Mr. David Hirsch
International Ecological Systems, Inc.
24599 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite B201
Malibu, CA 90265

Dear Mr. Hirsch:

This responds to your letter in which you asked what impact a proposed amendment to the Federal definition of low speed vehicle (LSV) would have on a State definition if the Federal proposal were published as a final rule. Your question is addressed below.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, Low speed vehicles, to ensure LSVs are equipped with an appropriate level of motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. The agency defines an LSV as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, except a truck, whose attainable speed in one mile is more than 20 miles per hour (mph) but less than 25 mph (49 CFR 571.3(b)). On December 8, 2003, the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the definition of LSV, in part to limit the class to small vehicles (68 FR 68319). We proposed to limit the class of LSV to vehicles whose gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds). That proposal has not been published as a final rule.

In your letter you noted that California has a definition of LSV that limits the class to vehicles that have "an unladen weight of 1,800 pounds or less[. ]"CA Vehicle Code 385.5. You also noted that under California State law, an LSV operated or parked on a public roadway must comply with FMVSS No. 500. See, CA Vehicle Code 21253. You then asked what impact the proposed amendment to the Federal definition of LSV would have on the California law, if the proposed amendment were published as a final rule.

We note that if we issued our proposed amendment as a final rule, there would be an inconsistency in the definition of "low speed vehicle" between the California statute and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under the California statute, the weight limitation aspect of the definition of LSV would be dependent on the unladen weight of the vehicle, while under Federal law it would be dependent on GVWR. This would create the possibility of vehicles being considered different types of vehicles under State and Federal law.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. Different motor vehicle safety standards apply depending on how a vehicle is classified, i.e. , its vehicle type. If a State law classifies a vehicle differently than Federal law, preemption is an issue under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) if: (1) the State classification results in the vehicle being subject to a State standard applicable to the same aspect of performance regulated by a FMVSS, and (2) the State standard is not identical to the FMVSS. In such an instance the State safety standard would be preempted.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:500
d.3/17/05

Mr. Heinz-Gerd Weiler
Siemens Restraint Systems GmbH
Carl-Zeiss-Str. 9
D-63755 Alzenau
Germany

Dear Mr. Weiler:

This responds to your March 24, 2004, e-mail to Roger Saul, in which you seek clarification regarding the effective date for new or modified test requirements when various Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are amended. You are concerned because your firm is involved in engineering and vehicle crash testing. Specifically, you ask whether, after a vehicle is already in production or the certification test program for such a vehicle is underway, it is necessary to repeat the relevant tests using the new test methods (or whether the original testing remains valid). If new testing is required, you ask at what point such testing must commence (e.g., within a specified time limit after the effective date of the changes or at the start of the next model year) in order for the vehicle to be sold in the U.S.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification). Each vehicle must be so certified.

Periodically, the agency may amend FMVSSs. In some instances, amendment of a standard may involve modification of existing test procedures. Each final rule amending a standard is published in the Federal Register and specifies an effective date for the changes to the standard. For motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment produced on or after that effective date, manufacturers are required to certify compliance with the standard as modified, including any new testing requirements.

As further clarification, we note that each of this agencys safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA follows the test procedures and conditions in effect at the time of vehicle certification when conducting its compliance testing.

Manufacturers are not required to test their products in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with all applicable standards. A manufacturer may choose any valid means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard and to provide a basis for its certification of compliance.

If the agency has reason to believe that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard(s). If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer will have to recall the product to bring it into compliance at no charge to the customer.

In addition, the manufacturer will be subject to civil penalties, unless it can establish that it had no reason to know, despite exercising "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance, that the product did not in fact comply with the safety standard(s) (49 U.S.C. 30115(a) and 30165). This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.5/10/04

Mr. Paul Collett
Liberty Motor Company Inc.
2390 South Service Road West
Oakville, Ontario
Canada, L6L 5M9

Dear Mr. Collett:

This responds to your letter and phone inquiry in which you asked several questions concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, to the modification of a vehicle to accommodate a wheelchair ramp. You first asked if a door latch assembly you described would comply with FMVSS No. 206. You then asked a series of questions based on a comparison of the door system you described and other door assembly designs. I have addressed your questions below.

In a conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff you stated that your company, Liberty Motor Company Inc. (Liberty), installs wheelchair ramps onto the back doors of minivans. Prior to installation of a ramp, you stated that the minivans typically have a "rear tailgate door with hinges at the top" and a single latch system located at the center of the bottom edge of the door. You explained that the installation requires lowering of the vehicle floor and the attachment of a folding ramp. As described in your letter, when the ramp is stowed it acts to "seal the door opening between the bottom of the closed tailgate door and the lowered floor".You further explained that the latch and striker of the original vehicle is removed and reinstalled onto the ramp so that when the back door is closed it latches to the stowed ramp.

You raised a variety of issues related to this type of modification. We have read your letter as requesting a response on two main issues: (1) is such a modification compliant with FMVSS No. 206, and (2) would such a modification result in a door system analogous to a cargo-door or "double side door" for purposes of the standard?

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not approve or certify any motor vehicle or modification of a motor vehicle. Instead, 49 U.S.C. 30115 establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs. Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles up to their first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale). See 49 CFR 30112. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30122; "make inoperative" provision).

1. Compliance with FMVSS No. 206

In equipping a vehicle with a wheelchair ramp your company would have to ensure that the modification did not take the vehicle out of compliance with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 206. S4.4 of FMVSS No. 206 specifies the requirements for hinged back doors. Each hinged back door system must be equipped with at least one primary latch and striker assembly as defined by the standard. The primary latch and striker assembly must not separate when subjected to the specified forces applied in the specified directions.

Another important standard to consider is FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection. FMVSS No. 214 specifies safety requirements for vehicles subjected to impact by a moving deformable barrier at 33.5 mph. S5.3.2 of that standard specifies that any door (including a rear hatchback or tailgate), which is not struck by the barrier must not disengage from the latched position, must not have its latch separate from the striker, and must not have hinged components separate from each other or from their attachment to the vehicle. The latches and hinge systems of unstruck doors must not pull out of their anchorages.

The primary latch and striker provided by the original manufacturer must continue to meet these requirements as re-installed. However, nothing in our standards would expressly prohibit a design such as you described.

We note that on December 15, 2004, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to update requirements and test procedures specified in the standard (69 FR 75021). If adopted, the proposal would add requirements and test procedures for sliding doors, add secondary latch position requirements for doors other than hinged side doors and back doors, provide a new test procedure for assessing inertial forces, and extend the application of the standard to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds.

2. Similar Door Systems

You asked a series of questions based on the premise that the back door as modified would be analogous to a cargo-type door or a "[double] side door as found on some extended cab pick-up trucks. " We do not agree that the rear door / ramp system you described would be analogous to either of these door systems for the purposes of FMVSS No. 206.

FMVSS No. 206 defines a cargo-type door as:

[A] door designed primarily to accommodate cargo loading including, but not limited to, a two-part door that latches to itself.

Cargo-type doors are subject to more abbreviated standards than hinged back doors.

Contrary to the definition of "cargo-type doors", your door system is designed primarily to permit wheelchair occupants to enter and exit a vehicle. Further, in extending FMVSS No. 206 to hinged back doors, we rejected the idea of treating hinged back doors as cargo-type doors (60 FR 50124; September 28, 1995). The intent of S4.4 is to prevent the back door ejection of occupants by ensuring the integrity of latch/striker and hinge systems of back doors to reduce the incidence of unintended back door opening (60 FR at 50128).

The "double side door" systems described in your letter are located on the side of a vehicle and are therefore subject to the requirements applicable to hinged side doors. The door / ramp system described in your letter is located at the back of a vehicle and is therefore subject to the hinged back door requirements.

FMVSS No. 206 defines "back door" in part as:

[A] door or door system on the back end of a motor vehicle through which passengers can enter or depart the vehicle, or cargo can be loaded or unloaded[.] (Emphasis added. )

The portion of the ramp that acts to secure the back opening would be considered part of the back door system. Therefore, the system described in your letter would be a "hinged back door" for the purpose of FMVSS No. 206.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.2/24/05

Mr. Kenneth Conaway
Adaptive Mobility, Inc.
7050 Guion Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268

Dear Mr. Conaway:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding questions you have about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (FMVSS No. 206), which specifies various performance requirements for the door latches, locks and hinges of motor vehicles. In that letter, you posed four questions regarding the exception contained in FMVSS No. 206 for doors equipped with wheelchair lifts.

S4(c) of FMVSS No. 206 provides that "[c]omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily detached from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, and doors that are equipped with the wheelchair lifts and that are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visible signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver that is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard."

As with all of NHTSA's safety standards, FMVSS No. 206 only applies to new vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, after first retail sale, a manufacturer, dealer, or repair business may not remove or make inoperative safety features installed in compliance with the FMVSS No. 206 or other Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless NHTSA has issued an exemption from the "make inoperative" provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. ⁽¹⁾

First, you ask whether you may make the door locks and door retention components on a vehicle's side doors inoperable if 1) all the seating accommodations are removed except for a wheelchair lockdown and occupant restraint system that is installed directly across from the side doors and 2) a wheelchair lift with power door operators is installed in the side doors.

NHTSA addressed this and similar issues faced by vehicle modifiers in an amendment to 49 CFR Part 595 (66 Federal Register 12637, February 27, 2001). In amending Part 595, NHTSA struck a balance between maintaining an appropriate level of safety and increasing the mobility of the disabled. Accordingly, under the amended version of 49 CFR Part 595, a manufacturer, dealer, or repair business can now legally remove or make inoperative certain safety features installed in compliance with certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards when accommodating a vehicle for a disabled person. This exemption is limited to those portions of the safety standards specifically referenced in the regulation.

NHTSA did not include FMVSS No. 206 in the exemption because of the high level of fatalities associated with occupant ejection. Therefore, manufacturers, dealers, and repair businesses are generally prohibited from making door locks and retention components inoperative even when making accommodations for disabled persons. However, in the preamble to the final rule that amended 49 CFR Part 595, NHTSA also indicated its intention to preserve the wheelchair lift exception contained in FMVSS No. 206, which would allow manufacturers, dealers, and repair businesses to make door locks and door retention components inoperative for the specific and limited purpose of installing a wheelchair lift. Because compliance with FMVSS No. 206 is not required in the case of doors equipped with wheelchair lifts equipped with an alarm system, no exemption from the make inoperative provision is needed. Thus, you may make the door locks and door retention components inoperative as long as you install a wheelchair lift system that includes the alarm system specified in FMVSS No. 206. Although the standard does not require you to remove all designated seating positions adjacent to the lift, doing so may reduce the risk of ejection through the lift-equipped door and the possibility of injury from the lift in a crash.

Next, you would like to know whether you will qualify for the wheelchair lift exception in FMVSS No. 206 if you install either side or back doors that do not contain the original door locks and door retention components but do have a wheelchair lift and the alarm system specified in FMVSS No. 206 installed. The key to qualifying for the wheelchair-lift exception in FMVSS No. 206 is installing both the wheelchair lift and the specified alarm system. Any door for which you install both a wheelchair lift and the specified alarm system will be eligible for the exception contained in FMVSS No. 206 and need not comply with the door lock and door retention requirements of that standard. Accordingly, there is no requirement that you retain the original, complying latch systems for that door.

Third, you ask whether a wheelchair lift that has a folding platform qualifies for the exception in FMVSS No. 206 (assuming that it is installed in a door that has the alarm system specified in FMVSS No. 206). The exception in FMVSS No. 206 for wheelchair

lifts applies to all wheelchair lifts regardless of type, model, or brand. All wheelchair lifts, including those with folding platforms, will qualify for the exception in FMVSS No. 206 if they are installed on doors that have the specified alarm system installed. However, we note that a lift that does not block the affected door may not provide a vehicle occupant with protection from ejection. Such a risk is particularly great when the designated seating position adjacent to the affected door has not been removed or has been equipped with a wheelchair retention device.

Finally, you ask whether the date of manufacture for the vehicle has any bearing on the answers to the above three questions. The provision creating a wheelchair lift exception from the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 was implemented in 1985 (50 Federal Register 12029, March 27, 1985). Any vehicle manufactured after that date that is equipped with a wheelchair lift meeting the requirements of S4(c) need not meet the requirements of the standard with respect to the door that is equipped with the lift. Likewise, we do not consider modifications on vehicles that were manufactured prior to the effective date of an amended standard to constitute a violation of the make inoperative provision as long as those modifications are consistent with the new requirements. Thus, this type of modification may be made to any vehicle subject to the terms of the exception in FMVSS No. 206.

I hope this answers your questions. If you have any further questions please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at the address provided above or at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.4/1/02

Ms. Angela Wheeler
California Department of Transportation
Division of Equipment
34^th Street & Stockton Boulevard
P.O. Box 160048
Sacramento, CA 95816-0048

Dear Ms. Wheeler:

This responds to your letter in which you seek clarification regarding the implications under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) of modifying the seat assemblies of 20 medium-duty trucks to convert them from having intermediate seat backs to high seat backs. The purpose of these modifications would be to improve driver safety in the event of a rear impact. According to your letter and a subsequent phone conversation with Eric Stas, you stated that the California Department of Transportation, Division of Equipment (CalDOT) is a final-stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and it affixes certification labels in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. You stated that CalDOT owns the vehicles in question and would make such modifications itself. Your letter also described in detail both the original seat assembly delivered with the vehicle and the replacement seat assembly (whose back portion you wish to install), both of which you state conformed to FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems, at the date of manufacture. We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions related to our standards.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not issue approvals of these products, but instead, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must self-certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards, prior to offering such products for sale. Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation, in order to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces.

Before answering your specific questions, I would begin by discussing a few general matters of relevance here. First, it should be noted that under our certification requirements, every completed vehicle must be certified as complying with applicable

FMVSSs. Final-stage manufacturers that complete vehicles for their own use are subject to this requirement. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), a person may not "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, unless such vehicle complies with safety standards and is so certified. Ongoing use of a vehicle by its manufacturer on the public highways would constitute introduction of the vehicle into interstate commerce. Therefore, a manufacturer would need to certify the vehicle prior to such use, even if the vehicle has not been sold.

In a phone conversation, you also asked about CalDOTs responsibilities at the time of sale of these vehicles (i.e., after they have been used on the public highways by CalDOT). As indicated above, 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits a person from selling a vehicle unless it complies with applicable safety standards. Your question raises the issue of whether a vehicle that has been used by its manufacturer on the public highways, but has never been sold, must continue to meet the safety standards at the time it is eventually sold. If the user-manufacturers (in this case CalDOTs) use of the vehicle has been bona fide, we would consider CalDOTs actions in using the vehicles on the public highways to be equivalent to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. This would have an impact upon CalDOTs ongoing responsibilities, because under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1), "This section [49 U.S.C. 30112] does not apply to (1) the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment in good faith other than for resale." Thus, when CalDOT sells these trucks, they would be sold as used vehicles, and no additional certifications or alterations would be required under our regulations prior to sale.

As a general matter, Federal regulations do not prevent final-stage manufacturers, dealers, or repair businesses from modifying an original seat. For modifications made prior to initial vehicle sale, the entity must ensure that the new or modified seat and its attachment assembly comply with FMVSS No. 207, as is required under 49 U.S.C. 30112. For modifications made after the vehicle is certified and sold, the business must ensure that its modifications do not violate the "make inoperative" provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits actions that would take a vehicle out of compliance with any applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

We now turn to the three specific questions presented in your letter. For ease of reference, we repeat each question, followed by our response:

(1) "Does the nominal change in weight and CG [center of gravity] require the new assembly to be tested to S4.2 [of] FMVSS No. 207?"

Each of our safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment when testing for compliance with that particular standard. NHTSA follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions in effect at the time of product certification when conducting its compliance testing. In this case, S4.2, General performance requirements, of FMVSS No. 207 provides:

When tested in accordance with S5, each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces, in newtons.

(a) In any position to which it can be adjusted20 times the mass of the seat in kilograms multiplied by 9.8 applied in a forward longitudinal direction;

(b) In any position to which it can be adjusted20 times the mass of the seat in kilograms multiplied by 9.8 applied in a rearward longitudinal direction;

(c) For a seat belt assembly attached to the seatthe force specified in paragraph (a), if it is a forward facing seat, or paragraph (b), if it is a rearward facing seat, in each case applied simultaneously with the forces imposed on the seat by the seat belt assembly when it is loaded in accordance with S4.2 of 571.210; and

(d) In its rearmost positiona force that produces a 373 newton meters moment about the seating reference point for each designated seating position that the seat provides, applied to the upper cross-member of the seat back or the upper seat back, in a rearward longitudinal direction for forward-facing seats and in a forward longitudinal direction for rearward-facing seats.

However, we note that a manufacturer is not required to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards (including actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means), provided that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567.

In evaluating the need to conduct testing, relevant considerations here would include whether the new seat would require increased loading (due to greater mass) and load application at a greater height (due to higher center of gravity), as these factors could potentially induce greater stress on the seat and seat attachment hardware.

(2) "If re-testing is required as a final stage manufacturer, can we perform the required testing within our own testing facilities to ensure conformance to FMVSS No. 207?"

Consistent with our response to Question (1) above, if CalDOT chooses to conduct testing pursuant to FMVSS No. 207, it may do so at its own testing facilities.

(3) "If testing is required, does the seat belt attachment shown in Figures 3 and 4 require test S4.2c to be included?"

We note that your letter included several photographs (i.e., Figure 1 (original seat); Figure 2 (proposed seat); Figures 3 and 4 (depicting seat belt attachment)). However, we cannot determine from these photographs whether your proposed seat modifications would warrant your conducting testing under S4.2(c) of the standard. The responsibility for this determination lies with the entity that makes the modifications.

We note generally that S4.2(c) applies in those instances where a seat belt assembly is "attached" to the seat, in order to account for associated forces that may act on the seat in the event of a crash. In a July 10, 2000 interpretation letter to Mr. Gil De Laat, we examined whether a webbing guide permanently attached to the seat, but which did not have any "structural benefit" for purposes of seat or safety belt performance, is an "attachment" for purposes of S4.2(c). As presented by Mr. De Laat, the webbing guide in question served no structural purpose and would not transfer safety belt loads to the seat itself. Because the seat would not be loaded in a crash by the forces generated by the safety belt loads to the seat itself, we determined that it would not be necessary that the seat be capable of withstanding the load from the belt, so use of the webbing guide would not require that the seat be subjected to the seat belt anchorage loads of FMVSS No. 210, as described in S4.2(c) of FMVSS No. 207.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.6/16/05

Mr. Kent Will
Project Engineer
Oshkosh Truck Corporation
2307 Oregon Street
P.O. Box 2566
Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566

Dear Mr. Will:

This is in reply to your letter asking two questions regarding the rearview mirror requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview mirrors.

You have stated that you have selected a mirror to be installed as an outside, rearview mirror on a truck weighing between 7,575 and 15,773 kilograms (kg). You indicate that the mirror has a radius of curvature of 2,200 millimeters and that it provides a reflective surface area of 526.6 square centimeters. You ask whether this mirror would be considered a convex mirror and, if so, whether it would be subject to the labeling and radius of curvature requirements for convex mirrors contained in Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.3 of FMVSS No. 111.

The term "convex mirror" is defined as "a mirror having a curved reflective surface whose shape is the same as that of the exterior surface of a section of a sphere." 49 CFR 571.111 (S4. Definitions). You have described your mirror as having both a "radius of curvature" and a "reflective surface." Therefore, assuming that the shape of your mirror is spherical, it would be considered a convex mirror as defined in FMVSS No. 111. The next question to be addressed is which set of performance requirements applies to the mirror in question. The answer to that question depends on the type and weight of the vehicle receiving the mirror.

You have indicated that the mirror in question will be installed on a truck. FMVSS No. 111's performance requirements for rearview mirrors installed on trucks vary according to the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the particular truck involved. Given that you intend to install the mirror on a truck with a GVWR between 7,575 kg and 15,773 kg, the applicable performance requirements are found in Paragraphs S7 and S8. The requirements in Paragraph S7 apply to trucks with a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,340 kg and the requirements in Paragraph S8 apply to trucks with a GVWR of 11,340 kg or more. Considering that the rearview mirror performance requirements in these two paragraphs are identical, though, it is not necessary for the purposes of this interpretation to differentiate between trucks with a GVWR between 7,575 kg and 11,340 kg and those with a GVWR between 11,340 kg and 15,773 kg.

Both paragraphs require trucks to "have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 323 [square centimeters] of reflective surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle." Both paragraphs also indicate that the mirrors must "be located to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and [must] be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene." 49 CFR 571.111.

A "unit magnification mirror" is defined, in relevant part, as a "plane or flat mirror with a reflective surface through which the angular height and width of the image of an object is equal to the angular height and width of the object when viewed directly at the same distance." 49 CFR 571.111 (S4. Definitions.) Considering that your mirror appears to be a convex mirror, it would not be not flat enough to qualify as a mirror of unit magnification. Accordingly, installing such a mirror as an outside, rearview mirror on a truck with a GVWR between 7,575 kg and 15,773 kg would fail to satisfy the requirements of S7/S8 unless it was a supplemental mirror, installed in addition to a complying mirror.

I note that, in your letter, you ask about the labeling and radius of curvature requirements for convex mirrors found in paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. These requirements are only relevant to passenger cars and trucks with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less. If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:111
d.8/22/01

Amir Ambar
Winbel, Inc.
6231 McLeod Drive # E
Las Vegas, NV 89120

Dear Mr. Ambar:

This responds to the interpretation request sent to us by Alan Schnitzer, Esq. on your behalf, asking if a scooter you are attempting to import into the United States is a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, it is our opinion that the scooter is not a motor vehicle.

The legislation establishing NHTSAs vehicle safety authority is set out at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" "Motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

When determining if a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, the agency will first look to see if the vehicle has on-road capabilities.

In an October 3, 1969, notice, the agency determined that while "mini-bikes" have on-road operating capabilities, they are not motor vehicles for the purpose of our standards. (34 Federal Register 15416; enclosed) At that time the agency found that "mini-bikes" were precluded from operation on public roads by a vast majority of States. The agency has determined this to still hold true. Further, "mini-bikes" were at that time promoted and advertised solely for off-road use.

The scooter that you are seeking to import was described as a "toy" intended for off-road use only. The literature submitted stated that the maximum speed of the scooter ranges between 12.5 and 16 miles per hour (mph). The scooter is shown to have an engine displacement of 36 cc, a height of 33 inches, and wheel diameters of ten and nine inches (front and rear, respectively). The owners manual and a label on the scooter warn against operating the scooter on public roads.

Based on the description provided, including its speed capabilities and small size, we conclude that the "scooter" you are seeking to import is properly characterized as a "mini-bike," and therefore is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of Chapter 301. The scooters low speed capability would prohibit it from being operated in normal moving traffic. This is reflected in the warning label. Further, the low sitting height and small wheel diameters are comparable if not smaller than those of the mini-bikes considered under the 1969 notice. While your scooter could theoretically be operated on public roads, we anticipate that because of its small size and absence of a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), which is generally required by States for vehicles authorized to operate on public roads, incidents of its actual operation on public streets, roads, and highways will be comparatively rare. We recognize that the scooter is equipped with a headlight, horn, turn signals, and a mirror. While this equipment may be seen as equipping the scooter for road use, we note that this equipment is also sometimes present on bicycles and other non-motor vehicles as well.

While we have concluded at this time that the scooter you are seeking to import is not a motor vehicle, we may re-evaluate our determination if we were to receive additional information indicating that the scooter (or similar ones) were being used on public roads on more than an incidental basis, the scooter were to be advertised for use on public roads, or the characteristics of the imported scooters were not consistent with the descriptions provided.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:571.3#597
d.11/26/03

Mr. Bret W. Wolf
Indiana Vac-Form, Inc.
2030 North Boeing Road
Airport Industrial Park
Warsaw, IN 46580

Dear Mr. Wolf:

This responds to your July 10, 2000, letter regarding replacing rear glazing material on a passenger van with a polycarbonate material.

You state in your letter that you are writing on behalf of a customer, Mr. Charlie Klerner, who is "seeking input to determine the feasibility of a project that entails replacing the right rear glazing material on a Chevrolet Passenger Van for the purpose of replacing it with a Polycarbonate material...so that electronic equipment including a consumer operated touch pad may be installed in the window opening." Mr. Klerner, in correspondence to this office dated July 13, 2000, specifies that the glazing material will be used between the C and D pillar adjacent to the seating of a passenger vehicle. As explained below, glazing made from a polycarbonate material must meet certain performance requirements and may only be used in certain locations on a vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither endorses, approves, nor conducts testing of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANSI Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways.

You company's product, as a "polycarbonate" material which would replace the existing glazing material in the right rear window opening of a passenger van, is considered to be item 4A glazing subject to the requirements of S5.1.2.11 of Standard No. 205. S5.1.2.11 specifies the locations in a vehicle where rigid plastic for use in side windows rearward of the "C" pillar are permitted. Item 4A glazing is permitted in the following specific vehicle locations (see S5.1.2.11(a)):

(1) All areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used (these areas do not include the rear side or rear window area of a passenger van).

(2) Any side window that meets the criteria in (i) and (ii):

(i) is in a vehicle whose rearmost designated seating position is forward-facing and cannot be adjusted so that it is side or rear-facing; and

(ii) the forwardmost point on its visible interior surface is rearward of the vertical transverse plane that passes through the shoulder reference point (as described in Figure 1 of 571.210, Seat belt assembly anchorages (copy enclosed)), of that rearmost seating position.

NHTSA does not permit Item 4A glazing near rear-facing seats or side-facing seats in any motor vehicle because of the concern that occupants (particularly unbelted ones) riding in those seating locations may be able to contact their heads against Item 4A glazing in a crash. The breaking of rigid plastic windows in a crash could leave sharp, pointed shards in the window frame which could easily be contacted by an occupant's head. There is also concern about occupant injury resulting from large shards of rigid plastic glazing being propelled inward by vehicle impacts with trees, poles, or other vehicles. Accordingly, replacing the right rear glazing material on a Chevrolet passenger van with a polycarbonate material adjacent to a passenger seating is generally not permitted.

In addition, S5.1.2.11(a) of Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for rigid plastic for use in side windows rearward of the "C" pillar. (See Test Procedures for Item 4A - Rigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows Rearward of the "C" Pillar.) These performance requirements would apply to the polycarbonate glazing material.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 (copy enclosed) (formerly 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ⁽¹⁾) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any item of new motor vehicle equipment unless the equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and is so certified by its manufacturer. It would be a violation of this section of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell any glazing material for use in motor vehicles (such as the glazing from the polycarbonate material) unless the products comply with applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Further, it would be a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell a motor vehicle whose glazing does not comply with the performance and location requirements of Standard No. 205.

In addition, our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. The polycarbonate glazing material could only be installed by the aforementioned entities if it meets the performance and location requirements of FMVSS No. 205.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as the glazing you describe, also have responsibilities under our statute for any defects related to motor vehicle safety that are determined to exist in their products. The statute requires such manufacturers to notify purchasers about any defects related to motor vehicle safety and to remedy such defects free of charge.

In closing, I would like to draw your attention to FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, which applies to "....multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, with a GVWR or 4,536 kilograms or less." You should carefully review this standard to determine whether installation of the electronic equipment and touchpad in vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 201 would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standard. While NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards directly applicable to an electronic touchpad, the "make inoperative" provision of our statute (30122) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from installing the equipment if the installation would adversely affect the compliance of any FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 201.

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

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales Jr.
Chief Counsel

cc:  Charles Klerner
      2 Enclosures

ref:205
d.9/25/00

1. Our statute, formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, was recodified in 1994 without substantive change. It is now codified at Title 49 of the U.S. Code in Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety.)

Kevin M. Wolford, Executive Director
Automotive Manufacturers
Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. ,
1101 15^th Street, NW, Suite 607
Washington, DC 20005-5020

Dear Mr. Wolford:

This responds to your letter in which you requested clarification of certain issues pertaining to the requirements for replacement lighting equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter asked whether a manufacturer designing a lamp with a bulb using an indexed base, but which has a series of LEDs, would need to meet the requirements for a "single compartment" lamp or a "three compartment" lamp (i.e. , whether a bulb with several LEDs has a single light source or multiple light sources). You also asked whether it would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108 to develop a lamp with a red bulb that complies with the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) standard for bulbs. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the relevant provisions of our standard.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571).

As you are aware, FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), and motorcycles. Paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard provides, "Except as provided below, each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies, shall be designed to conform to this standard."

We would note that the substantive issues raised in your letter, regarding compliance of certain lamp designs with the requirements of Standard No. 108, have largely been addressed in prior interpretations. The first scenario presented in your letter involves a replacement lamp (non-headlamp) that includes a series of LEDs. You stated that the hypothetical replacement lamp is designed with an indexed base conforming to SAE J567, Lamp Bulb Retention System. Your letter, in effect, asked whether the LEDs, taken together, would be considered a single light source when determining photometric compliance with Standard No. 108 (thereby being subject to the requirements for one lighted section), or whether the LEDs would be considered individual light sources (thereby being subject to the requirements for three lighted sections).

As we explained in our December 30, 1992 letter of interpretation to Mr. T. Kouchi, lamps with LEDs are considered to have multiple light sources, with each LED constituting a single source. The letter goes on to state that "any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections". We note, however, that in our December 21, 2005 letter of interpretation to Mr. Takayuki Amma (see enclosure), we stated that if a number of LEDs is wired such that failure of any one LED would cause the entire array of LEDs to cease functioning, we would consider the array of LEDs to be a single light source. Furthermore, each array of LEDs wired in this manner would be considered one light source for the purposes of determining number of lighted sections in SAE J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, which is incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108. For example, a turn signal lamp that is wired with two arrays of LEDs, operating in the manner described above, would be considered a two-lighted-section lamp.

As to the second issue presented in your letter regarding the permissibility of using a red bulb in a taillamp, such a configuration would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. Under Table I and Table III of FMVSS No. 108 and appropriate SAE standards incorporated by reference, the color of the light from taillamps and stop lamps must be red (without specifying either bulb color or lens color). The color specifications that such lamps must meet in order to comply with FMVSS No. 108 are contained in SAE Standard No. J578c, Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices (February 1977), which S5.1.5 of FMVSS No. 108 incorporates by reference. The ECE regulation mentioned in your letter (E/ECE/324/Rev.1/Add.36/Rev.3/Amend.3) is not a substitute for SAE J578c.

On this point, your letter also questioned whether the interpretation as expressed in our October 5, 2000 letter to Senior Trooper W.L. Hill has been changed. It has not. In that letter, it was stated that we were not aware of any manufacturer certifying a taillamp with a red bulb and a clear lens under FMVSS No. 108. However, the response reflected our understanding that a red bulb/clear lens configuration was not economically feasible at that time, not that such a configuration is impermissible under the standard. Since then, we understand that some manufacturers are currently producing lamps with red LED bulbs and clear lenses that do comply with the standard.

Your letter also raised the separate issue of how the above principles apply to aftermarket manufacturers in light of our notice of interpretation published in the Federal Register on October 8, 2004, which interpreted paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard dealing with replacement lighting equipment (69 FR 60464). In response to several requests for reconsideration of that notice of interpretation, the agency published a revised notice of interpretation in the Federal Register on November 1, 2005 (70 FR 65972). We encourage you to read this latest notice of interpretation (see enclosure).

In that second notice, we have decided to adopt a less restrictive interpretation of S5.8.1, which, simply stated, requires that a lamp (or other item of lighting equipment) manufactured to replace a lamp on a vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies, is permitted so long as the vehicle manufacturer could have certified the vehicle to the standard using the replacement lamp instead of the lamp actually used (including replacement headlamps using different light sources than the original equipment headlamps). In light of our revised interpretation of S5.8.1, we believe that there would not be a significant difference in the treatment accorded to original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket/replacement equipment manufacturers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.1/5/06

Bryce Pfister, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Collins Bus Corporation
PO Box 2946
Hutchinson, KS 67504-2946

Dear Mr. Pfister:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Door Locks and Door Retention Components."Specifically, you ask whether a door configuration used in your school buses is a "folding door" excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 206.

As discussed below, we believe the door you describe in your letter is a folding door for purposes of Standard No. 206.

You explain in your letter that the Collins Bus Corporation manufacturers school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) ranging from 9,500 to 19,500 pounds.One of your customers needs a vehicle with a passenger capacity of nine passengers, for the purposes of transporting pre-schoolers.You plan to sell the same basic vehicle you ordinarily would sell as a school bus, but with a reduced passenger capacity. Because the vehicle will only accommodate nine passengers, you will have to classify these vehicles as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) rather than as school buses. [1]However, in a telephone conversation with Rebecca MacPherson of this office, you stated that, with the exception of the requirements for flashing lights and stop arms, these vehicles meet all Federal requirements for school buses.

You describe the door used in these vehicles as follows:

The typical passenger entrance door configuration of the Collins school bus includes two door leafs, each pivoting along its outer edge, and each attached to the door jamb at one upper and one lower pivot point.Both

door leaves pivot outward toward a boarding passenger, and the door opening is formed between the two door leaves in their outward position.A hand-operated linkage extending from the drivers seating position opens and closes the forward door.An overhead linkage connecting to the forward door controls the rear door motion.The doors are latched in the closed position by a device attached to the door operating linkage near the drivers seat.

Standard No. 206 specifies requirements for door locks and door retention components to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle in the event of a crash.The standard applies to passenger cars, trucks, and MPVs, but not to school buses.S4(c) of Standard No. 206 specifically excludes "folding doors" from the standard's requirements.The door described in your letter is a type of door typically used in school buses rather than MPVs.

As to whether the door is a "folding door" for purposes of Standard No. 206, we note that the standard does not include a definition of that term. Unlike some of the doors typically used for the same purpose in school buses, your door does not consist of two leaves that are hinged together and "fold" in on themselves.Rather, the two leaves in your door are separate.Each pivots outward. Nonetheless, considering the total design of your door as described above, including (but not limited to) the facts that both door leaves pivot outward toward a boarding passenger to form an opening, and both leaves operate together (through a linkage) by means of the same hand-operated control, we believe your door comes within the meaning of "folding door" for purposes of Standard No. 206.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.11/1/02