ID: aiam5400

"Dear Sir/Madam: This responds to your letter to this office regardin your reconstruction of an accident involving a 16-passenger school bus. I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter that the original latch/hinge mechanism of the right front entrance door of the bus in question was disabled by removal of the striker plate and equipped instead with a remote door opening/closing apparatus and latching mechanism. The bus was involved in an accident in which the driver was ejected through that door. You then asked a series of questions concerning the classification of the vehicle and the Federal safety standards pertaining to the door in question. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for certifying that the vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Once the vehicle or equipment has been sold to the first customer for purposes other than resale, Federal jurisdiction over the manufacture and sale of the vehicle or equipment generally terminates and use of the vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state jurisdiction. You first asked, 'Would this vehicle be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle, a bus, or a school bus?' The answer to your question is that each manufacturer classifies its vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in the Safety Act and in NHTSA's regulations. The Safety Act defines a 'school bus' as A passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools. 15 U.S.C. 1391(14). Our regulations define a 'bus' as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further define a 'school bus' as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school and related activities, but does not include a bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, whether a vehicle is a school bus under our regulations depends on the purpose for which it was originally sold. Although you did not indicate who purchased the bus originally and for what purpose, you referred to the vehicle in your letter as a 'mini school bus,' you stated that the body was manufactured by Mid Bus, a school bus manufacturer, and the descriptive literature you enclosed with your letter depicts different models of small school buses manufactured by Mid Bus. Accordingly, it appears the vehicle in question would have been classified as a school bus under 49 CFR 571.3. Our regulations require the vehicle manufacturer to state the vehicle type classification on the vehicle's certification label. The certification label of the vehicle in question should have that information. Your second question asks, 'Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?' With respect to FMVSS 206, Door locks and door retention components, the answer is no. Standard 206 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. The standard does not apply to buses. With respect to FMVSS 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the standard specifies requirements for window retention other than windshields in buses, except buses designed to transport persons under restraint, and establishes operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits. The glazing requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 217 would apply to the right front entrance door, and if the door was also used as an emergency exit, it must also have complied when new with the emergency exit requirements of S5.2.3, S5.3, S5.4.2, and S5.5.3 of the standard. Your third question asked, 'Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door (particularly its loading requirements)?' The answer is that apart from the provisions of FMVSS 217 discussed in our answer to your second question, there was no FMVSS in 1988 that specified performance standards for the right front entrance doors of buses. Effective September 1, 1993, however, the side door strength requirements of FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, will apply to 90 percent of the buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less produced after that date, and all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less produced on and after September 1, 1994, must comply with those requirements. I would like to make the following observation about the modification of the door in question. Modifications of new and used vehicles by commercial parties are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In this case, your letter did not indicate who disabled the original latch mechanism on the vehicle or who installed the remote door latch mechanism. If the work was done by a party listed in 108(a)(2)(A), the person modifying the vehicle was responsible for not degrading the performance of the door with regard to FMVSS 217. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, vehicle owners can modify the vehicle in any manner he/she chooses without violating any Federal requirements. I hope this information answers your questions. We have enclosed copies of FMVSS 206 and 217 that were effective in 1988, photocopied from the October 1, 1987 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, as you requested. Should you have other questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4544

Dear Mr. Soh: This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1988, wit respect to two motor vehicle lighting products which you intend to import into the United States. You have asked 'whether these devices require approvals from D.O.T.' First let me explain that the Department of Transportation does not 'approve' or 'disapprove' specific products. It does advise whether a product appears allowable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Your letter does not indicate whether you wish to market these devices as original equipment to be installed before initial sale of a motor vehicle, by either its manufacturer or dealer, or whether you intend to market them solely through the aftermarket. I shall address each situation. The Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to original equipment is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 allows additional motor vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lamps and reflectors required as original equipment. Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima permitted by the standard. In addition, a motor vehicle must remain in conformance with Standard No. 108 (and all other safety standards) until its first purchase for purposes other than resale. There is no Federal standard that applies to your devices as aftermarket equipment, but the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, original lighting equipment. Your first device is called a 'foglight converter.' The advertising literature attached states that its function is to turn 'the existing headlights...into foglights....' In our opinion, such a device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 by rendering the headlamp function unavailable when the fog lamp converter is in use. We shall assume that the headlamp would be converted into a fog lamp meeting the specifications of SAE Standard J583 May81 Front Fog Lamps. None of the photometric test points of SAE J583 coincide with those specified for headlamps. Our further concern with this device is that a driver might fail to return to the headlamp mode from the fog lamp mode, and operate the vehicle with reduced frontal lighting. The situation differs with respect to the aftermarket. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not perform modifications that render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment such as headlamps added pursuant to a Federal safety standard. We believe that the installation of the converter could affect the operability of the headlamp within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. However, we note that the foglight converter is advertised as 'easy for any driver to attach to any vehicle.' As an owner is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the owner is not restricted under Federal law from modifications to his vehicle. He is, however, subject to the laws of the States in which his vehicle is registered and operated. We are not conversant with how State lighting laws might affect use of the foglight converter, and you may wish to obtain an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. We have several other comments as well. The literature you enclosed depicts the foglight converter attached to what appears to be the European-designed H-4 bulb. Standard No. 108 does not permit headlamps with H-4 light sources to be sold for use on 4-wheeled motor vehicles. In addition, the application of the device where motion is translated from the lamp's exterior to the interior by a linkage in the bulb base would affect compliance with the requirement that the bulb base withstand a pressure differential of l0 psi. Additionally, creating a hole or passage for a linkage has the potential of rendering the headlamp noncompliant with Standard No. 108's requirements for certain environmental tests, such as resistance to dust, corrosion, and humidity. Your second device is a 'headlamp intensity modulator,' adjusting a headlamp beam 'automatically from low to high beam through a middle beam.' According to your literature, when a sensor notes the beams of an oncoming car 500 meters ahead the upper beam gradually passes through a middle beam and diminishes into a lower beam when the vehicles are 150 meters apart. This device is also advertised as capable of owner installation, and without the modification of any vehicle parts. The system appears to operate by a switch. This device directly conflicts with Standard No. 108, and its use would create a noncompliance with it. Headlamps are defined as producing upper and lower beams, and means must be provided for switching between these beams. Use of the device would alter upper and lower beam characteristics from those required by Standard No. 108, and in effect create an infinite number of beams while passing from a conforming upper beam at one extreme to a conforming lower beam at the other. This precludes its use as original equipment. We believe that its aftermarket legality would be limited. Although Federal law would not preclude an owner from installing it, the instructions are sufficiently complex that in our opinion many purchasers would seek help from a 'dealer' or 'motor vehicle repair business,' which could not be legally given. There would also remain the question of legality with State laws. These appear to be innovative devices and we regret that we cannot be more encouraging. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4432

"Dear Mr. Bowyer: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209). I regret the delay in this response. More specifically, you noted that S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 requires dynamic testing of manual lap/shoulder belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991. Section S4.6.3 of Standard No. 208 provides: 'A Type 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(c) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209.' Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that: 'A seat belt assembly that meets the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208 shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the following statement: This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in insert specific seating position(s), e.g., 'front right' in insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s) .' You expressed your opinion that dynamically tested belts must be labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 if the belts do not comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. In these situations, you suggested that the labeling requirements help ensure that the belts will not be installed 'into inappropriate vehicles.' However, you stated your belief that the labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to dynamically-tested manual belts that also comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. Your understanding of these requirements is incorrect. Section S4.6(b)of Standard No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208 shall be marked or labeled with certain information. This section contains no exception for seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements and satisfy the performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The reason for not including any such exception was that the agency intended that all dynamically tested manual belts be marked or labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b). You suggested that there is no reason to require labeling of belt assemblies that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209, just because those belt assemblies also comply with the dynamic testing requirements when installed in a particular vehicle. This assertion would be correct if the protection provided by safety belts depended only on the performance of the safety belts themselves. However, such is not necessarily the case. We emphatically agree with you that a belt assembly that complies with all requirements of Standard No. 209 will provide very substantial protection to an occupant of any vehicle in a crash. However, the protection provided by safety belts to occupants of a particular vehicle depends on more than the performance of the belts themselves, it also depends on the structural characteristics and interior design of the vehicle. The dynamic testing requirements measure the performance of the safety belt/vehicle combination, while Standard No. 209 focuses on measuring the performance of the safety belts alone. See 52 FR 44899-44900, November 23, 1987. With the advent of dynamic testing for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, NHTSA explained why Standard No. 209 was amended to require labeling of dynamically tested belts, regardless of whether those belts comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209. The final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles explained that NHTSA was adopting the same belt labeling requirements previously adopted for passenger car belts. 52 FR 44898, at 44907, November 23, 1987. In the preamble to the final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for passenger cars with manual belts at front outboard seating positions, NHTSA explained why it was establishing belt labeling requirements for these dynamically tested safety belts. The agency said: NHTSA believes that care must be taken to distinguish dynamically tested belt systems from other systems, since misapplication of a belt in a vehicle designed for use with a specific dynamically tested belt could pose a risk of injury. If there is a label on the belt itself, a person making the installation will be aware that the belt should be installed only in certain vehicles. 51 FR 9800, at 9804, March 21, 1986. The same concerns apply to dynamically tested belts for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Even if Land Rover installs dynamically tested belt systems that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209 in all of its vehicles, those belt systems might not be appropriate for use in other light multipurpose passenger vehicles. This is particularly true if other light multipurpose passenger vehicles are designed for use only with specific dynamically tested belt systems different from the Land Rover belt system. The chances of the Land Rover belt system being installed in a vehicle for which it would not be appropriate are minimized if there is a label on the belt system indicating that it should be installed only in specific seating positions in Land Rover models and any other vehicles for which the belt system is appropriate. Accordingly, the belt labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 apply to all dynamically tested belts for use in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether those dynamically tested belts comply with all other requirements of Standard No. 209. You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our review of it. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel cc: Mr. D. Bruce Henderson Legislative Programs Manager Range Rover of North America 4390 Parliament Place P.O. Box 1503 Lanham, MD 20706";

ID: aiam4942

"Dear Mr. Gray: This responds to your letter asking for informatio about whether certain motor vehicles manufactured in the United States and imported into New Zealand comply with the requirements of the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that the New Zealand Ministry of Transport (MOT) is introducing new vehicle safety standards in an effort to align New Zealand's standards with those of the United States, Europe, Australia, and the United Kingdom. To that end, you stated that the MOT is requiring importers to ensure that the vehicles they import meet the relevant safety standards of these countries. You further indicated that you are responsible for providing proof to the MOT that certain privately imported, 'low volume vehicles' (built in numbers less than 200 per year) comply with the requirements of their country of origin, or that the country has a special exemption for low volume vehicles. Accordingly, you asked for clarification of Standards No. 205 and 208, and other Federal regulations, as they would be applied to these vehicles. I am pleased to be able to provide the following information. In the case of the United States, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue a number of safety standards. The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment manufactured or sold in, or imported into, the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides: no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under 114... Generally speaking, then, to the extent that the vehicles you import are manufactured and sold in the United States, those vehicles would have to comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 208, regardless of the number of such vehicles produced by the manufacturer. The fact that your letter is seeking proof that a motor vehicle actually complies with applicable safety standards may, however, indicate a misunderstanding of the certification process in the United States. The process of certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, many European nations require manufacturers to deliver motor vehicles to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the vehicle, the government approves the vehicle and assigns an approval code. In countries using such a pre-sale approval certification process, the governmental entity would have specific information about the actual compliance of vehicles with applicable standards. In the United States, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to do any pre-sale testing or approval of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Consequently, NHTSA does not have any 'proof of actual compliance' of vehicles. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards by permanently affixing a label to the driver's side door hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post. Among other things, that label must contain the statement: 'This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above.' Under the self-certification process used in the United States, NHTSA does conduct periodic enforcement tests on vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by their manufacturer to ensure that the products do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. In order for this agency to determine whether any of the vehicles imported into New Zealand were subject to an enforcement test or a defects investigation by this agency, you would have to provide us with specific descriptive information about each of the subject vehicles, including the date of manufacture. It should be a simple exercise for you to check the area around the driver's side door of the vehicles in question to see if the manufacturer affixed a U.S. certification label, stating that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the vehicle has such a label, there would not seem to be any reason for questioning the manufacturer's representation. On the other hand, if there is no such label, neither the vehicle's manufacturer nor anyone else has suggested that the vehicle conforms with the safety standards of the United States. Finally, you asked whether the United States has any Federal regulations regarding the installation of registration plates on the front of vehicles. The answer is no, vehicle registration is a matter addressed by each of the individual States, not by the Federal government. Thus, the requirements for display of registration plates on the front of vehicles differ from State to State. If you are interested in further information on the requirements of the individual States, you may wish to contact: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, U.S.A. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5313

"Dear Mr. Delapp: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, 'Door locks and door retention components,' as it pertains to the locking mechanism of a so-called '5th' door installed on your limousines. I apologize for the delay in responding. We conclude that the locking mechanism on the 5th door is not prohibited by Standard 206. Based on your letter and a conversation with David Elias of my office, I understand that you have replaced the extra panel on the right side of a 1993 Lincoln Town Car based limousine with a passenger door (i.e., the 5th door). The door consists completely of the original equipment manufacturer's materials and hinges. The 5th door is a supplementary door, and does not replace or effect in any way the two side rear doors with which your vehicles are normally equipped. When the 5th door is closed, its locking mechanism engages automatically, and the door cannot be opened from the inside or the outside. A solenoid locking mechanism that unlocks the 5th door is located inside the vehicle in a 'privacy panel' behind the driver's seat. For the driver to unlock the 5th door, the car must be stopped and the driver must then get out of the car and reach through a window into the area behind the driver's seat. The locking mechanism cannot be reached by the driver while seated in the driver's seat, and cannot be reached by the passengers in the rear seats. The 5th door cannot be accidentally opened, unless the locking mechanism has been actively disengaged, the door remains locked. Disengaging the locking mechanism for the 5th door allows the driver to open the door from the outside, although passengers could push the door open from the inside, as well. There are two pertinent requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to your situation. First, S4.1.3 (Door Locks) states that: Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. In two prior letters, to Mr. Charles Murphy on May 10, 1974, and to Mr. Gary Hackett on April 11, 1988, the agency interpreted S4.1.3 to mean that the locking mechanism must also be operable from within the vehicle. The first question to be addressed is whether the 5th door meets the requirement of S4.1.3. We believe the answer is yes, the door is equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle that is operable from within the vehicle. The operating means for the locking mechanism is in the interior of the vehicle in that the locking mechanism engages automatically when the 5th door is closed. While the means to disengage the operating mechanism is not accessible to occupants in the vehicle, Standard 206 does not require the locking mechanism to be capable of being disengaged by an occupant. This is because the purpose of the standard is to minimize the chance that occupants of the vehicle will be ejected in a collision. Thus, the thrust of the standard is to ensure that occupants are retained within the vehicle, such as by requiring doors to have door locks that occupants are capable of locking. The second pertinent requirement is S4.1.3.2 (Side Rear Door Locks), which states that: ... when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative. The 5th door appears to comply with S4.1.3.2, in that it cannot be opened from the outside or inside when the locking mechanism is engaged. In a letter to Ms. C.D. Black, dated April 10, 1987, the agency interpreted a question on child safety locks that is relevant to your situation. The child safety lock operated as a 'secondary locking system' that, when activated, rendered the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. (It had no effect on the outside door handle.) As we stated in that letter, our conclusion was that Standard 206 permitted the child safety lock because the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems that interfere with the engagement, but not with the disengagement, of the primary locking system. In that letter, we wrote: The answer to your question about the child locking systems is dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of... S4.1.3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. Since we have determined that... S4.1.3.2 do es not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks-- i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the required locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4391

"Dear Mr. Niemela: This responds to your letter asking whether 'Mototractor' you may import into the United States would be considered a motor vehicle. The vehicle looks like a conventional motorcycle, except tractor tires are mounted on wheels that enclose auxiliary fuel storage tanks. It has a maximum speed of 40 miles per hour. Based on the information provided with your letter, it appears that your Mototractor would not be a motor vehicle. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle'. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. Your vehicle is not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, your vehicle has a body configuration nearly identical to a motorcycle and a top speed that would allow it to keep up with the flow of traffic on low speed roads. These factors suggest that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, you state repeatedly that this vehicle is intended to be used as a two-wheeled tractor, it comes equipped with tires and wheels that are suited to off-road use, your advertising shows it pulling and powering a number of off-road attachments, and there is no evidence that it has been or will be substantially used on-road in this country. This suggests that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicle. In past instances where the agency was asked whether a vehicle was a motor vehicle when it had both off-road and on-road operating capabilities and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, we have applied five factors in offering our advice. These factors were: 1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. The vehicle shown in your brochures does not have lights, mirrors, or a speedometer. We are not aware of any State that would license a vehicle without this equipment for on-road use. Further, the Canadian Tax Court has ruled that the vehicle should be classified as a tractor, which presumably means that the vehicle will not be licensed for use on public roads. Hence, this factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle. 2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use. Your brochure shows that one of the functions the Mototractor can perform is 'road and trail maintenance.' Additionally, your advertising shows an attachment that is described 'ATT Transport, On/Off Road' (Part No. 104330). We generally consider such advertising to be evidence that the vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle, since purchasers have reason to believe the vehicle is intended to be used on the public roads. 3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates or origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use. You stated that the Chinese manufacturer will provide a certificate of origin/title document. However, this is not the sort of action to which we were referring. Assuming that neither your company nor the Chinese manufacturer assist purchasers in registering Mototractors for on-road use, this would tend to indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle. 4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles. You did not provide any information on U.S. dealers for this vehicle. However, you stated that the foreign dealers of Mototractors are agricultural equipment dealers. Assuming this is also true in the United States, this fact would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle. 5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads. You stated in your letter that a label limiting the vehicle's use will be placed on the Mototractor. Assuming that this label states that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads, this would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle. At this time and after considering the available information, we believe that the Mototractor does not appear to be a motor vehicle. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel /";

ID: aiam4747

"Dear Mr. Strakosch: Thank you for your letter to John Messera, of ou Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125). You indicated that you have for many years produced and sold a 'Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On,' which you described as a 'dangling safety tag which attaches to the car mirror to alert passersby of emergency needs.' These warning devices are made of a reflective plastic material designed with a clip attachment, and come in eight different shapes, including a triangular configuration. These products are slightly more than four inches high. You also stated that, pursuant to a request from a customer, your company has developed a larger size warning triangle for mounting on a car mirror. You have provided a prototype of this new larger size 'Lite at Nite' Reflective Auto Triangle, that is approximately 6' at the base and 5 1/2' in height. You stated that, as your warning triangle gets larger, you 'wish to make sure it is not confused with the roadside truck version described in Standard No. 125.' Additionally, you stated that you wanted to be certain that the instructions for this larger size warning triangle 'in no way conflict with the standard.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. Section S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard 'applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle.' (Emphasis added.) This language in S3 of Standard No. 125 makes clear that the standard's requirements are not limited to devices used by large trucks, that is, Standard No. 125 does not apply only to a 'roadside truck version' of a warning device. Instead, the standard applies to all devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, from the smallest motorcycle to the largest truck, if the device satisfies the other conditions set forth in S3 of the standard. One of the conditions set forth in S3 is that the device must be designed to be used to 'warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle.' Devices that are not intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but only to alert passing traffic of the stopped vehicle's need for assistance, are not subject to Standard No. 125. Examples of such devices include a rag tied on a radio antenna and a 'HELP' message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade. By the time approaching traffic sees one of these non-warning devices, the traffic would already be aware that the vehicle displaying such a device was stopped. Your 'Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On' product appears to be designed and to function in the same way other non-warning devices do, i.e., it does not appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but to alert passing traffic that the stopped vehicle needs assistance. If this is the case, the 'Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On' would not be subject to Standard No. 125. However, the larger 'Lite at Nite' Reflective Auto Triangle may be designed to be used to 'warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle.' It appears from the promotional material enclosed in your letter that this larger triangle is intended to serve the same purpose as what you call 'truck warning triangles.' We assume that you are describing warning devices that are certified as complying with Standard No. 125. If your larger triangle is to serve this function, it would be subject to Standard No. 125 and would have to conform to all the requirements of the standard. From the enclosed copy of Standard No. 125, you will see that some of the specific requirements with which the larger triangle must conform include minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Further, the Safety Act provides that NHTSA has no authority to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. To comply with any applicable legal obligations, especially in connection with the manufacture of the larger size warning triangle, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard 125 and consider the design, marketing, and intended use of the new larger warning triangle. You should also be aware that the Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers and remedy any items of motor vehicle equipment, such as warning devices, that do not conform with any applicable safety standards. I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, that briefly summarizes our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4589

"Dear Mr. Schreiner: This responds to your letter asking whether som vehicles you plan to import into the United States are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. These vehicles consist of snow removal vehicles and aircraft towing vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new 'motor vehicles' and new items of 'motor vehicle equipment.' Accordingly, Fresia's vehicles are subject to the safety standards only if those vehicles are 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads. NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretation that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road. Applying these principles to the vehicles shown in the brochures enclosed with your letter yields the following tentative conclusions. 1. The vehicles identified as 'aircraft towing tractors' would not appear to be motor vehicles, assuming that these vehicles are designed and sold solely for use off the public roads. 2. The vehicles identified as 'snow removal equipment' appear to fall into two categories. a. One of the categories consists of the models identified as the 'F10 NF' and the 'Vomero TO-TB-TA-TR,' 'Fresa Laterale,' and 'Fresa Integrale HP 200-170' models. These vehicles would not appear to be motor vehicles, because their maximum speed appears to be 20 mph or less and they have a configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road. b. The second category consists of all the other vehicles identified as 'snow removal equipment.' All the vehicles in this category look like conventional trucks with either snowplow blades or snowblowers attached to the front of the truck and appear capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. We have consistently stated that trucks with snow blowers or snowplow blades on the front end are motor vehicles, and are subject to all of our safety standards applicable to trucks. For your information, I have enclosed an April 7, 1983 letter to Mr. Takeo Shimizu on this subject. I have identified our conclusions as tentative for several reasons. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying any particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified the vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classifications in the course of any enforcement actions. The agency does, however, tentatively state how it believes vehicles should be classified for the purposes of the safety standards. Additionally, the tentative opinions expressed in this letter are based on the literature enclosed with your letter. We may change the tentative opinions expressed in this letter if we have occasion to examine the vehicles themselves or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicles. Since you are considering importing some vehicles that would appear to be 'motor vehicles' into the United States, I have enclosed some additional materials for your information. One is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles, which highlights the relevant statutes and regulations that apply to such manufacturers and explains how the manufacturer can get copies of the relevant statutes and regulations. The other item is a booklet entitled 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures.' This booklet summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to trucks. Your letter also indicated that your company would be interested in any 'approval procedure or testing process NHTSA would administer' to get your company's vehicles on a qualified products list. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is itself responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures /";

ID: aiam4395

Dear Mr. Lang: I am pleased to respond to your request for a written statement of th legal requirements that would apply to a new product you plan to introduce. In telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke, of my staff, you described a new product that you would like to introduce. This product, which would be sold only as an item of aftermarket equipment, is a child safety seat belt buckle shield. This 'buckle shield' is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle on a child restraint system. The buckle shield would consist of a plastic strip that would completely cover the buckle on the child restraint. It would be clipped onto the child restraint belt on one side, and attached to the side of the buckle on the other side, so as to completely cover the buckle. To open the buckle, a person would have to firmly grasp the strip and pull it away from the child restraint system. The end of the strip clipped to the belt would pull off of the belt, thereby allowing the person to release the buckle.; Although we understand your concern that young children not be able t easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.; Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable t new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213), which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard No. 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with that Standard before selling the product.; Additionally, as Mr. Kratzke explained, you are not required to ge 'approval' from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.; Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to you product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your product are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency has reservations about your product because of our concern that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said two years ago on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:; >>>The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle forc release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985).<<<; Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using th buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.; In addition, use of your product can be affected by sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Standard No. 213 specifies two elements of design with which a child restraint system might not comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires that each material used in a child restraints (sic) system shall comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials* (49 CFR S571.302). If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device.; The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) (sic) does not apply t individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard No. 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restraint owners not to tamper with their child restraints. Installation of your product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.; If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at thi address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: may 29 571.213--battery dependent installation--Campbell2--13-002509