ID: 24365-2.rbm

Ms. Kimberly Boucher
Spartan Motor Chassis, Inc.
1165 Reynolds Road
Charlotte, MI 48813

Dear Ms. Boucher:

This responds to your letter asking whether fire trucks are required to have side door locks that meet the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (FMVSS No. 206). Your question is addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. FMVSS No. 206, which generally regulates door latches, hinges and locks, applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks.

In your letter, you requested NHTSA to make a determination that a fire truck is an incomplete truck rather than a multi-passenger vehicle. You also asked whether it is permissible to have the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) assign a unique vehicle identifier for an incomplete truck,^[1] and whether such an identifier would exempt the vehicle from the side door lock requirements of FMVSS No. 206. In a follow-up conversation with a member of my staff, you clarified that your concern was whether the incomplete vehicles manufactured by your company are trucks or multipurpose passenger vehicles, not whether the vehicle was incomplete or finally manufactured.

NHTSA defines vehicle types according to their particular attributes in 49 CFR 571.3. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A truck is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

The Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may examine the appropriateness of the manufacturer's classification in the context of an enforcement action.

While we can provide opinions about vehicle classification, you do not provide sufficient information in your letter to offer a specific opinion. I note, however, that we would generally expect vehicles commonly referred to as fire trucks to be considered trucks under our regulations, since they are designed primarily for the transportation of firefighting equipment. It is possible that a vehicle operated by a fire department that is designed primarily to transport passengers rather than specialized equipment could be characterized as a multi-purpose vehicle.

As to your question regarding the requirements for side door locks on trucks, I note that the response depends on what type of door the truck is equipped with. FMVSS No. 206 applies to all doors other than folding doors, roll-up doors, doors designed to be easily attached to or detached from the vehicle, and doors equipped with a wheelchair lift that is attached to an alarm system. These doors are excluded from the standard pursuant to S4(c). Additionally, FMVSS No. 206 only regulates the components on side doors that do not fit into one of these excluded categories if the doors lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations (see S4(a)). The standard also specifies requirements for back doors (S4.4). However, these requirements only apply to passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles.

FMVSS No. 206 requires categories of side doors to meet differing requirements depending on where the door is located and how it is attached to the vehicle. The requirements for hinged side doors other than cargo doors are found in S4.1, while the requirements for cargo doors are found in S4.2. Sliding side doors are addressed by S4.3. Of these categories of side doors, only hinged side doors are required to have door locks.

Under S4.1.3, door locks, all hinged side doors covered by the standard must be equipped with a locking mechanism that can be operated from the interior of the vehicle. Additionally, S4.1.3.1, side front door locks, requires all side front doors to have a lock that prevents the door from being opened from the outside of the vehicle when the door lock is engaged.

S4.1.3.2, side rear door locks, requires side rear doors that when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release mechanisms be inoperative. However, S4.1.3.2 does not apply to trucks; it only applies to passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Thus, if the vehicle in question is a truck, it does not need to meet this particular requirement.

I note that under S4.4.2, door locks, each back door system covered by the standard that is equipped with interior door handles, or that leads directly into a compartment with one or more seating accommodations must have a locking mechanism that can be operated from both the inside and the outside of the vehicle. Additionally, when the locking mechanism is engaged, both the inside and outside door handles must be inoperative. However, as noted earlier, FMVSS No. 206's requirements for back doors apply only to passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles and not to trucks.

As a final note, our records indicate that your company already has a vehicle identifier for trucks. Accordingly, there is no need to request the SAE to come up with a unique identifier for any fire trucks that you manufacture.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

ref:206

d.8/2/02

^[1] The first 3-6 characters (depending on the size of the vehicle manufacturer) of a vehicle's vehicle identification number (VIN) are assigned by the SAE and identify the vehicle manufacturer and type. For more detailed information on VINs, please refer to 49 CFR 565.

ID: 24366.ztv

Mr. Brian Kavanaugh
Trade Advisor
Deringer Logistics Consulting Group
1 Lincoln Road, Suite 225
Rouses Point, NY 12979




Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:

This is in reply to your letter asking for an interpretation covering MR-100 and MO-100 compact trailers. You stated that "the MR-100 is for use on the highway and is equipped with DOT approved tail and marker lights." You further stated that "The MO-100 off road trailer is not equipped with any lighting." We understand that you wish to import these trailers into the United States from Canada.

We appreciate your sending us illustrations of both trailers, as that enables us to provide you with a more definitive response to your questions.

We first address your opinion that "the MO-100 off road will not require any DOT approval as it is not for use on the highway." However, you have provided no arguments in support of your conclusion. We do not accept such statements of use at face value when it appears to us that a vehicle is capable of being used both on and off the public roads. As we see them, the MO-100 and the MR-100 are both capable of on and off road use; they are almost identical in appearance and size, and their interior dimensions and volume are identical. There are, to be sure, some distinctions between the two trailers. The rear fender well molding on which the MR-100s rear lamp is mounted has been removed from the MO-100, opening the wheelwell (which might facilitate brush clearance) and the MO-100 is equipped with "AT-22 x 11-8 2 ply tires." However, there does not appear to be any practical reason why the owner of an MO-100 could not replace these tires and their rims with the "5.30 x 12 6 ply tires" of the MR-100. These features taken alone fail to establish that the MO-100 is not likely to be used on the public streets , roads, and highways. I also note that the MO-100 is advertised as having "high speed quality hubs & bearings," which suggests on-road capability.

We would consider such arguments as you care to present in support of your opinion that the MO-100 "is not for use on the highway." We have issued numerous interpretations on the issue of whether particular vehicles are "motor vehicles." I am enclosing one of these interpretations for your consideration (letter to Ronald Sheldon, dated May 4, 2000). For purposes of this letter, we consider that both the MO-100 and MR-100s are motor vehicles and required to comply with the FMVSS that apply to trailers and to be certified as complying with these FMVSS.

You have asked four questions:

"1) Are these trailers in compliance with DOT requirements?"

We do not know. The MO and MR trailers must be manufactured to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 (lamps and reflectors), 119 (tires), and 120 (rims). The MO and MR trailers are too long and too wide to qualify for the exceptions for lighting equipment allowed for smaller trailers under S5.1.1.14 and S5.1.1.15 of Standard No. 108. The manufacturer of the trailers must ensure that they are equipped with all lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 and that they are equipped with tires and rims that meet Standards Nos. 119 and 120 as well.

"2) Do they need a DOT Approval letter to import these trailers into the United States as the Original Manufacturer."

No. There are no "DOT Approval" letters. Each trailer must have a manufacturers certification label affixed to it in the form and manner prescribed by 49 CFR Part 567. That will enable the trailer to be readily imported into the United States.

Nor are there "DOT-approved tail and marker lights" as you referred to them in your letter. A DOT symbol appearing on an item of lighting equipment represents its manufacturers certification of compliance with U.S. Federal requirements. It does not represent any "approval" by DOT. We have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" vehicles or equipment.

"3) Will they have to be entered through a Registered Importer?"

A trailer that has been certified by its original manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (see answer to Question 2 above) may be directly imported into the United States. Vehicles that have not been so certified must be imported through a registered importer, and many other requirements may apply.

"4) Do they have to assign a designated agent for a foreign manufacturer? (Service of Process)?"

Yes. The Canadian manufacturer of the trailers must file such a designation, and the designation must follow the form and content specified in 49 CFR 551.45.

I enclose a copy of information that the agency provides prospective manufacturers of motor vehicles.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.8/15/02

ID: 24384.drn

Susanne Krg, Account Manager
Lemfrder Corporation
Schaltungssysteme GmbH
Technical Center
15811 Centennial Drive
Northville, MI 48167

Dear Ms. Krg:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. You wish to know whether a motor vehicle that includes several proposed shift-by-wire shift patterns would meet Standard No. 102.

You included with your request ten pages of drawings, each of which is stamped "CONFIDENTIAL." We agree these drawings are entitled to confidential treatment as the disclosure of the depictions contained within them is likely to cause competitive harm. In the future, a request for confidential treatment consistent with Part 512 of the Agencys regulations should be included with any such submissions.

With your letter, you show 16 proposed configurations of shift-by-wire shift patterns (not counting the shift pattern of the BMW 7 Series). We assume that the shift patterns are intended to be used in motor vehicles with automatic transmissions. In a telephone conversation with Ms. Nakama, you explained that the shifting would be done by means of a joy stick, which, after being shifted, would return to a default position designated as the "X" position. You further explained that the joy stick may be moved straight up, straight down, and to the right and left (i.e., imagining the face of a clock, to the 12 oclock, 3 oclock, 6 oclock and 9 oclock positions) only. Diagonal movements such as to the one oclock or two oclock positions would not be permitted. I note that most of the shift patterns have two neutral positions. In all of the shift patterns depicted, before it may go into "drive" or "reverse," the joy stick must first be moved to "neutral." Thus, for example, to go into reverse, one moves the joy stick straight up (to go to neutral) and then to the left (to reverse).

Shifting from "Neutral" to "Drive" or "Reverse"

Requirements for shift patterns are specified at paragraph S3.1.1 of Standard No 102, which states in part:

A neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions . . . If the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, it shall be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position.

All of your proposed shift patterns meet the requirement that "a neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions." Since nothing in S3.1.1 specifies that only one neutral position is to be provided, your patterns that would include two neutral positions are not prohibited by S3.1.1.

Shift Patterns with a "Park" Position

The second quoted sentence in S3.1.1 specifies that the "if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, it shall be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position." Two of your shift patterns (Pattern Number Six on the fourth page, Pattern Number Fourteen, on the tenth page) depict the joy stick as going directly from "X," the default position, to "park." If in fact the park position is part of the shift pattern, a vehicle with a joy stick that goes directly from "X" to "park" would not meet S3.1.1. If it is provided as part of the shift lever sequence, the park position must be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position.

The park position requirement in S3.1.1 was addressed by this office in a letter of September 25, 1998, to BMW of North America, Inc. (BMW). In that letter, we stated in part:

Paragraph S3.1.1 explicitly limits the requirement to those park positions included within the Ashift lever sequence.@ It is our interpretation that if park is not selected by the movement of the shift lever, then the park control is not part of the shift lever sequence. In this case, the sentence quoted above does not apply, and the park control does not have to be located at the end, adjacent to reverse.

The park position described in BMWs letter was not in the shift lever sequence. It was selected not by the movement of the shift lever but by pushing on a push-button control mounted on the end of the transmission shift lever. For this reason, we determined that BMW=s vehicle with the park position control (as described in BMWs incoming letter to NHTSA) need not meet the park position requirement in S3.1.1 of Standard No. 102.

Patterns Depicting Functions Other Than Park, Reverse, Neutral and Drive

The fundamental shift patterns (reverse-neutral-drive) of both Pattern Number Nine (page six) and Pattern Number Sixteen (page ten) would meet S3.1.1 of Standard No. 102. However, both Pattern Number Nine and Pattern Number Sixteen each depict at least two additional functions that are not park, reverse, neutral, or drive. Without more specific information about these functions, including what these functions are and how many of them are to be provided, we are unable to provide an opinion whether a motor vehicle with these functions would meet Standard No. 102.

Standard No. 102s Identification of Shift Lever Position Requirements

Unlike traditional transmission shift levers that stay in the gear position selected by the driver, the joy stick in your design defaults to the "X" position after the gear is selected. As a result, a visual display other than the joystick must inform the driver of the current gear selection.

Section 3.1.4 specifies requirements for identification of shift lever positions as follows:

Vehicles with Park Positions- S3.1.4.1 specifies that except when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle, if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist: (a) the ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted; (b) the transmission is not in park.

Vehicles Without Park Positions - S3.1.4.2 specifies that except when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle, if the transmission shift lever sequence does not include a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever the ignition is in a position in which the engine is capable of operation.

S3.1.4.4 specifies that the information required in S3.1.4.1 or S3.1.4.2 must be displayed in view of the driver in a single location. At the option of the manufacturer, redundant displays providing some or all of the information may be provided.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

ref:102

d.8/1/02

ID: 24388.drn

Mr. Brian Barrington
President
Liberty Bus, Inc.
P.O. Box 449
Lima, OH 45802-0449

Dear Mr. Barrington:

This responds to your letter requesting information about sales of your companys vehicles to child care centers. You explain that your company manufactures new vehicles that meet the school bus crashworthiness Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but do not have the school bus flashing lights and stop arms. You wish to know whether child care providers may purchase and use these vehicles.

By way of background, it might be helpful to keep in mind that Federal law restricts the types of new buses that may be sold for school transportation purposes but does not restrict the use of vehicles. Your customers State laws regulate how school age children in a State are to be transported. NHTSA has revised its interpretation of "school" to exclude Head Start Programs. However, sales of new buses to child care centers that provide transportation to or from school must involve a school bus.

Sales of New Buses to Child Care Centers

Your question regarding sales of new buses to child care centers has been addressed for the most part in the enclosed interpretation letter of May 9, 2001, to Collins Bus Corporation (Collins letter). In the Collins letter, we explain dealers responsibilities in selling new buses to day care centers that will be using the vehicles to transport children to or from schools. All the enclosures mentioned in the letter are provided.

The Collins letter discusses prohibitions on sales of new buses that do not meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) school bus standards. Briefly, any person selling a new 'school bus" must sell a bus that meets our school bus standards. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which NHTSA decides is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons (49 CFR 571.3(b)).

NHTSAs longstanding position has been that day care centers in and of themselves are not 'schools" within the meaning of our statute because of their primarily custodial, rather than educational, emphasis. However, when a day care center is providing transportation to or from school or school- related events, then the transportation constitutes the described action-- transporting students to or from school--contemplated by the statute. In a letter of July 23, 1998, to Mr. Don Cote of Northside Ford (copy enclosed), we advised that when a dealership sells or leases a new bus to a child care facility to drop off and pick up school children from school "on regular school days," the dealership must sell or lease only a bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

The Collins letter stated that NHTSA currently does not presume that day care centers universally are engaged in the transportation of children to or from school. However, where the purchaser or lessor of a new bus is a day care center, in light of the widespread publicity that has surrounded the issue, we expect a dealer to inquire as to whether the vehicle would also be used to drop off or pick up students from school. If it appears that a vehicle will be used significantly for student transportation, the requirement to sell a certified school bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses would apply.

Sales of New Buses to Head Start Programs

Your letter also stated: "Head Start and Child Care providers operate vehicles under identical conditions. In other words, children are picked up and released off of thoroughfares and usually in parking lots and drive ways." For these reasons, you ask whether you can sell to child care centers an "allowable alternate vehicle" (AAV) as defined by the Head Start Bureau. The answer is no.

Head Start defines an AAV as "a vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more people, including the driver, that meets all the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses, except 49 CFR 571.108 and 571.131." (See 45 CFR Section 1310.3) Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) establishes requirements for lamps and associated equipment, and Standard No. 131 (49 CFR 571.131) establishes requirements for stop arms.

Sales of new buses to child care centers that provide to and from school transportation can be distinguished from sales of new buses to Head Start Programs. The latter type of sale has been the focus of recent Congressional and administrative action that have led us to reconsider our previous determinations in this area. In an interpretation letter of August 3, 2000 to Helen H. Taylor, Associate Commissioner of the Head Start Bureau (copy enclosed), NHTSA agreed to Head Starts request to revise our interpretation of "school" to exclude Head Start Programs. NHTSA made this revision after being informed that in 1998, Congress amended section 636 of the Head Start Act by employing the term "school readiness," thereby distinguishing Head Start Programs from school programs. In the letter to the Head Start Bureau, NHTSA stated in part:

Accordingly, we are revising our interpretation of "school" to exclude Head Start. Consistent with the evident intent of section 636, we conclude that a Head Start agency is not operating a "school" for the purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act. This means that buses sold to transport children to and from a Head Start site will no longer be required under the Vehicle Safety Act to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. In revising our interpretation, we act with the knowledge that HHS intends to implement a rule requiring that Head Start children be transported in vehicles meeting the Federal school bus safety standards other than those for traffic control devices. This will serve to ensure the childrens safety.

As you are aware, in a final rule of January 18, 2001, the Head Start Bureau established 45 CFR Part 1310, Head Start Transportation, which includes the definition of "allowable alternate vehicle."

Conclusion

Sales of new buses to child care centers that provide to and from school transportation have not been affected by the recent Congressional activity on Head Start buses. Sales of new buses to child care centers to transport students to or from school are still subject to the Vehicle Safety Act mandate to sell complying school buses. However, you may be interested to know that on March 21, 2001, NHTSA granted a petition from the Rabun-Gap Nacoochee School of Rabun-Gap, Georgia, to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to create a new school bus classification known as the "school activity bus." The petitioner asked that this classification "consist of buses which are used for transporting school children to or from school related activities, but are not used to transport children between home and school." Among other issues, the petitioner asked that school buses meeting this new category be exempted from the requirement for school bus warning lights (S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108) and the requirement for school bus pedestrian safety devices (Standard No. 131). The agency is presently in the rulemaking process.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address, or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/14/02

ID: 24393.rbm

Donald S. Litman, Esq.
The Mayerson Law Offices, P.C.
3540 Schuylkill Road
Spring City, PA 19475

Dear Mr. Litman:

This responds to your question as to whether plastic exterior door handles are prohibited by any Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). The short answer to your question is no, exterior plastic door handles are not prohibited under any of the safety standards.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. FMVSS No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, most closely addresses your question regarding exterior door handles. FMVSS No. 206 does not directly regulate either interior or exterior door handles. It does, however, impliedly require both interior and exterior door handles or other release mechanisms in its regulation of door locks (see generally, 49 CFR 571.206, S4.1.3 and S4.4.2). FMVSS No. 206 does not prohibit or require that the door handles or release mechanisms be composed of any particular material. Rather, it specifies performance requirements.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:206
d.6/24/02

ID: 24394_Gen_TestingLabs

Mr. Alan Aylor
President
General Testing Laboratories, Inc.
1623 Leedstown Rd.
Colonial Beach, VA 22443

Dear Mr. Aylor:

This responds to your letter dated May 1, 2002, which you e-mailed to our office on May 7, asking six questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). This letter also follows up on a May 22, 2002 telephone conversation between you and Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff. Each of your questions is restated below, followed by our response.

BACKGROUND

On March 5, 1999, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule establishing Standard No. 225. The rule required vehicle manufacturers to equip vehicles with new child restraint anchorage systems that are standardized and independent of the vehicle seat belts. Each new system has two lower anchorages and one tether anchorage.

A number of manufacturers submitted petitions for reconsideration of various aspects of the new standard, including the strength requirements for the anchorage system. In response to concerns of several of the petitioners about leadtime for and the stringency of the anchorage strength and other requirements in the March 1999 final rule, NHTSA permitted vehicle manufacturers to meet alternative requirements during an interim period (64 FR 47566). Manufacturers were permitted to meet either: (a) the requirements in the March 1999 final rule; or (b) alternative Canadian requirements for tether anchorages and, for lower anchorages, requirements in a draft standard developed by a working group of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). NHTSA later extended that period until September 1, 2004 (65 FR 46628).[1]

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

Question 1.  S4.1 states: "Each tether anchorage and each child restraint anchorage system installed, either voluntarily or pursuant to this standard, in any new vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1999, shall comply with the configuration, location and strength requirements of this standard. " Does the phrase "any new vehicle" refer to all vehicles regardless of type and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)?

Answer:  The answer is Standard No. 225 does not apply to tether anchorages and child restraint anchorage systems installed in vehicles not listed in the Application section of the standard (S2). (This issue was discussed in the agencys August 31, 1999 response to petitions for reconsideration. 64 FR at 47578.) Anchorage systems voluntarily installed in vehicles not listed in S2 are not subject to the standard=s requirements. They will, of course, be subject to our defect authority.

Question 2.  If tether anchorages and/or child restraint anchorage systems are voluntarily installed in side facing or rear facing designated seating positions, do the requirements in S4.1 apply? If so, in what directions should the test loads be applied?

Answer:  Our answer is the requirements of Standard No. 225 would apply to anchorages installed in side- or rear-facing seating positions in vehicles subject to the standard. The standard requires only forward-facing rear designated seating positions to have the anchorage systems (S4). Side- or rear-facing seating positions are not factored into the determination of how many anchorage systems a vehicle must have. However, if a manufacturer voluntarily installs a tether anchorage or a child restraint anchorage system in a side- or rear-facing designated seating position in a vehicle subject to the standard, the configuration, location, marking, and strength requirements apply (S4.1). The loads for the strength test would be applied (1) along a longitudinal axis toward the front of the vehicle for LATCH anchorages installed in side-facing seating positions, and (2) along a longitudinal axis toward the rear of the vehicle for LATCH anchorages installed in rear-facing seating positions. The loads would be applied in this manner to side-facing seats to replicate loads likely to be imposed on the anchorages in a frontal crash. For rear-facing seats, testing in this manner ensures that the anchorages will be able to sustain loads from rear impacts.

The installation of LATCH in side- and rear-facing seats should be carefully considered, however. As far as we know, all child restraint manufacturers recommend against use of child restraints in side- or rear-facing seating positions.

Question 3.  Which certification options are available for voluntarily installed tether and/or child restraint anchorage systems for vehicles built before September 1, 2004?

Answer:  There are several options available to manufacturers of vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2004. These are outlined below. Manufacturers must select the option prior to, or at the time of, certification of the vehicle. (See answer to question 6 for further discussion.)

--As noted above, manufacturers are permitted to meet (a) either the tether anchorage strength requirements in the March 1999 final rule or alternative strength requirements that are based on Canadian requirements (S6.3); and (b) for lower anchorages, either the strength requirements in the March 1999 final rule or the strength requirements developed by the ISO working group (see introductory paragraph of S9).

--There is also an option available to manufacturers of passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2004 relating to the strength of tether anchorages and how they are tested (a load of 5,300 N may be applied by way of a belt strap)(S6.3.2).

--Until September 1, 2004, manufacturers may meet alternative requirements as to the number of tether anchorages and child restraint anchorage systems they have to install in a vehicle, and where those systems must be located within a vehicle (S4.5).

There are some options concerning the location of the tether anchorage relative to the seating reference point of a designated seating position (S6.2).

Question 4.  Paragraph S6.3.3(b) states: A tether anchorage of a particular child restraint anchorage system will not be tested with the lower anchorages of that anchorage system if one or both of those lower anchorages have been previously tested under this standard. Paragraph S9.4.2(b) states: The lower anchorages of a particular child restraint anchorage system will not be tested if one or both of the anchorages have been previously tested under this standard. [Emphases added.]

Do these paragraphs mean that for a given designated seating position, a manufacturer certifies compliance with the tether anchorage requirements of FMVSS 225 in accordance with paragraph S6.3.4(a)(2), which specifies testing with SFAD-2 to apply the test loads to both the tether and lower anchorages, that he has satisfied all of the strength requirements for the child restraint anchorage systems at that designated seating position?

Answer:  No. The child restraint anchorage system must be capable of meeting both the requirements of S6.3.4 (strength of tether anchorage) and those of S9.4 (strength of lower anchorages alone). NHTSA has the option of choosing which test to conduct. Any tether anchorage could be tested, and must meet the requirements of S6.3.4 if and when the anchorage is tested. Any pair of lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system could be tested to the requirements of S9.4. Manufacturers must ensure that their anchorages comply with both requirements of the standard.

Question 5.  Does "this standard" as used in paragraph S6.3.3(b) and S9.4.2(b) refer to the entire standard or to the individual paragraphs S6 and S9 respectively?

Answer:  I believe our answer to question 4 responds to this question.

Question 6.  What interactions with NHTSA, if any, are required by a manufacturer to irrevocably select the various compliance options in FMVSS 225?

Answer:  Manufacturers must select an option prior to, or at the time of certification of the vehicle. Manufacturers are required to identify the option to which a particular vehicle has been certified. In practice, prior to conducting a compliance test on a vehicle, NHTSA will ask the manufacturer which option was selected for that vehicle and will test the vehicle in accordance with the manufacturers response.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.12/9/02





---

[1] NHTSA was petitioned to reconsider other aspects of the rule as well. We will be responding to those petitions in the near future.

ID: 22060.ztv

Mr. Joel Martin
Malaguti USA
7368 NW 12^th St.
Miami, FL 33126





Dear Mr. Martin:

This is in reply to your undated fax to George Entwistle of this agency, received in August 2000, asking three questions about motorcycle importers.

These questions are:

"1.   Does NHTSA prefer one importer per brand or does it allow several importers to bring in the brand from the same foreign manufacturer."

The foreign manufacturer determines the number of importers of its product. The manufacturer does not consult with NHTSA on this matter, and NHTSA has no preference.

"2.   Second if testing for the importation of a motorcycle was paid for and done by one importer would another importer be allowed to use the same test results in order to verify compliance? In the case of the second importer would they have to provide their own test results if the first set of tests was privately owned and commissioned by the first importer?"

We are unsure of the basis for your question. A motorcycle, like other motor vehicles, must be manufactured to comply and be certified by its manufacturer, through a plate affixed to the vehicle, as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported into the United States. If the motorcycle is certified by its manufacturer, no further testing by any importer is required. If the motorcycle is not certified, it can only be imported for resale by a registered importer pursuant to 49 CFR Parts 591-594, after we have determined that the motorcycle is capable of being modified to comply with the applicable FMVSS.

We can interpret your question two ways. If the first importer conducts tests on behalf of the foreign manufacturer who then certifies its product on the basis of these tests before the vehicle is imported into the United States, a second importer does not have to test the product.

Our alternative response to your question assumes that the foreign manufacturer of the motorcycle has not certified it as meeting the FMVSS, that both importers have registered as importers under 49 CFR Part 592, and that we have decided, on the basis of a petition submitted by the first importer, as provided in 49 CFR Part 593, that the motorcycle is capable of being modified to meet all applicable FMVSS. As importers of motor vehicles for resale, each registered importer of the motorcycles becomes a "manufacturer" under our laws, responsible for compliance, certification, and notification and remedy when safety recalls are required. In filing its capability petition, a registered importer must establish the technical feasibility of modifying a vehicle to conform, but need not disclose the exact methods it will use to conform the vehicle. The information accompanying the petition is available in a public docket, and only rarely does a petitioner ask that portions of it be withheld from disclosure as confidential business information. To the extent that the first importer has disclosed conformance methods in the publicly available materials, a second importer may use this information in its own conformance operations without further testing.

In addition to affixing its certification label to a vehicle, a registered importer must also "certify" compliance to NHTSA, submitting information which may disclose the tests it conducted in conforming the vehicle. These submittals are not in a public docket and may be treated as confidential business information which is not available to other registered importers of the same vehicle. If the first importer chooses not to share test data and compliance methods with the second importer on a contractual or other basis, the second importer must independently develop its own conformance methods to assure the validity of its certification of the vehicle and to NHTSA.

"3.   I have noticed that there are three importers for the scooter brand Derbi in the United States, but that all three carry different lines of product from the same manufacturer. * * * Is this because of an NHTSA guideline for multiple importers for the same product?"

No. NHTSA has no "guidelines for multiple importers for the same product." In this instance, the manufacturer appears to have different agreements with each of the three importers of its products.

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





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:592
d.11/9/00

ID: 22118evisor1

Mr. David H. Coburn
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-1795





Dear Mr. Coburn:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing materials, with respect to a product that would "automatically, and virtually immediately upon activation, create a shade band on top of the front windshield of a vehicle."

You state in your letter that your client, Al-Coat, Ltd., a corporation based in Israel, has developed an electro-optical sun visor known commercially as e-Visor. The e-Visor is composed of a thin plastic band attached to the top part of the windshield. The e-Visor is approximately 5 inches wide and is made out of an electronically controlled light modulating (ECLM) film generally constructed with Polymer Dispersed Liquid Crystal technology. The ECLM film lightens with the application of voltage and returns to a darkened state when no voltage is applied. An electronic unit mounted under the dashboard controls the voltage applied to the band. A control unit mounted on the dashboard allows the driver to turn the band on or off, or place it in an automatic mode.

In the automatic mode, the voltage applied to the band is controlled by a sunlight sensor mounted on the front windshield of the vehicle. The sensor responds to sunlight, causing the ECLM film to "instantaneously" assume a darkened state in "blinding or bright sunlight." In a darkened state, the e-Visor reduces the light transmittance of the windshield to approximately 1 percent, while the light transmittance in its lightened state is "approximately 50 percent." You state that the e-Visor "would have no effect on any part of the front windshield other than the area traditionally reserved for a shade band located near the top of the front windshield." You also state that Al-Coat seeks to import this product into the United States. The e-Visor would be made available to original equipment manufacturers and/or marketed as an aftermarket product for installation on used vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Installation in New Vehicles

A manufacturer of a new vehicle must certify that its vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Any person who manufactures or sells a new vehicle which does not conform to any safety standard is subject to civil penalties and recall action under our statute.

NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, to establish performance and location requirements for glazing in each new motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates an industry standard, the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26.1)." Under FMVSS No. 205 and the ANSI standard, glazing for use at levels intended for driving visibility must meet all of the requirements of the standard, including those on light transmittance. FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.1 apply a 70 percent light transmittance requirement to areas of glazing that are requisite for driving visibility.

In all vehicles, the windshield is considered requisite for driving visibility. However, ANSI Z26.1 provides that a manufacturer may provide an area on the glazing that has a light transmittance of less than 70 percent as long as the areas requisite for driving visibility have a light transmittance of 70 percent. Our longstanding position has been that the area of the windshield traditionally comprising a shade band is not considered requisite for driving visibility, so that area may have a light transmittance of less than 70 percent.

After reviewing the information you have submitted, we have concluded that the e-Visor operates and is intended to operate as a shade band. We have reached this conclusion based on the specific facts and purposes of your client's particular design and on your representations that the product would not affect any part of the windshield other than within the area traditionally reserved for a shade band; i.e., an approximate 5-inch band located near the top of the windshield. As a shade band in that location, the e-Visor would not be subject to FMVSS No. 205's light transmittance requirement.

Although the agency has concluded that your shade band is not in an area considered requisite for driving visibility, it is important to note that we are in the midst of rulemaking on limiting the width of shade bands. We have published an August 4, 1999, notice of proposed rulemaking (64 FR 42330) on this subject. It may be appropriate for you to examine whether the e-Visor would be affected by a possible new shade band requirement.

Of course, a new vehicle with the e-Visor must be certified, for its location and installation (e.g., windshield), as meeting all other requirements in FMVSS No. 205, including all applicable performance requirements of the standard (haze resistance, scratch resistance, and etc.). In addition, there are a number of other standards that might be affected by installation of the component. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to FMVSS No. 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems, FMVSS No. 212, Windshield mounting, FMVSS No. 219, Windshield zone intrusion, and FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. You should carefully review these and all other FMVSSs to determine how the product would affect a vehicle's conformance with these standards.

In addition, S5.3.5 of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and displays, reads as follows:

Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 110 mm rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated.

The purpose of this requirement is to prevent glare visible to the driver. If the e-Visor control unit installed in view of the driver were capable of operation while the vehicle is in motion, it would be subject to this requirement.

As an Aftermarket Item of Equipment

The e-Visor is an item of motor vehicle equipment since it would be sold as part of a motor vehicle or as an addition to a vehicle. (See 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30102(a)(7)). While the e-Visor is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards directly applicable to this product if it were sold directly to consumers for installation on used vehicles. However, the manufacturer, whether your client or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120 which set forth the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the product is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

The installation of the e-Visor by a commercial entity is also subject to other restrictions. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the e-Visor could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the ability of a vehicle's glazing to comply with the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 205, as well as the compliance of a vehicle with any other FMVSS. You should carefully review the FMVSSs to determine whether installation of the e-Visor would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standards. ⁽¹⁾

I note that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You should contact that Administration at (202) 366-2519 for information about any requirements that may apply to your product. In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions and may have restrictions on shade bands. Therefore, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

Also, there is a procedural regulation that you need to meet to import the e-Visor into the United States. 49 CFR Part 551, "Procedural Rules," requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured motor vehicle equipment to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under section 551.45:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b).

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205
d.2/20/01





---

1. The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles.

ID: 22131.drn

Mr. Timothy Tassick
Innovtech LLC
5 West Byler Road
Mercer, PA 16137






Dear Mr. Tassick:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your product, a warning device called the "Collapse-a-Cone" must meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that you will market the product for use with motor vehicles with less than 10,000 pounds (lb) gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). As explained below, because your warning device is designed to be carried in motor vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less, Standard No. 125 does not apply to this product. However, since your product is "motor vehicle equipment," your company, Innovtech, as the manufacturer, is subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) laws.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Effective October 31, 1994, NHTSA amended Standard No. l25 so that the standard applies only to warning devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb. (See 59 FR 49586; September 29, 1994, copy enclosed.) If sold for use with buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb, your company's warning devices must meet Standard No. 125's detailed specifications for a warning device. However, if the warning device is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less, Standard No. 125 would not apply.

Please note, however, that even if not covered by Standard No. 125, your warning device, as an item of "motor vehicle equipment," is subject to various provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, "Motor Vehicle Safety." Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA should determine that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your devices are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

Finally, some states may regulate warning devices that vehicles with a 10,000 lb GVWR or less may or must use when the vehicle is stopped. Each state in which you sell your product can provide information on whether there are any requirements in that state for warning devices to be used with vehicles with a GVWR of 10,00 lb or less.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:125#VSA102(4)
d.10/17/00

ID: 22132oneW--BusinessModelOneOnly

Mark A. Rosenbaum, Esq.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038-4982





Dear Mr. Rosenbaum:

This responds to your August 17, 2000, letter about Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR 571.213), as it relates to the services that your client, OneWarranty.com, Inc., would like to offer concerning owner registration of child restraint systems and other products. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask three questions, which are addressed below.

Background

Standard No. 213

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," establishes an owner registration program for child restraint systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) implemented the program to improve the effectiveness of manufacturer campaigns to recall child restraints that contain a safety-related defect or that fail to conform to Standard No. 213. By increasing the number of identified child restraint purchasers, the program increases the manufacturers' ability to inform owners of restraints about defects or noncompliances in those restraints.

Under the program, child restraint manufacturers are required to provide a registration form attached to each child restraint (S5.8). The registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). Each form must include a detachable postage-paid postcard which provides a space for the consumer to record his or her name and address, and must be preprinted with the restraint's model name or number and its date of manufacture. Except for information that distinguishes a particular restraint from other systems, no other information is permitted to appear on the postcard. (S5.8(c)). Child restraints are also required to be labeled with a statement urging the owner to register with the manufacturer (S5.5.2(m)). The statement also must be in the printed instructions for each child restraint (S5.6.1.7).

OneWarranty.com

On September 13, 2000, you and your client, Douglas Suliman, Jr. of OneWarranty.com, met with several representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), including Jon White, Zack Fraser, Michael Huntley, and Deirdre Fujita of my staff. You explained that your client is an internet company that provides product registration services to consumers and manufacturers for a multitude of manufacturers and products. The company's services would be free to consumers.

Your client is considering entering into an arrangement with child restraint manufacturers to register owners of child restraint systems. Under the arrangement, the manufacturer's owner registration cards would be printed with information notifying purchasers that they may register the child restraint "through a mail-in card or via the internet" through OneWarranty.com's web-site. (Your first two questions relate to the permissibility of including this information on the card.) OneWarranty.com would be informed of a safety recall by the child restraint manufacturer. The owner's identity would be held by OneWarranty.com and withheld from the child restraint manufacturer, so that, as you state on page two of your letter, "the consumer can maintain its privacy from the manufacturer and from intrusive questionnaires traditionally associated with product registration...." The company would maintain the registration information for a minimum of six years. Under the model, OneWarranty.com contemplates notifying child restraint owners electronically of a recall, by e-mail. (Your third question relates to the permissibility of e-mail notifications of a recall.)

Your Questions