ID: 24338

Mr. Dale Dierks
Engineering Manager
Dakota Manufacturing
PO Box 1188
Mitchell, SD 57301

Dear Mr. Dierks:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether the tilt bed trailers manufactured by Dakota Manufacturing are excluded from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, "Rear Impact Protection." As explained below, the answer is no.

According to your letter, your tilt bed trailers are flatbed trailers with bed heights ranging from 35.4 to 39.1 inches off the ground. At the rear of the bed is an approach plate that extends across the entire rear of the trailer. When the trailer bed is tilted for loading purposes, the approach plate is extended outward and bridges the gap between the trailer bed and the ground. When the trailer is in transit, the approach plate is locked in a downward position. The height of the approach plate, when it is locked in a downward position, ranges from 15.6 to 19.4 inches off the ground.

Standard No. 224 requires most trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, "Rear Impact Guards." However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are the low chassis vehicle and special purpose vehicle categories.

Low Chassis Vehicle

A "low chassis vehicle" is defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.3 of this section." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a rear impact guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. S5.1.1 through S5.1.3 require the guard to extend to within four inches of the side extremities of the vehicle, be no higher than 22 inches across the full width of the guard, and be located within 12 inches of the rear extremity of the vehicle.

The only part of your trailer that meets these configuration requirements is the approach plate. As noted above, the approach plate is located at the rear extremity of your trailer, extends the full width of your trailer, and is 15.6 to 19.4 inches above the ground. Therefore, the question becomes whether the approach plate is considered to be part of the chassis of your trailer.

"Chassis" is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "frame structure" and "load supporting."

To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor we consider in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. We also consider the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load.

To be considered load supporting, the frame structure must support a load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit.

Applying these principles to your tilt bed trailer, we find that the approach plate is not part of the chassis. The approach plate does not meet the "load supporting" aspect of the chassis definition because the approach plate does not contribute to supporting cargo load. The approach plate also is not part of the frame structure of the trailer. The approach plate does not define the shape of the trailer. Instead, it hangs down from the rear end of the trailer, forming a protrusion from the outline of the trailer bed. Finally, the size and strength of the approach plate are not similar to the other frame components, and it is not considered integral with another frame member.

In consideration of these factors, we believe that the approach plate is not part of the frame structure, but an attachment. Thus, the approach plate is not part of the chassis, and your tilt bed trailers are not excluded from Standard No. 224 as low chassis vehicles.

Special Purpose Vehicle

We turn now to the question of whether your tilt bed trailers are excluded as special purpose vehicles. A "special purpose vehicle" is defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear impact guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3." Again, the approach plate is the only part of your tilt bed trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in the area that could be occupied by the rear impact guard. Therefore, the approach plate would have to be considered work-performing equipment for your tilt bed trailer to be excluded.

There is no definition of "work-performing equipment" in Standard No. 224. The Agency has historically interpreted the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else.

Approach plates do not perform work in this sense because they merely form a ramp between the ground and the vehicle or equipment driving onto the tilt bed. Therefore, the approach plate is not work-performing equipment, and your tilt bed trailer does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle.

Since your trailer does not meet the definition of an excluded category, and it has a GVWR over 10,000 pounds, it must be equipped with a rear impact guard meeting our standards. In your letter, you stated that you currently install rear impact guards on your tilt bed trailers, but that the guards have added "significant cost" to your trailers.

Another option you might consider is whether your approach plate could "be" the rear impact guard. The approach plate already appears to meet the configurational requirements for a rear impact guard. If it does not currently meet the strength and energy absorption requirements of Standard No. 223, you might be able to reinforce or otherwise modify the approach plate sufficiently so that it would pass these requirements. If you can do this, the approach plate itself could be labeled and certified as a guard under Standard No. 223.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ref:224

d.8/1/02

ID: 24345.ztv

Mr. Ronald E. Kish
Plastics by Design, Inc.
P.O. Box 220
Marcellus, MI 49067

Dear Mr. Kish:

This is in reply to your recent undated letters to Frank Seales, Jr., and John Womack, with reference to a license plate lamp you intend to market for use on a cargo utility trailer. You enclosed a test report and stated that the test results are "within the SAE Standard J587 and FMVS 108." You asked "may we market this model as compliant with D.O.T. ???"

Under the primary motor vehicle safety statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment must certify that its product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) if there is a FMVSS that applies to its product (49 U.S.C. 30115). Paragraph S5.8, the replacement equipment provisions of FMVSS No. 108, applies to the license plate lamp you intend to manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 allows you, as the manufacturer, to certify compliance by labeling each lamp with a DOT symbol (S5.8.10). Use of this symbol identifies the lamp as compliant with DOT standards applicable to license plate lamps, but if you wish to use further language indicating compliance, we prefer that you say the lamp "complies with FMVSS No. 108" rather than "compliant with D.O.T."

We express no opinion as to whether your lamp design complies with FMVSS No. 108. The test report you sent us relates to the photometric performance of a center highmounted stop lamp with a clear red lens, and you cannot use this as a basis for certifying conformance of a license plate lamp.

Assuming that you have, or will have, a test report indicating that your license plate lamp meets SAE J587, the fact that a prototype lamp meets the tests specified in applicable SAE standards does not necessarily indicate that all production lamps will comply with SAE specifications incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108. A manufacturer must exercise "reasonable care" in ensuring that each of its products complies with all applicable FMVSS and in certifying such compliance (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A), 30115) in order not to violate the provisions of Chapter 301. Occasional surveillance testing of production items is one means of ensuring continuing compliance of products.

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

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/14/02

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: 24416ogm

Mr. William McAlister
McAlister Electronics Service Center
926 E. Fremont Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94087




Dear Mr. McAlister:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding Federal regulations that govern seat belts in vehicles. You ask if vehicle manufacturers are required to provide a "lifetime" warranty for seat belts and seat belt assemblies and, if such a warranty is required, the procedures that would be employed to enforce that warranty.

Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised that authority and established Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR 571.208), which requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in new motor vehicles. In addition, Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), contains minimum performance requirements for seat belt assemblies installed in new vehicles and sold as "aftermarket" equipment, and Standard No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210), Seat belt assembly anchorages, sets minimum standards for anchorage location and performance. Each new vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the requirements in Standards No. 208, 209 and 210. Federal law does not, however, require vehicles to comply with these standards after the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

None of the regulations or statutes administered by NHTSA require manufacturers to provide a lifetime warranty for seat belts. However, NHTSA has the authority to require manufacturers to replace seat belts under certain circumstances. If a vehicle or item of equipment is not more than ten years old and is determined to have a safety-related defect or fails to meet an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, NHTSA can compel the manufacturer to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge to the vehicle owner.

Your letter indicates that the automatic belt assemblies on your 1990 Ferrari Testarossa have ceased to function. A search of our recall database indicates that NHTSA or Ferrari have not determined that the automatic belt system of the 1990 Testarossa contains a safety-related defect. In the absence of such a determination, Ferrari is not required to repair or replace the belts by the statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA.

I hope that this is responsive to your request. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at 202-366-5253.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.8/22/02

ID: 24421safeline_LATCH_buckle

Mr. Keith Poulson
Vice President of Product Development
Safeline Kids, Inc.
475 W. 115^th Avenue, Suite 3
Northglenn, CO 80234

Dear Mr. Poulson:




This responds to your letter and follow-up e-mail asking about a design concept for components on a child restraint that attach to the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system on a vehicle.The components are required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (S5.9) for child restraints manufactured on or after September 1, 2002.The child restraint anchorage system, which you refer to as the LATCH system, is required to be installed in vehicles by Standard No. 225. [1]You ask if the concept you have developed would meet our requirements.With certain caveats, our answer is yes.

Background

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter, and addresses some or all of the specific issues you raised as necessary to render this interpretation.If we have not addressed an issue, you should not assume that we have concurred with a position you have expressed on that issue.Likewise, this interpretation may not discuss every requirement of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that might apply to your product.It is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine the requirements that apply and certify the compliance of your product with those requirements.NHTSA determines the compliance of products with the safety standards in the context of an agency enforcement proceeding.

You explain that your letter concerns the Sit' n 'Stroll, which converts from a child restraint to a stroller.You have designed LATCH attachments for the restraint system keeping in mind that the Sit' n 'Stroll will be removed from the vehicle several times a day for use as a stroller.You state:

As standard equipment on each product the Sit' n 'Stroll would have permanently attached to the seat shell, a snap hook and also a quick release buckle latch clip.Both are permanently attached to the product on the same piece of webbing [2]

As an option, a consumer could then purchase as an accessory a buckle(s) with a snap hook attached to it, that could be secured to the anchor point in the vehicle seat, allowing the consumer to quickly release the Sit' n 'Stroll from the vehicle seat using the buckle.The buckle will remain secured to the anchor point in the vehicle using the snap hook, but can be easily removed should the consumer decide to transfer the Sit' n 'Stroll and this accessory to a different vehicle. [3]

Discussion

S5.9(a) of Standard No. 213 requires child restraint systems of the type you manufacture to have components permanently attached to the system that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a LATCH system.Your child restraint would have snap hooks permanently attached to the child restraint that enable the restraint to fasten to the lower LATCH anchorages.As such, the restraint provides the components required by S5.9(a).The standard does not prohibit a child restraint from having other components attached to it.However, the other components must not make inoperative the LATCH snap hooks that are installed in compliance with Standard No. 213.Further, under S5.6.1, each child restraint system that has components for attaching to a child restraint anchorage system must include a step-by-step procedure for properly attaching to that anchorage system.This means that the installation instructions you provide must include instructions for properly attaching the buckle with snap hook to the LATCH anchorage system.In addition, child restraint systems are tested to Standard No. 213's performance requirements when attached to a LATCH anchorage system "in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6.1."(S6.1.2(1)(i)(C)).Thus, your child restraint must meet the standard's performance requirements when attached by the buckle with snap hook component.

Note also that S5.9(d) specifies an additional requirement for child restraint systems other than systems with hooks for attaching to the lower LATCH anchorages.Such systems must provide an indication when each attachment to the lower anchorages becomes fully latched or attached.Because the "buckle Latch (sic) clip" is a part of your system, the child restraint must meet S5.9(d).We consider an audible "click" of the buckle LATCH clip connecting to the "quick release buckle" as satisfying S5.9(d).

I hope this information is helpful.If you have any questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.11/8/02





---




[1] "LATCH" is a term used by industry and retail groups referring to the child restraint anchorage system required by Standard No. 225.LATCH stands for "lower anchorages and tethers for children." For convenience, we will use the term in this letter.

[2] The snap hook and buckle latch clip are shown in the attachment as "A."(Footnote added.)

[3]

The buckle(s) with a snap hook are shown in the attachment as "B."(Footnote added.)