation of the emergency exit de signation and operating instructions. I must again disagree with you on this point. NHTSA recognized the considerable differences between school buses and other buses when Standard No. 217 was being developed. S5.5.3 addresses a very different set of circumstances. School buses typically have one emergency door, located at or near the rear of the bus. The requirement in S5.5.3 that the designation be in letters at least two inches high "at the top of or directly above the emergency exit" is designe d to ensure that school bus passengers will be able to locate this exit from any seating position in the bus. This is not the case for your company's buses, which feature several window exits located throughout the bus, in addition to the exit at issue here.

The second issue raised in your letter concerns the requirements of S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217. That section requires that emergency exit "markings" be visible to occupants in specified locations, under lighting and occupant visual acuity conditions set forth in S5.5.2. You suggested that the emergency exit "markings" referenced in S5.5.2 refers only to the designation of an exit as an emergency exit, and not to the operating instructions for that emergency exit. I disagree with this suggestion as wel l.

3

As we noted earlier, S5.5.1 sets forth requirements for both emergency exit designations and emergency exit operating instructions. Immediately following these requirements, S5.5.2 specifies that "each marking shall be legible . . ." (emphasis added). S5.5.2 nowhere draws any distinction between markings designating an exit as an emergency exit and markings setting forth operating instructions for the emergency exit. Neither is any such distinction inherent in the use of the term "marking." According ly, the ordinary meaning of the term "marking" and the background of this regulatory provision show that as used in S5.5.2, the word "markings" refers to both the emergency exit designation and the emergency exit operating instructions required by S5.5.1 .

If you have any further questions concerning these issues, please feel free to contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 26, 1990

FROM: KENT D. SMITH

TO: OFFICE CHIEF COUNCIL -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-22-90 TO KENT D. SMITH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; STD. 108]

TEXT: I recently submitted an invention on a safety device to the Office of Crash Avoidance Research in the U.S. Department of Transportation. William A. Leasure, Jr., the Director of this office, responded to my letter but referred me to your office because there were some legal questions involved.

I believe that vehicles need some way of signaling following drivers if the headlamps of their vehicles are blinding you. I am a Driver Education teacher and whenever my students confront me with this problem there is no solution that up to now is ef fective. My invention, which is designed to deal with this problem is this: A button on the dashboard is attached to the backup lights. When the button is pushed the backup lights will go on and off in a matter of a second or less. The lights would not come back on again unless the button was pressed a second time. If necessary the button could be hooked up to only one of the backup lights. This would eliminate any confusion on the part of the driver of the following vehicle as to which direction th e car may be going. An alternative could be to hook the button up to the license plate lights. If this were done a double filament light would have to be installed so that the increase in intensity would be immediately observable by the driver of the f ollowing vehicle. This method of installation would not violate the SAE Standard for backup lights but I dont feel that it would be as effective as having the backup lights momentarily activated. I firmly believe that this new innovative concept would give the driver an effective means of informing the driver of the following vehicle that you were being blinded by his inconsiderate action.

I'm aware of the Federal law that states that the backup lights should not be on when the car is going in a forward direction. I believe that the intent of the law is to force people to make repairs so that those lights will not stay on and therby co nfuse people into thinking that the car is backing up rather than going forward. It would seem to me that this new concept could be added to an automobile without violating the intent of the federal law concerning backup lights.

I explained my idea to a gentleman from the Utah Department of Public Safety. He felt the idea was good enough that it should be pursued even if it meant making a revision in the Federal law that governed backup lights.

Would you please offer me any recommendations, either positive or negative, in regards to this invention. I thank you for your time and look forward to hearing from you in the very near future.

Please send your reply to: Kent D. Smith 12249 S. 1565 E. Draper Utah 84020

ID: nht90-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 26, 1990

FROM: Pat Crahan -- Director, U-Haul International

TO: A. L. Burgett -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-9-90 to Pat Crahan from Paul J. Rice; A35; Std. 115 TEXT:

I had the pleasure of hearing you speak and meeting you during the AAMVA Engineering and Vehicle Inspection workshop at Lake Buena Vista, Florida in December.

I was particularly interested in the portion of your talk relating to VIN requirements for trailers. As I recall you stressed that a seventeen digit VIN was required even if a person made a trailer himself and sold it; however if it was not sold the VIN was not required.

I asked you if U-Haul was required to have the seventeen digit VIN on our trailers since we make them ourselves and they are never sold? You asked that I write to you, which is the reason for this letter.

LPDS 1989

ID: nht90-1.27

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 29, 1990

FROM: W.A. Jacques -- Ford Rent-A-Car System., Dealer Fleet Operations Manager

TO: All Ford Rent-A-Car System Members

TITLE: Rental of Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons for Student Transportation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-25-90 To Lloyd Bentsen and From Stephen P. Wood (A35; VSA 102(14), 108(a)(1)(a), 108(b)(1); Also attached to letter dated 3-8-90 To Jerry Ralph Curry and From Lloyd Bensen; Also attached to letter dated 2-12-90 To Llo yd Bentsen and From Johannah Bonewald

TEXT:

Prupose This letter is intended to help remedy confusion that apparently exists among some dealers as to what vehicles may be lawfully rented for student transportation. Both Federal and state motor vehicle safety laws and regulations apply to such vehicles.

Legal Requirements The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, and related regulations specify that school buses offered for sale shall meet certain unique requirements .

"School bus" is defined in the regulations as "a bus that is sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a c ommon carrier in urban transportation.

"Bus," in turn, is defined as "a motor vehicle ... designed for carrying more than 10 persons." 49 Code of Federal Regulations S571.3.

Units Having More Than Ten Seating Positions Because Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons having more than ten designated seating positions do not comply with the requirements of Federal standards specifically applicable to school buses, they should not be rented for transportation of preprimary, prim ary, or secondary school students to and from school or related events.

Ford sells incomplete vehicles (Econoline Vans and Cutaways with School bus Prep Packages and B-Series Chassis Cowls) to be completed as school buses by specialized school bus manufacturers.

Units Having Ten or Fewer Seating Positions The Federal school bus standards do not apply to Ford 5, 7 and 8 passenger Club Wagons as these vehicles are not "designed for carrying more than 10 persons"

There may be, however, state or local regulations requiring special equipment or identification that must be satisfied before the lower capacity Club Wagons may be used for student transportation. It is the responsibility of the dealer and the rental cus tomer to determine whether any state or local regulations are applicable.

Units for Transportation of College or University Students Questions sometimes arise concerning rental of Club Wagons and Super Wagon to colleges and universities to transport students on field trips or to athleticevents.

An opinion from the Office of the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator indicates that vehicles used for such purposes are not considered to be "school buses" in determining applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety stand ards.

However, as the opinion points out, individual states are free to regulate vehicles used to transport college and university students if they chose to do so.

Dealer Responsibilities Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has indicated that it considers the provider of a vehicle to be the person most likely to know its intended use, Ford Motor Company recommends that all dealers who rent a Club Wagon or a Super Wa gon as manufactured by Ford Motor Company with more than 10 designed seating positions obtain for his files a signed statement from the rental customer that the vehicle is not being used for carrying students to and from school or related events. If a de aler rents such a vehicle and knows or has reason to know that the rental customer intends to use the vehicle as a school bus, the dealer may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac t.

As stated above, it is the responsibility of the dealer and the rental customer to determine whether any state or local regulations apply to vehicles sold or leased for student transportation.

If you have any questions concerning this bulletin, please contact your Regional office.

ID: nht90-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/90

FROM: TIMOTHY A. KELLY -- SALEM VENT INTERNATIONAL

TO: DAVID A GREENBURG -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/30/90, FROM STEPHEN P WOOD -- NHTSA TO TIMOTHY A. KELLY; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 01/29/90 FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217

TEXT: (Illegible Word) you for the courtesies extended to the writer during my visit with (Illegible Word) Thursday afternoon January 25th, following my previous discussions (Illegible Word) Delarm. As we discussed, Salem Vent International already manufactur es a roof ventilating panel as shown on print #4220-001 attached. As (Illegible Word), the 4220-001 lacks a mounting frame which is supplied as part (Illegible Word) bus. To complete our program, we will need to design our own mounting frame and also a method by which the cover can swing free to provide an (Illegible Word) hatch. My concern was that we design the proper size to conform FMVSS 217.

(Illegible Word) said that his reading of the spec was that the opening had to (Illegible Word) an ellipsoid having 20" as its major axis and 13" as its minor (Illegible Word) and that this ellipsoid had to be able to fit through the escape (Illegible Wo rd) in the horizontal position. It looks to me that our existing tool(Illegible Word) accomodate this ellipsoid with ease.

Further discussed the specification as to what type of busses 217 (Illegible Word) covers and you pointed out that school busses were specifically covered by 217. While a roof escape hatch/ventilator is undoubtedly a (Illegible Word) option, it is not m andatory and does not allow the builder to (Illegible Word) any other methods of egress by its presence.

(Illegible Word), on other types of busses (transit, inter-city, airport, etc.) if builder elects to use an escape hatch/ventilator in the roof, they are (Illegible Word) to delete the rear exit door.

(Illegible Word) I left you I began to wonder what would happen if a bus builder put (Illegible Word) than one ventilator/escape hatch in the roof. Would the builder be (Illegible Word) to delete other specified methods of egress other, than the rear (I llegible Word) or would the additional ventilator/escape hatches really only serve purpose of additional ventilation to the bus.

2

You said that if I wanted an official opinion from the Office of the Chief Counsel, that I ought to request it in writing. John Machey suggested the same thing when I talked with him this morning and so attached hereto is a formal request for your opini on on my questions. I have tried to make this as simple as possible and I would be happy to hear from you if you have any questions as to my request.

Again it was my pleasure to meet you.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht90-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/90

FROM: TIMOTHY A. KELLY -- SALEM VENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

TO: DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/30/90; FROM STEPHEN P WOOD -- NHTSA TO TIMOTHY A. KELLY; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 01/29/90, FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217; OCC 4 382

TEXT: Pursuant to our meeting of Thursday, January 25, 1990, I respectfully request a written opinion on the following questions regarding FMVSS 217.

1. Size of Escape Hatch: The only size specification mentioned is that the hatch must accomodate an ellipsoid with a major axis of 20" and a minor axis of 13" pushed horizontally through the escape hatch opening.

Is this correct?

2. Application of Specification: A. FMVSS 217 does not address the use of escape hatches/ventilators in the roof of school busses.

B. FMVSS 217 does address the use of an escape hatch/ventilator in the roof of busses other than school busses, and further states that if such a device is used (and it conforms to the ellipsoid spec) then a rear exit door may be deleted on vehicles other than school busses.

Are A and B above correct?

3. Further Possible Deletions: If the non-school bus manufacturer applies more than one roof escape hatch/ventilator, do any further deletions (other than the rear exit door) accrue to the manufacturer under FMVSS 217. My reading shows that no furth er deletions are available to the manufacturer and that more than one escape hatch/ventilator simply serves the function of additional roof top ventilation.

Is the above correct?

Thank you for your prompt attention to these questions - I will await your response.

Sincerely,

[DRAWING OMITTED]

ID: nht90-1.3

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/90 EST

FROM: Charles T. Thomas -- Prestige Travel

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-3-90 to Charles T. Thomas from P. J. Rice; (A35; Part 591) TEXT:

In September, 1988, I returned to the United States after working in Saudi Arabia for a period of approximately twelve (12) years. While in Saudi Arabia and during November 1987, I purchased a 1985 Jaguar from a Saudi national with the intent to ship th e car to the United States for my own personal use when I decided to return to the United States.

When I was preparing to return, I was advised by the American Consulate in Dhahran that I would not be able to ship the car to the States because of the EPA pollution restrictions and because there were no agencies approved by the EPA to convert the car to U.S. pollution safeguard standards. As I did not want to give up the car, I shipped it to Germany to have it held until I could arrange to have it shipped to the States. On arrival in the United States in September 1988, I contacted the EPA and was t old that there were no agencies approved to convert the car. The car is still in Germany.

During March 1990, I was told that the EPA had changed their requirements that required mandatory conversion of imported vehicles if certain conditions were met regarding the purchase of the vehicle. I applied for a waiver for having to have the car con verted to EPA standards and my application was approved.

When preparing to have the car shipped, I was informed that the DOT has set forth certain requirements for importing cars. I have received a copy of DECLARATION OMB 2127-0002 and, under Section 10 of the Declaration, I find that my "assigned place of em ployment has been outside the United States at all times between October 31, 1988 and the Custom entry date listed". This is the only condition I cannot meet and I request a formal waiver of this requirement for my circumstance.

I need my car for my own personal use and I cannot afford to purchase a car at this time. Also, I am a professional engineer and have spent approximately 30 years of my career in resident in foreign countries. I have already made arrangements to have m y car converted to DOT safety standards at my expense. I feel that a consideration to waiver the above requirement is warranted.

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your prompt decision regarding my request.