ID: nht89-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LES SCHREINER -- FRESIA ENGINEERING INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/01/89 FROM LES SCHREINER TO NHTSA, OCC 3193

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schreiner:

This responds to your letter asking whether some vehicles you plan to import into the United States are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. These vehicles consist of snow removal vehicles and aircraft towi ng vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, Fresia's vehicles are subject to the safety standards only if those vehicles are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicles operated exclusively on the rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles design ed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public

2

roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statement that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public road s.

NHTSA has also stated that in many prior interpretation that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public road will not be considered "motor vehicles" for the purpose of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 mil es per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

Applying these principles to the vehicles shown in the brochures enclosed with our letter yields the following tentative conclusions.

1. The vehicles identified as "aircraft towing tractors" would not appear to be motor vehicles, assuming that these vehicles are designed and sold solely for use off the public roads.

2. The vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment" appear to fall into two categories.

a. One of the categories consists of the models identified as the "F10 NF" and the "Vomero TO-TB-TA-TR," "Fresa Laterale," and "Fresa Integrale HP 200-170" models. These vehicles would not appear to be motor vehicles, because their maximum speed app ears to be 20 mph or less and they have a configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

b. The second category consists of all the other vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment." All the vehicles in this category look like conventional trucks with either snowplow blades or snowblowers attached to the front of the truck and appear capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. We have consistently stated that trucks with snow blowers or snowplow blades on the front end are motor vehicles, and are subject to all of our safety standards applicable to trucks. For your information, I have enclosed an April 7, 1983 letter to Mr. Takeo Shimizu on this subject.

I have identified our conclusions as tentative for several reasons. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying any particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any ve hicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified the vehicle. HNTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classifications in the course of any enforcement actions. The agency does, however, tentatively state how it believes vehicles shoul d be classified for the purpose of the safety standards.

Additionally, the tentative opinions expressed in this letter are based on the literature enclosed with your letter. We may change the tentative opinions expressed in this letter if we have occasion to examine the vehicles themselves or otherwise acquir e additional information about the vehicles.

Since you are considering importing some vehicles that would appear to be "motor vehicles" into the United States, I have enclosed some additional

3

materials for your information. One is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles, which highlights the relevant statutes and regulations that apply to such manufacturers and explains how the manufacturer can get copies of the relevant statues and regulations. The other item is a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This booklet summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to trucks.

Your letter also indicated that your company would be interested in any "approval procedure or testing process NHTSA would administer" to get your company's vehicles on a qualified products list. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse any motor ve hicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is itself responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA peri odically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/90

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

TO: RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH PRESIDENT SAFETY PREMIUMS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/25/90 WITH COMPANY BROCHURE ON AUTOMOBILE TRIANGLE DEVICE, FROM RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH -- SAFETY PREMIUMS TO JOHN MESSERA -- NHTSA

TEXT: Thank you for your letter to John Messera, of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). You indicated that you have for many years produced and sold a "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On," which you described as a "dangling safety tag which attaches to the car mirror to alert passersby of emergency needs." These warning devices are made of a reflective plastic material designed with a clip attachment, and come in eight di fferent shapes, including a triangular configuration. These products are slightly more than four inches high.

You also stated that, pursuant to a request from a customer, your company has developed a larger size warning triangle for mounting on a car mirror. You have provided a prototype of this new larger size "Lite at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle, that is a pproximately 6" at the base and 5 1/2" in height. You stated that, as your warning triangle gets larger, you "wish to make sure it is not confused with the roadside truck version described in Standard No. 125." Additionally, you stated that you wanted t o be certain that the instructions for this larger size warning triangle "in no way conflict with the standard." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency has exercised thi s authority to establish Standard No. 125. Section S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the pre sence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added.)

2

This language in S3 of Standard No. 125 makes clear that the standard's requirements are not limited to devices used by large trucks; that is, Standard No. 125 does not apply only to a "roadside truck version" of a warning device. Instead, the standard a pplies to all devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, from the smallest motorcycle to the largest truck, if the device satisfies the other conditions set forth in S3 of the standard.

One of the conditions set forth in S3 is that the device must be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." Devices that are not intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but only to alert passing traffic of the stopped vehicle's need for assistance, are not subject to Standard No. 125. Examples of such devices include a rag tied on a radio antenna and a "HELP" message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade. By the time approaching traffic sees one of the se non-warning devices, the traffic would already be aware that the vehicle displaying such a device was stopped.

Your "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On" product appears to be designed and to function in the same way other non-warning devices do; i.e., it does not appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but to alert passing traffic that the stopped vehicle needs assistance. If this is the case, the "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On" would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

However, the larger "Lite at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle may be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." It appears from the promotional material enclosed in your letter that this larger triangle is intended to serve the same purpose as what you call "truck warning triangles." We assume that you are describing warning devices that are certified as complying with Standard No. 125. If your larger triangle is to serve this function, it would be subject to Standard No. 125 and would have to conform to all the requirements of the standard. From the enclosed copy of Standard No. 125, you will see that some of the specific requirements with which the larger triangle must conform include minimum size, durability, material, c ontainer, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate c ommerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Further, the Safety Act provides that NHTSA has no authority to appr ove, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicab le Federal safety standards. To comply with any applicable legal obligations, especially in connection with the manufacturer of the larger size warning triangle, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard 125 and consider the desi gn, marketing, and intended use of the new larger warning triangle.

3

You should also be aware that the Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $ 800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers a nd remedy any items of motor vehicle equipment, such as warning devices, that do not conform with any applicable safety standards.

I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, that briefly summarizes our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. If you have any further questio ns or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-3.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/14/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: N. BOWYER -- SENIOR ENGINEER HOMOLOGATION AND LEGISLATION LAND ROVER UK LIMITED

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: UNDATED LETTER FROM N. BOWYER TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC 1909; LETTER DATED 04/19/88 FROM D. BRUCE HENDERSON TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC-1908

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bowyer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @571.209). I regret the delay in this response.

More specifically, you noted that S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 requires dynamic testing of manual lap/shoulder belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 199 1. Section S4.6.3 of Standard No. 208 provides: "A Type 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(c) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209."

Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that: "A seat belt assembly that meets [the dynamic testing requirements] of Standard No. 208 shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the following statement: This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right'] in [insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)]."

You expressed your opinion that dynamically tested belts must be labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 if the belts do not comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. In these situations, you suggested that t he labeling requirements help ensure that the belts will not be installed "into inappropriate vehicles." However, you stated your belief that the labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to dynamically-tested manual belts that al so comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your understanding of these requirements is incorrect. Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208 shall be marked or labeled with certain information. This secti on contains no exception for seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements and satisfy the performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The reason for not including any such exception was that the agency intended that all dynamically tested manual belts be marked or labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b).

You suggested that there is no reason to require labeling of belt assemblies that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209, just because those belt assemblies also comply with the dynamic testing requirements when installed in a particular vehicl e. This assertion would be correct if the protection provided by safety belts depended only on the performance of the safety belts themselves. However, such is not necessarily the case.

We emphatically agree with you that a belt assembly that complies with all requirements of Standard No. 209 will provide very substantial protection to an occupant of any vehicle in a crash. However, the protection provided by safety belts to occupants of a particular vehicle depends on more than the performance of the belts themselves; it also depends on the structural characteristics and interior design of the vehicle. The dynamic testing requirements measure the performance of the safety belt/vehic le combination, while Standard No. 209 focuses on measuring the performance of the safety belts alone. See 52 FR 44899-44900; November 23, 1987.

With the advent of dynamic testing for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, NHTSA explained why Standard No. 209 was amended to require labeling of dynamically tested belts, regardless of whether those belts comply with all requirements of S tandard No. 209. The final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles explained that NHTSA was adopting the same belt labeling requirements previously adopted for passenger car belts. 52 FR 44898 , at 44907; November 23, 1987. In the preamble to the final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for passenger cars with manual belts at front outboard seating positions, NHTSA explained why it was establishing belt labeling requirements for t hese dynamically tested safety belts. The agency said:

NHTSA believes that care must be taken to distinguish dynamically tested belt systems from other systems, since misapplication of a belt in a vehicle designed for use with a specific dynamically tested belt could pose a risk of injury. If there is a label on the belt itself, a person making the installation will be aware that the belt should be installed only in certain vehicles. 51 FR 9800, at 9804; March 21, 1986.

The same concerns apply to dynamically tested belts for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Even if Land Rover installs dynamically tested belt systems that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209 in all of its vehicles, those bel t systems might not be appropriate for use in other light multipurpose passenger vehicles. This is particularly

true if other light multipurpose passenger vehicles are designed for use only with specific dynamically tested belt systems different from the Land Rover belt system. The chances of the Land Rover belt system being installed in a vehicle for which i t would not be appropriate are minimized if there is a label on the belt system indicating that it should be installed only in specific seating positions in Land Rover models and any other vehicles for which the belt system is appropriate. Accordingly, the belt labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 apply to all dynamically tested belts for use in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether those dynamically tested belts comply with all other requirements of St andard No. 209.

You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our re view of it.

ID: nht88-3.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BEVERLY B. BYRON -- CONGRESS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/24/88 letter from Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr. to Beverly B. Byron; 8/14/85 memo from C. Richard Fravel to Whom it May Concern; 8/4/88 memo from Arthur J. Lomart to Whom it May Concern; 8/1/88 letter from C.E. Shue to Joseph Ciampa, Jr.; 9/12/88 letter from Nancy F. Miller to Beverly B. Byron; 8/25/88 letter from Bevery B. Byron to Nancy Miller; 11/29/89 (est) letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to John D. Dingell (A34; Std. 205); 9/22/89 letter from John D. Dingell to Jeffrey R. Miller; 8/25/89 letter from Constance A. Morella to Norman Y. Mineta; 7/31/89 letter from W. Marshall Rickert to Constance A. Morella; 7/8/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Norman D. Shunway (Std. 205)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Byron:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr., who received a citation from the Maryland State Police, Automotive Safety Enforcement Division, for noncomplying window tinting. You asked us to review Mr. Ciampa 's letter and provide you with our comments and appropriate information. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Ciampa suffers from diabetes, which makes his eyes extremely sensitive to sunlight. Because of this, the side windows on his passenger automobile apparently were tinted such that the tinted glazing no longer complied with State of Maryland requireme nts. There is no indication whether Mr. Ciampa did the tinting on his own or had an aftermarket business do it. According to Mr. Ciampa's letter, he was previously given a medical exemption by the State of Maryland that permitted him to drive with wind ows tinted differently than Maryland law permits. However, Mr. Ciampa stated that Maryland officials have now told him that the Federal government will not allow Maryland to grant any more medical exemptions. This information is inaccurate.

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). These require ments include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

2

Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the safety standards. Thus, we assume that Mr. Ciampa's car as delivered to him complied with Standard No. 205's requirement for at least 70 percent light tra nsmittance in all of its windows, including the side windows that are now the subject of dispute.

The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including the tinting performed on th e side windows of Mr. Ciampa's car, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehi cle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittanc e of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufac turer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Again, Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition in Federal law. Thus, the State of Maryland does not have any authority to permit manufacturers, distributors, deal ers, or repair businesses to install tinting on the side windows of passenger cars if such tinting causes those windows to have less than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed s uch tinting on Mr. Ciampa's side windows would be liable for the civil penalty discussed above.

Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, n o provision of Federal law or this agency's regulations prevents Mr. Ciampa himself from tinting his side windows.

However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. It would seem that the State of Ma ryland has exercised its authority to prohibit windows being tinted in the way that Mr. Ciampa's are. The wisdom and fairness of applying that prohibition to individuals with Mr. Ciampa's condition is something to be decided by the State of Maryland, no t the Federal government. Contrary to the statement in Mr. Ciampa's letter, we have never told Maryland or any other State how to administer their laws and regulations with respect to the operational use of vehicles in the State.

3

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ref:VSA#205

SECTION 1. Section 25251.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

25251.5 (a) Any motor vehicle may also be equipped with a system in which an amber light is center mounted on the rear of a vehicle to communicate a component of deceleration of the vehicle, and which light pulses in a controlled fashion at a rate whi ch varies exponentially with a component of deceleration

(b) Any motor vehicle may be equipped with two amber lamps on the rear of the vehicle which operate simultaneously with not more than four flashes within four seconds after the accelerator pedal is in the deceleration position and which are not lighte d at any

ID: 1985-03.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company 8959 Blue Ash Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

Dear Mr. Burke:

Thank you for your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Burdette and Mr. Brownlee concerning a new automobile safety package your company is developing. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described your product as a number of modifications to a vehicle to improve its security. The modifications include changes to the windows, tires, doors, and fuel tank. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations would affect your product.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including on tires, windows, doors and fuel tanks. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our standards. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Under our certification regulation, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer is considered an "alterer." Part 567.7 requires vehicle alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all of our safety standards. Thus, if your company is modifying vehicles with your security package prior to their first sale to the consumer, it must certify that the vehicles, as altered, conform with all applicable standards. Any person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

If your company is modifying used vehicles, then its actions would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)), which was added to the Act in 1974 to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.....

Thus, manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business making the modifications you describe must ensure that those modifications do not "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Dick Burdette U.S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Public Affairs Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Burdette:

I am writing to you today because I need your assistance in preparing a new automobile safety package for the U.S. Market which Hess & Eisenhardt is about to introduce. We think your input, based on your experience and supported by statistics will prove invaluable.

Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company is the oldest and largest armored car manufacturer in the world. Hess & Eisenhardt originally founded in 1876, was first asked to assist in the design of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Parade Car. For the last forty years, we have provided the armored vehicles for every United States President. Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company currently supplies armored vehicles to over thirty Heads of State worldwide as well as Ambassadors, Foreign Ministers, Diplomats, Industry Leaders, and private citizens.

Let me hasten to point out that we do not intend to introduce an "armored car" into the U.S. Market. Our product is definitely an automobile safety package. We believe that the experience we have gained in the many years we have been involved in automobile security can be provided to the public in a very cost effective manner. We have done extensive market research over the past twelve months and have received an enthusiastic response from the corporate world as well as many individuals. Please forward to me any information and statistics you might be able to provide that would pertain to the following components of our proposed safety package:

o Run Flat Tire Devices. o "New Generation" Shatter Resistant Glass (primarily intended to resist intrusion from the outside while providing an unprecedented shatter resistance to the standard tempered glass used in sidelights. o A highly sophisticated remote alarm system. o Dual batteries. o A trunk release mounted inside the trunk. o A fuel tank protector (with looking gas cap). o An emergency kit to include minor survival components such as: drinking water, flashlight, etc. o A door lock system that would prevent access to a stranger from the outside even if the driver forgets to lock the doors. o Anti-explosive gas tank. o An automatic engine fire suppression system. o Auxiliary fan. o Inside to outside intercom.

Any information you can provide will be greatly appreciated. We are now in the final stages of selecting the safety equipment which will go into our package and your input can help in the final design. As this product is primarily in the interest or the safety of the occupants, we would certainly not want to miss the opportunity to provide some safety feature you thought important. Please contact me directly if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

HESS & EISENHARDT ARMORING COMPANY

Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales

TJB/7/vah

ID: 1985-04.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Norman Friberg, P.E. -- Manager, Product Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, NJ 07647

This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated June 27, 1985, for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Paragraph S4.3 of the standard requires that a specified placard show the recommended tire size designation. Volvo has provided labels on approximately 3,200 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state "185/65R15" but the correct information is "185/70R14." However, Volvo intends to mail correct placards "to owners of all affected vehicles."

By providing the corrective placard, Volvo will remedy the noncompliance. Because the noncompliance will no longer exist, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moot. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Volvo will provide owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek renotice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.

The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and do not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.

Our records indicate that Volvo is in technical noncompliance with 49 CFR Part 575, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, by failing to file a report within 5 days of its determination of the existence of the noncompliances. We will, however, treat the submission of information in your petition as a Part 575 report. Part 575 also requires 6 quarterly reports on the progress of recall campaigns. In your situation, the campaign will be accomplished in a single mailing. We ask that you furnish the agency with a report of the number of letters sent and the number of letters returned as undeliverable in lieu of the Part 575 quarterly reports.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 27, 1985

CERTIFIED MAIL

Hon. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

Re: Petition For Inconsequential Non-Compliance

In accordance with the provisions of 49 CFR S556, Volvo submits herein a petition for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Safety Act, on the grounds of that the the subject non-compliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

FULL NAME ADDRESS OF APPLICANT

Volvo North America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07637

a Delaware corporation

DESCRIPTION OF NON-COMPLIANCE

It has come to our attention that the tire information placard, as required by FMVSS No. 110 Sect. 4.3, installed on about 3,200 l985 model year Volvo 740 Turbo Diesel passenger cars, may contain the incorrect tire size designation.

The correct tire size designation for these vehicles is 185/70 R 14, whereas the labels read 185/65 R 15.

DATA AND VIEWS SUPPORTING PETITION

Volvo believes this error to be inconsequential because the other information regarding these tires, vehicle capacity weight and inflation pressure, are the same for both tire types. Thus, an owner could not inadvertently overload his vehicle as long as he did not exceed the weight shown on the existing placard.

If an owner were to attempt to mount a 185/65 R 15 tire on the 14-inch rim supplied with the car, he would find it to be impossible, and a quick check of the other tires on the car would show that a 13-inch tire is required.

Even in the unlikely event that an owner mounted a 15-inch tire and rim in one or more locations on the vehicle, it would not result in any significant adverse vehicle characteristics since the rolling radii of the two tire sizes are very close to each other, differing only by approximately 1.1%.

We request your earliest possible decision on this matter. In the meantime, Volvo intends to send correct tire pressure placards to owners of all affected vehicles. -

Please have your staff contact me if you have any questions regarding this petition.

Sincerely yours, Product Planning & Development Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance NF: cmr cc: B. Holthe W. Shapiro P-O Beiring S. Bengtson G. Leoj R. Mercer

July 10, 1985 Hon. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Petition for Inconsequential Non-Compliance Clarification

Dear Ms. Steed:

This is to supplement my letter of June 27, in which we requested exemption under 49 CFR S 556 on the basis of inconsequential non-compliance.

Please be advised that, as stated in page 2 of the letter, a tire placard (reference FMVSS No. 110 S4.3) containing correct tire size information will be sent to all owners of record of affected vehicles. This label will be of the peel-off, adhesive type. Instructions for affixing this label in place of the original label will be included.

We trust that this will serve to clarify our intent in this matter. Sincerely yours, VOLVO CARS Of NORTH AMERICA Product Planning & Development Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance NF:jy cc: P.O. Beiring S. Bengtson

ID: 86-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/86 EST

FROM: SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: The school bus industry is quite possibly the most safety conscious industry in the nation, and properly so. Newspaper accounts of school bus accidents evoke a greater sense of tragic loss amongst readers -- no matter how far away the accident -- than most disasters involving greater numbers. Our culture assigns greater priority to the lives of its children than to the rest of us. Thus, any measures that enhance the safety of school bus passengers deserve serious attention, and they usually get it.

That was the case with the transportation director of a school district in Iowa when he happened on some literature which described a bizarre-sounding, after-purchase procedure for slashing tires. Jerry Williams puzzled about the procedure (called "siping") for a while, checked around with other companies which slashed their tires, and persuaded the business manager of the Linn-Mar Community School District to buy a siping machine.

That was in 1978. Williams says, "we've been very happy with it ever since."

The siping machine Jerry Williams uses can put any cut in virtually any kind of tire siped, new or used, as long as it has 5/32" tread left. Anyone can be trained to use the machine in 10 or 15 minutes, and the machine allows an operator to make cuts of different depths, as required by the amount of tread left on tire. Cuts may be on the diagonal or straight across the tire, and the width between them may be varied. The cutting blades on this particular sipe are cooled by a spray-miser which cost about five dollars, and are good for 80 or 90 tires. Williams sharpens his blades after 20 tires -- "I touch them up," as he puts it.

Siping has been around for a long time, but only in the last decade or so has there been a machine which makes the tiny cuts quickly, effectively and inexpensively. Williams reports that "it takes two hours to sipe the six tires on my buses, from the time the bus comes in until it's turned loose. That's with a crew of two people."

The Linn-Mar School District's siping machine is manufactured by the Saf-Tee Siping & Grooving Company of Minnetonka, Minnesota.

In Missoula, Montana, in the mountainous western part of the state, Bob Beach's school bus fleet of 70 buses travels 800,000 miles per year, all on siped tires. Before the Saf-Tee Siper was invented, Beach used to cut his tires by hand, with a knife, but it was a costly and ragged procedure.

With the machine-made cuts, according to Beach, the hundreds of sharp little edges created by siping make the footprint of a tire spread, and "this means the tire grips the road surface better, making braking and steering on snow or ice much more effective." He adds, "you also get much better traction spin for starts."

The Linn-Mar School District used to stud their tires for winter road conditions, but siping has eliminated the need for studs and double tire inventories.

According to Williams, Linn-Mar first siped its school bus tires in the dead winter. Roads were covered with snow and ice. As an experiment, he mentioned to some drivers that their tires had been siped, but said nothing to the others. "When the latter came back in the afternoon," he continued, "the drivers said "What did you do to his bus? The front end didn't slide around the corners like it did in the past, and the stopping distance is shorter. And it's getting better traction on take-off."

In Montana, Bob Beach used to run his siped tire only in the winter, but when he began using them year-round, he discovered that siped tires are very effective in Montana's June and September rains.

"The siped tread-elements open up and the sharp edges penetrate the lubricating film of water in what might be called a squeegee action, and the openings between the tire elements created by the sipes channel water away. This minimizes hydroplaning. In fact, it usually eliminates hydroplaning altogether."

Bill Dufor, who operates a fleet of 165 school buses in Prospect, Connecticut, and Pittsfield, Massachusetts, agrees with Beach. "One of the reasons we've got a siping machine is because of wet roads. We feel a lot more comfortable with them, especially with some re-caps which are noted for being a little bit slick on wet roads. Siped tires give you that much more comfort and reliability. We think it does a good job on wet roads."

You might reasonably think that tire life would be reduced by siping; tire engineers though so too, a couple of decades ago. To their surprise, however, they found that tire life increased, and for a very simple reason: siped tires run cooler. The cuts help dissipate heat. Siped tires are used by school bus fleets, highway patrol cars, over-the-road truckers, transit companies and thousands of passenger car owners. In all cases, tires run cooler, and some users report increases in tire life from 15 to 20 percent. That reduces operating costs, and is of obvious significance for public sector fleet owners, like school districts.

The Linn-Mar School District runs siped highway tires on the front end and siped traction tires on the rear -- "Michelins, Goodyears, Fire-stones," according to Williams. The bottom line about siping tires? In Jerry Williams' words, "Everybody feels safer."

That is the case with Bob Beach and Paul Dufour, as well. Siped tires are not only safer on roads that are icy, snow-packed or filmed with water, they are also cost-effective even on dry roads. They run cooler and dissipate heat.

As Bob Beach puts it, "increased safety and reduced operating costs don't always go together, but with machine-siped tires, they do. There's no way I'd go back to running without them."

ID: 1991y

Mr. Terry Hudyma
Vice President, Engineering
LAFORZA Automobiles, Inc.
3860 Bay Center Place
Hayward, CA 94545

Dear Mr. Hudyma:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked about certification requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles that will be assembled in Italy and in Michigan. I apologize for the delay in this response. The vehicles in question will be assembled in Italy to the extent that they will be "complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.), transmission and transfer case in Italy." These assemblies will then be imported into the United States where the vehicles will be completed. You state that both the operations in Italy and in Michigan will be performed pursuant to a contract with LAFORZA, who will have "complete control over the manufacturing process at all times."

It is your understanding that in the fact situation described above, LAFORZA is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle and therefore LAFORZA is responsible for affixing the certification label on the completed motor vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. You asked us to confirm this interpretation. We cannot do so. Under our law and regulations, the company that completes the vehicles in Michigan is a "manufacturer" of the vehicles in question. The information provided in your letter is inadequate to allow us to determine whether LAFORZA might also be considered a "manufacturer" of these vehicles.

The first issue to be addressed in our analysis is whether the products in question are "incomplete vehicles" when they arrive in the United States. An "incomplete vehicle" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as:

... an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Your letter states that the products that arrive in the United States will not have an engine or transmission, which means they will not have a power train. Accordingly, 568.3 makes clear that these products would not be "incomplete vehicles" for the purposes of our regulations. In previous interpretations, we have referred to products that do not qualify as "incomplete vehicles" as an "assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment". In those previous letters, we have stated that the assemblage should be labeled as items of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States and that the importer of the assemblage must certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. See the enclosed May 6, 1985 letter to Mr. Hayley Alexander.

This finding also means that the Italian company that produces these "assemblages of items of motor vehicle equipment" is not a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles with respect to the vehicles in question. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5); the Safety Act) defines a "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." In this case, the Italian company producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment has not manufactured or assembled any motor vehicles, nor has it imported any motor vehicles. Hence, it does not fit the statutory definition of a "manufacturer" of the vehicles in question.

After these assemblages are imported into the United States, the operations performed by the Michigan company will transform the items of motor vehicle equipment into a motor vehicle. Therefore, the Michigan company would be a "manufacturer" of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Since 567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to include the name of the manufacturer, the vehicles could comply if the name of the Michigan company were shown on the certification label.

The information in your letter was inadequate to allow us to make even a tentative determination of whether LAFORZA may also be considered a manufacturer of these vehicles. The agency discussed the issue of vehicles with more than one "manufacturer" at length in its proposal to establish rules of attribution for determining which of the manufacturers would be responsible for complying with the phase-in requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). In that proposal, NHTSA said:

Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility of compliance with safety standards on manufacturers, the agency does not have authority to attribute a vehicle to a party other than one of the vehicle's manufacturers. However, the agency considers the language in section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer is "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles . . ." to be sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. For example, if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer. This follows from application of basic principles of agency law. In this case, the sponsor is the principal. On the other hand, the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles. 50 FR 14589, at 14596; April 12, 1985.

According to your letter, LAFORZA has a contractual relationship with the company in Italy that is producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and a contractual relationship with the company in Michigan that is assembling the motor vehicle. These contractual relationships led you to assert that "... LAFORZA Automobiles will have complete control of the manufacturing process at all times." If LAFORZA merely has contractual relationships under which it purchases products for resale from the companies in Italy and Michigan, LAFORZA would not be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles. If you can provide us with information about any role LAFORZA has in producing these vehicles besides contracting with other companies to assemble the vehicles, we will review that information and offer our interpretation of whether LAFORZA could be considered a "manufacturer" of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Mr. Hans W. Metzger LAFORZA Safety Consultant 6323 E. Turquoise Avenue Scottsdale, Arizona 85253

ref:567#568 d:9/7/89

ID: GF004373

Kelly A. Freeman, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
Quantum Value Management, LLC
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 240
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

Dear Ms. Freeman:

This responds to your June 18, 2004, letter regarding a number of products assembled by subsidaries of your company. You believe that these products would not be classified as "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). As explained below, based on the information you provided, it is our opinion that two of the products are not motor vehicles for the purposes of our regulations. We are not taking a specific position with respect to the other products, but will identify the relevant factors that should be considered in making such determinations.

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" 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."

We have issued a number of interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. , airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

You asked about the following products:


• Three Manitex Boom Truck models of various tonnage (models 2601C, 2201 and 3500);
• One Manitex SkyCrane, LLC Remote, Telescoping Aerial Service Platform and Crane (Skyhoist model RTA120X);
• One Manitex SkyCrane, LLC (f/k/a Phoenix) Arial Crane;
• One Manitex SkyCrane, LLC Sponco Arial Ladder;
• One Noble Construction Equipment Rough Terrain Lift Truck;
• One Noble Construction Equipment Pull Scraper (model 417B); and,
• One Noble Construction Equipment Mobile Water Truck.

It is our opinion that two of the products, the Rough Terrain Lift Truck, and the Pull Scraper, are not motor vehicles. According to your letter, the Rough Terrain Lift Truck is designed to lift items such as brick, beams, building materials in uneven and rough surfaces, such as on construction sites where land has not been leveled. The Pull Scraper is used to clear and/or move earth on a large scale at a construction site. You also indicated that these products are transported to the job site and are not used on the public roads, even for relocation to a new work site. These products are not manufactured for use on the highways and are therefore not motor vehicles.

The other products appear to be ordinary heavy-duty trucks equipped with special apparatus. You indicated that these products are manufactured mainly for the construction industry and that although capable of being driven on public roads, such use is incidental and is for the purpose of moving the equipment from one worksite to another. You also stated that these products are typically left at a construction site for an extended period of time.

You further explained:

The boom trucks, telescoping aerial cranes and aerial ladders have outriggers that slide out horizontally and extend laterally from each side of the bed to stabilize the truck while the boom, crane or ladder (as the case may be) are in operation. They are manufactured for heavy-duty lifting and operation. The aerial platform and crane is a hydraulic crane with the capability of holding three people on its platform combined with heavy duty load-lifting. The boom trucks and aerial cranes are often used to lift large loads of brick, building trusses, steel beams, large signage, billboards and construction equipment, among other uses. . . . The water truck is used to decrease dust and assist in settling the earth, often following in the tracks of the pull scraper.

You also enclosed copies of a number of brochures.

We note that, as discussed in two enclosed letters, a March 21, 2001 letter to LeAnn Johnson-Koch, Esq. , and an October 20, 2003 letter to Michael Ogle, our current interpretations regarding mobile construction equipment are based on a court decision in 1978. Subsequent legal developments make the holding of that court decision open for reassessment. Moreover, some mobile construction equipment may be using the public roads with greater frequency than the equipment the court decided were not motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction. At some point in the future, we may revisit the issue of whether certain mobile construction equipment should be considered motor vehicles. However, if we were to take such action, we would announce it publicly, and address such issues as what standards should apply to the vehicles and what effective date is appropriate.

As indicated earlier, your products (other than the Rough Terrain Lift Truck, and the Pull Scraper) appear to be ordinary heavy-duty trucks equipped with special apparatus. Moreover, in view of the apparatus and their potential common uses, it appears that some of the products might travel to and from different short-term jobs. This would be different than the mobile construction equipment that has generally been the subject of our previous interpretations, which would commonly be used for extended periods at construction sites. We do not have detailed information concerning the specific usage patterns of each of the products you ask about. Moreover, while we seek to be helpful in providing opinions about our statutes, we do not have the resources to provide a detailed review of the products of each company. We would think, however, that some of these items may be motor vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:571
d.8/16/04

ID: 9759

Spectrum Engineering Group
1111 South Main Street
Cheshire, CT 06410

Dear Sir/Madam:

This responds to your letter to this office regarding your reconstruction of an accident involving a 16- passenger school bus. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You stated in your letter that the original latch/hinge mechanism of the right front entrance door of the bus in question was disabled by removal of the striker plate and equipped instead with a remote door opening/closing apparatus and latching mechanism. The bus was involved in an accident in which the driver was ejected through that door. You then asked a series of questions concerning the classification of the vehicle and the Federal safety standards pertaining to the door in question.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for certifying that the vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Once the vehicle or equipment has been sold to the first customer for purposes other than resale, Federal jurisdiction over the manufacture and sale of the vehicle or equipment generally terminates and use of the vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

You first asked, "Would this vehicle be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle, a bus, or a school bus?"

The answer to your question is that each manufacturer classifies its vehicles in accordance with the definitions set

forth in the Safety Act and in NHTSA's regulations. The Safety Act defines a "school bus" as [A] passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools. 15 U.S.C. 1391(14).

Our regulations define a "bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further define a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school and related activities, but does not include a bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR '571.3.

Thus, whether a vehicle is a school bus under our regulations depends on the purpose for which it was originally sold. Although you did not indicate who purchased the bus originally and for what purpose, you referred to the vehicle in your letter as a "mini school bus," you stated that the body was manufactured by Mid Bus, a school bus manufacturer, and the descriptive literature you enclosed with your letter depicts different models of small school buses manufactured by Mid Bus. Accordingly, it appears the vehicle in question would have been classified as a school bus under 49 CFR '571.3. Our regulations require the vehicle manufacturer to state the vehicle type classification on the vehicle's certification label. The certification label of the vehicle in question should have that information.

Your second question asks, "Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?"

With respect to FMVSS 206, Door locks and door retention components, the answer is no. Standard 206 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. The standard does not apply to buses.

With respect to FMVSS 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the standard specifies requirements for window retention other than windshields in buses, except buses designed to transport persons under restraint, and establishes operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits. The glazing requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 217 would apply to the right front entrance door, and if the door was also used as an emergency exit, it must also have complied when new with the emergency exit requirements of S5.2.3, S5.3, S5.4.2, and S5.5.3 of the standard.

Your third question asked, "Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door (particularly its loading requirements)?"

The answer is that apart from the provisions of FMVSS 217 discussed in our answer to your second question, there was no FMVSS in 1988 that specified performance standards for the right front entrance doors of buses. Effective September 1, 1993, however, the side door strength requirements of FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, will apply to 90 percent of the buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less produced after that date, and all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less produced on and after September 1, 1994, must comply with those requirements.

I would like to make the following observation about the modification of the door in question. Modifications of new and used vehicles by commercial parties are subject to '108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In this case, your letter did not indicate who disabled the original latch mechanism on the vehicle or who installed the remote door latch mechanism. If the work was done by a party listed in '108(a)(2)(A), the person modifying the vehicle was responsible for not degrading the performance of the door with regard to FMVSS 217.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, vehicle owners can modify the vehicle in any manner he/she chooses without violating any Federal requirements.

I hope this information answers your questions. We have enclosed copies of FMVSS 206 and 217 that were effective in 1988, photocopied from the October 1, 1987 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, as you requested. Should you have other questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:206#217 d:6/28/94