ID: Ocean_imports_scooter_03-9045.2version2

Mr. Brian Lambert
Panalpina Inc. / Ocean Imports
18600 Lee Rd.
Humble, TX 77338

Dear Mr. Lambert:

This responds to your letter asking whether several models of scooters you are considering importing into the United States are "motor vehicles" for the purpose of the regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, it is our opinion that the two models with a maximum speed greater than 20 mph are motor vehicles.

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[.]" (Emphasis added.) "Motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a) 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.

In a November 26, 2003, letter addressed to Mr. Amir Ambar, we addressed the issue of whether a scooter that he wished to import into the United States was considered a motor vehicle under this definition. We will consider the points we made in that letter in responding to your request.

In responding to Mr. Ambar, we noted that when determining if a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, the agency first looks to see if the vehicle has on-road capabilities.

We also noted that 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 at issue in our November 2003 letter was described as a "toy" intended for off-road use only. The literature submitted stated that the maximum speed of the scooter ranged between 12.5 and 16 miles per hour (mph). The scooter was 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 warned against operating the scooter on public roads.

Based on the description provided, including its speed capabilities and small size, we concluded that the "scooter" at issue was properly characterized as a "mini-bike," and therefore was not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of Chapter 301. We explained that the scooters low speed capability would prohibit it from being operated in normal moving traffic. This was reflected in the warning label. Further, the low sitting height and small wheel diameters were comparable if not smaller than those of the mini-bikes considered under the 1969 notice.

We also stated that while the scooter at issue in that letter could theoretically be operated on public roads, we anticipated 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 would be comparatively rare. We recognized that the scooter was equipped with a headlight, horn, turn signals, and a mirror. We noted that while this equipment may be seen as equipping the scooter for road use, such equipment is also sometimes present on bicycles and other non-motor vehicles as well.

Finally, we stated that while we had concluded at that time that the scooter was not a motor vehicle, we might 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.

We will now turn to the scooters you asked about. In your e-mail, you stated that the three scooter models you are considering importing are intended for off-road-use only. The JC 50 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 49 cc, a maximum speed of 15 mph, and a height of 32.6 inches. The JC 70 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 72 cc, a maximum speed of 37 mph, and a height of 37.4 inches. The JC 90 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 85.7 cc, a maximum speed of 50 mph, and a height of 37.4 inches. Your e-mail stated that all three models are marked for off-road use and all three models have VINs. You further stated that sales of these scooters would be primarily through the internet. As advertised on the internet, the scooters are shown with headlights and mirrors.

ID: 1984-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Mr. John B. Walsh Head, Regulations & Emissions Laboratory Government Relations Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. 3251 East Imperial Highway Brea, California 92621

Dear Mr. Walsh:

This is in reply to your letter of October 31, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for confirmation of a 1972 agency interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

In pertinent part, Table III of Standard No. 108 requires that, at a minimum, a motorcycle be equipped with one taillamp, one stop lamp, and four turn signal lamps. Table IV directs that the stop lamp and taillamp be placed on the vertical centerline, and that the turn signal lamps be placed on each side of the vertical centerline with a minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between the turn signal lamp "and tail or stop lamp." Table IV expressly permits dual stop and taillamps "symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." No express exception is made to the 4-inch spacing requirement if dual stop or taillamps are installed, raising the question whether the minimum distance must be maintained no matter what the rear lighting configuration may be.

You have called to our attention an interpretation of July 1, 1972, that Motor Vehicle Programs of this agency provided Stanley Electric Company Ltd. In that instance the proposed rear lighting configuration consisted of two combination stop, turn signal, and taillamps placed on either side of the vertical centerline. The agency opined that the minimum separation distance was not applicable to combination lamps when there was "no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline." You have asked for confirmation that this remains the agency's view.

As you have pointed out Suzuki's proposed design of a unit combining amber turn signal lamps with red stop and taillamps is similar to current passenger car practice where the minimum distance requirement does not exist. Therefore, this will confirm that the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between turn signals and stop and taillamps applies when single stop and taillamps are installed on the vertical centerline, but not when dual stop and taillamps are installed on either side of the centerline.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION

October 31, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vinson Room 5219 Office of Chief Counsel, NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Subject: Request for Confirmation of Interpretation -FMVSS 108

As we discussed by telephone on 31 October, this is to request confirmation that a July 1972 interpretation of FMVSS 108 applies to the motorcycle rear lighting configuration described below.

Table IV of FMVSS 108 requires that motorcycle rear turn signals be separated by 9 inches or more (centerline to centerline, and that minimum edge to edge distance from the turn signal to the tail or stop lamp be 4 inches or more. These requirements contemplate the typical motorcycle rear lighting configuration of a centrally located combination tail lamp/stop lamp and separate turn signal lamps on each side of the tail/stop lamp.

For some of today's wider motorcycles, however, we are contemplating a different rear lighting configuration, shown roughly in the enclosed sketch. This configuration would consist of a single lamp unit located near the outer edge of each side of the rear of the motorcycle. The inboard part of the lamp would be a red tail lamp/stop lamp combination, and the outboard part of the lamp would be an amber turn signal lamp. Turn signal lamp separation would typically be more than 24 inches, far exceeding the 9 inch minimum required by FMVSS 108, and providing clear indication of the direction of an intended turning maneuver. In essence, this rear lighting configuration is comparable to current practice in passenger car rear lighting.

In 1972, NHTSA indicated that

the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches is not applicable when the functions of tail, stop and turn are combined in a single lamp on each noneside of the motorcycle with no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline.

A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your reference. Based on this interpretation, Suzuki has designed a configuration as shown in the sketch. We would ask you to confirm that the 1972 interpretation would apply to the configuration shown, in recognition that it is meaningless to require a 4 inch separation distance where it is impossible because of the combined construction of the rear lamp units.

We would greatly appreciate your prompt attention to this request.

Sincerely,

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.

John B. Walsh Head, Regulations & Emissions Laboratory Government Relations Department

JW:ej

Enclosure "SKETCH INSERT HERE"

July 1972 N41-34 Mr. H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This is in reply to your letter of July 5 concerning the requirements for stop and turn signal lamps on motorcycles. The answers to the questions you asked follow -- Question 1.

According to FMVSS 108 Table IV, it says, "minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail stop lamp is 4 inches." However, in the case of the above sketch where tail lamp, stop lamp and turn signal lamp are combined in one, can we ignore the above requirements of Table IV? The answer is yes; the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches is not applicable when the functions of tail, stop and turn are combined in a single lamp on each side of the motorcycle with no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline. Question 2. Suppose the above lamp arrangement is acceptable, must each stop lamp meet the Class A turn signal lamp (red) -- SAE J575d, Table 1? Or, is complying the said requirements with the total of two lamps acceptable? The two stop lamps cannot be considered as multiple lamps, since it is required that the stop lamp be extinguished on the side when the turn signal is flashing. Each of the stop lamps must therefore meet the Class A photometric values specified in Table 1 of SAE J575d. Sincerely, Charles A. Baker for E. T. Driver, Director Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs

ID: 3320o

George F. Ball, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
General Motors Corporation
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Boulevard
P.O. Box 33122
Detroit, MI 48232

Dear Mr. Ball:

This responds to your letter seeking our opinion as to whether a new minivan GM plans to introduce (referred to as the GM 200 minivans in your letter) could be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In your letter, you indicated GM's belief that this new minivan should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis.

Your company has concluded that this minivan will be constructed on a truck chassis for several reasons. First, you state that this chassis has "truck attributes" that make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis would be. The examples of such truck attributes set forth in your letter were an integrated ladder-type frame with full-length longitudinal rails and supporting cross-members, an extended width rear axle, a powertrain certified as complying with the light-duty truck emissions standards, and a flat load floor. Second, you state the chassis is a truck chassis because a cargo van version of this vehicle will be marketed and sold for commercial use. Third, you provided an analysis showing that this minivan will have certain chassis and body characteristics similar to those characteristics of minivans that are now produced and classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards. It is important for GM to be aware that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by GM, and the tentative classifications may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the GM 200 minivan family could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis. The fact that a cargo van version of the GM 200 will be marketed and sold for commercial use is evidence that the common chassis is a truck chassis. Additionally, the front to rear longitudinal side rails and supporting cross-members that are not present on the A-car chassis shows the GM 200 minivan chassis design is more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operations than the A-car chassis. Finally, the characteristics of the GM 200 chassis appear to be similar to the characteristics of other chassis that have been identified as "truck chassis" by their manufacturers. Accordingly, assuming that your description of the GM 200 chassis is accurate, it appears to us that this minivan is constructed on a truck chassis.

The version of your letter to me that has been placed in the public docket has all the information for which you requested confidential treatment deleted from it.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:l2/2l/88

ID: nht81-3.25

DATE: 10/09/81 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TO: J. KAWANO -- GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE - TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

TITLE: NOA-30 NONE

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BURKARD, EBNER, AND TEVES, FEBRUARY 3, 1981 LETTER FROM KAWANO TO BERNDT, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, MAY 24, 1974 LETTER FROM TEVES TO GREGORY, AND MAY 27, 1988 LETTER FROM TEVES TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 3, 1981, asking two questions about Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. The questions were asked in regard to a type of brake reservoir you are considering producing which would service both the braking system and the clutch.

The first question is whether an interpretation you have made of section S5.4.2 of the standard is correct. The essential issue to that question is whether hydraulic fluid which is available to the clutch, either for normal use of in the event of clutch failure, can be counted as part of the minimum capacity required by section S5.4.2 for the braking system. The agency interprets the standard to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements for brake reservoirs be met by fluid which is not available to the clutch, either during normal use or in the event of clutch failure. Thus, as will be explained below, your interpretation is incorrect.

Safety Standard No. 105 establishes requirements for a vehicle's braking system, including minimum capacity requirements for the reservoirs. Neither this standard nor any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard includes requirements for the reservoirs of a vehicle's clutch. While nothing prohibits a manufacturer from producing a master cylinder which services both the vehicle's braking system and clutch, the minimum fluid capacity requirements for reservoirs must be met separated for a vehicle's braking system.

The first sentence of section S5.4.2 states:

Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs

move from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard.

This section specifies the total minimum fluid capacity that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs must have. That amount is determined by reference to the vehicle's braking system, i.e., by the fluid displacement which results when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position to a fully worn, fully applied position.

The purpose of this requirement is to assure that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs have adequate fluid capacity to service the brakes.

The agency interprets section S5.4.2 to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements for brake reservoirs be met by fluid which is solely available to the brakes. If fluid is available to both the brakes and the clutch, some of that fluid will be used by the clutch in normal service and thus be unavailable to the brakes. In the event of clutch failure, all of the common fluid may be used by the clutch. Therefore, while Standard No. 105 does not prohibit manufacturers from producing master cylinders with reservoirs that have some fluid available to both the braking system and clutch, none of that common fluid may be counted toward meeting the minimum fluid capacity requirements of section S5.4.2.

Your interpretation of section S5.4.2 is incorrect because it counts common fluid toward meeting these requirements. In reference to Figure 1 that you attached with your letter, no fluid above the top of the wall dividing X and Y from Z should be counted toward meeting section S5.4.2's requirements.

We are aware that this interpretation conflicts with our July 10, 1974, interpretation that you attached with your letter and regret any inconvenience. That interpretation indicated that all five designs included in your letter of May 24, 1974, appeared to conform to section S5.4.1, providing that the reservoir capacity requirements of section S5.4.2 were met. That interpretation did not properly consider the requirements of section S5.4.2, as discussed above. It should have indicated that designs (3) and (4) do not comply with Standard No. 105 because they cannot meet section S5.4.2's minimum capacity requirements without counting fluid that is common to the braking system and clutch.

Your letter also asked about which fluid should be counted in determining the minimum warning level specified in section S5.3.1(b). That section refers to a drop in the level of brake fluid in any master cylinder reservoir compartment to less than the recommended safe level specified by the manufacturer or to one-fourth of the fluid capacity of that reservoir compartment, whichever is greater.

The minimum warning level is thus determined by the fluid capacity of each compartment rather than by the total capacity of the reservoir, unless the manufacturer recommendes a higher safe level. In reference to Figure 1 that you attached with your letter, the compartments in question are X and Y. Thus, the warning level for compartment X must not be less than 1/4 of the capacity of X. Similarly, the warning level for compartment Y must not be less than 1/4 the capacity of Y. Since there may be safety advantages to higher warning levels, particularly where the capacity of individual compartments is small in relation to the capacity of the reservoir, you may wish to specify a higher warning level such as that indicated in Figure 1, i.e., at a level above the wall separating X from Y.

ID: nht76-5.54

DATE: 02/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Customs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1976, asking about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to motorcycles and mini-bikes.

You first asked "if any motorcycles are exempt" from the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. If the configuration of any motorcycle is such that it cannot be licensed for use on the public roads it is considered exempt. One example is a competition cycle intended solely for racing, conveyed by trailer or truck, which has no lights, and is equipped with special tires, and gear ratios rendering it unfit for low speed on-road traffic conditions. Another is the off-road machine with knobby tires, modified suspension and gear ratios, clearly intended for trail riding, hill climbing and the like. Motorcycles with a dual off-road on-road capability are, on the other hand, subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You also asked for our "interpretation of and when a motorcycle or minibike would not be considered to have been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads." I enclose a copy of an interpretation issued in 1969 that reflects our views on this matter. As a general rule mini-bikes are not considered "motor vehicles", while most motorcycles do come within the definition. We consider both the C.B. 750 and Yamaha 90 to be "motor vehicles", even though we understand the latter is intended for dual-purpose use.

Enclosed is a Statement of Compliance for motorcycles.

Yours truly,

Enclosures

ATTACH.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE

GUAM

January 12, 1976

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Adm., Department of Transportation

Subject: National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

I have been receiving inquiries regarding motorcycle imporations by military personnel reassigned from Japan to Guam, specifically, a C.B. 750 and Yamaha 90.

Would your office please advise if any motorcycles are exempt from the subject law excluding those manufactured prior to January 1968. Also, request your interpretation of and when a motorcycle or minibike would not be considered to have been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads and is not a "Motor Vehicle" as defined in Section 102 of PL 89-563.

Request a copy of the "Statement of Compliance" be furnished this office.

John J. Kralik -- U.S. Customs Military Advisor

ID: nht91-1.45

DATE: February 19, 1991

FROM: Howard "Mac" Dashney -- Pupil Transportation Consultant, State of Michigan, Department of Education

TO: Paul Rice -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Roger L. Lynas; Richard Claflin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Howard "Mac" Dashney (A37; VSA 1391(3); Part 571.3)

TEXT:

During the past 14 months, Michigan has experienced legislative and vehicle sales initiatives that have resulted in confusion among school districts and private fleet operators about vehicles used to transport students. On August 15, 1990, Public Act 187 (PA-187) of the Public Acts of 1990 went into effect. I have included a copy of the act. Section 10(1) states that, "A vehicle for which there are no applicable passenger protection federal motor vehicle safety standards shall not be used to transport passengers to and from school and school related events." Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors officials sent letters to their Michigan dealer networks. I have included a copy of Ford Motor Company's letter. The automobile manufacturers directed their dealers not to lease or sell certain types of vehicles to schools. They are multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events. The Michigan Department of Education, Department, has many questions about the purchase, sale, and use of this type of vehicle.

The Department requests that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration respond to the following questions:

1. Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, FMVSS, apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events?

2. Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events?

3. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

4. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

5. Are FMVSSs in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events?

6. Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events?

7. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

8. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

The passage of PA-187 and a restrictive vehicle sales policy have caused confusion among Michigan's school bus fleet operators. Your timely responses to the above questions will assist the Department prepare an appropriate vehicle use policy.

Please direct your response to Howard "Mac" Dashney, Pupil Transportation Consultant, Michigan Department of Education, P.O. Box 30008, Lansing, Michigan 48909.

Attachment

FORD

K. C. Magee Ford Motor Company General Marketing Manager 300 Renaissance Center P.O. Box 43318 Detroit, Michigan 48243

December 14, 1989

To: All Ford Dealers

Subject: Sale or Lease of Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons for Student Transportation

PURPOSE

This letter is intended to help remedy confusion that apparently exists among some dealers as to what vehicles may be lawfully sold or leased for student transportation. Both Federal and state motor vehicle safety laws and regulations apply to such vehicles.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, and related regulations specify that school buses offered for sale shall meet certain unique requirements.

"School bus" is defined in the regulations as "a bus that is sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include

carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

"Bus," in turn, is defined as "a motor vehicle ... designed for carrying more than 10 persons." 49 Code of Federal Regulations S571.3.

Units Having More Than Ten Seating Positions

Because Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons having more than ten designated seating positions do not comply with the requirements of Federal standards specifically applicable to school buses, they should not be sold or leased for transportation of preprimary, primary, or secondary school students to and from school or related events.

For sells incomplete vehicles (Econoline Vans and Cutaways with School Bus Prep Packages and B-Series Chassis Cowls) to be completed as school buses by specialized school bus manufacturers.

Units Having Ten or Fewer Seating Positions

The Federal school bus standards do not apply to Ford 5, 7 and 8 passenger Club Wagons as these vehicles are not "designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

There may be, however, state or local regulations requiring special equipment or identification that must be satisfied before the lower capacity Club Wagons may be used for student transportation. It is the responsibility of the dealer and the purchaser to determine whether any state or local regulations are applicable.

Units for Transportation of College or University Students

Questions sometimes arise concerning sale or lease of Club Wagons and Super Wagons to colleges and universities to transport students on field trips or athletic events.

An opinion from the Office of the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator indicates that vehicles used for such purposes are not considered to be "school buses" in determining applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, as the opinion points out, individual states are free to regulate vehicles used to transport college and university students if they chose to do so.

Dealer Responsibilities

Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has indicated that it considers the seller of a vehicle to be the person most likely to know its intended use, Ford Motor Company recommends that all dealers who sell or lease a Club Wagon or a Super Wagon as manufactured by Ford Motor Company with more than 10 designed seating positions obtain for his files

a signed statement from the purchaser or lessee that the vehicle is not being purchased or leased for carrying students to and from school or related events.

If a dealer sells or leases such a vehicle and knows or has reason to know that the purchaser or lessee intends to use the vehicle as a school bus, the dealer may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

As stated above, it is the responsibility of the dealer and the purchaser to determine whether any state or local regulations apply to vehicles sold or leased for student transportation.

If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact your district office.

K. C. Magee

ID: aiam3286

Dear Mr. Spencer: This responds to your May 6, 1980, telephone conversation with Roge Tilton of my staff in which you asked about the certification responsibilities for an incomplete trailer manufacturer. You indicated in your conversation that you manufacture chassis for trailers and supply them to final- stage manufacturers who complete them by the addition of a body. In particular, you asked whether you are required to comply with the provisions of Part 568.4, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*.; Part 568 places certain certification responsibilities upon incomplet vehicle manufacturers. The term 'incomplete vehicle' is defined in section 568.3, as an assemblage including, at a minimum, the frame, chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension and braking system to the extent that these systems are to be part of the completed vehicle. If a chassis that you manufacture is completed to the extent that it has the above-listed components and merely needs the addition of a body by a final-stage manufacturer, it would be considered an incomplete vehicle and would be required to comply with the incomplete vehicle document requirements of Part 568. Please note that your incomplete trailer need not have all of the components listed above to be considered an incomplete vehicle subject to Part 558 (sic). It need only have those components in the list that will be found in the completed vehicle. Since your trailer is an incomplete vehicle but not a chassis-cab as that term is defined in Part 567, *Certification*, it would not be required to have a chassis-cab manufacturer's certification label attached to it.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1823

Dear Mr. Zajic: This responds to your February 19, 1975, request for confirmation tha the building of a trailer with some used components constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle for purposes of meeting all applicable safety standards, unless the running gear and bottom rails, at a minimum, are from an existing trailer. You also ask for confirmation that parking brakes are not required on a steerable front axle of a full trailer.; The answer to both of your questions is yes. I enclose a copy of letter interpretation which sets out our position on the extent to which a vehicle can be 'repaired' before it becomes the manufacture of a new vehicle.; In answer to your second question, a full trailer, like all othe air-braked trailers, must meet the requirements of S5.6 *Parking brake system*. Section S5.6 permits the manufacturer the option of meeting the requirements of S5.6.1, *Static retardation force*, or S5.6.2, *Grade holding*.; If you choose to meet S5.6.1, you are not required to equip the fron steerable axle with a parking brake system. If you choose to meet S5.6.2, you may use whatever combination of parking brake systems will meet the grade-holding requirement, and such a combination may or may not include a parking brake system on the front steerable axle.; Because Standard No. 121 does not specify a secondary means of brakin on the steerable axle, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety requirement for automatic application of the brakes upon breakaway remains applicable to the axle (49 CFR S 393.42(d)).; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0092

Dear Mr. Yamada: Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1968, in which you requeste clarification of the term 'optically combined' as applied to motor vehicle lights.; 'Optically combined' in this context means that the same lens area i used for more than one function such as tail and stop lights or stop and turn signal lights or tail, stop and turn signal lights. The normal means used to accomplish this 'optically combined' lamp has been to incorporate a single dual-filament bulb with a reflector and lens.; Since the design of your Toyata (sic) Crown combination stop, tail an turn signal lamp is such that a different part of the lens area is used for the turn signal lamp, we do not interpret it to be optically combined with the tail and stop lamp.; The concurrence of the above interpretation with yours and that of th California Highway Patrol should not be construed to be an approval of your design. The results of recent research on lighting and signaling reviewed by this Bureau indicate that signal lights should be separated 4 1/2 to 5 inches minimum (centerline to centerline separation.) Although no dimensions are specified on your drawing it appears to be approximately full scale with a separation distance of 2 1/4 inches between the stop and turn signal lamps. The steady-burning stop lamp may therefore 'wash out' or significantly reduce the effectiveness on the turn signal lamp. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 does not require a minimum separation distance between signal lights, however, upon completion of our present research contracts on rear lighting and signaling, we may consider such a requirement in the future.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam3001

Dear Mr. Jackson: Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1979, concerning the computerize anti-theft device developed by the BBJ partnership.; As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA has been developing over the past several years an upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, *Theft Protection*. I have enclosed a copy of the standard now in effect and our recent proposed amendment. You should be aware, however, that in response to comments this proposal may be modified prior to its issuance in final form.; The approach of the NHTSA in issuing motor vehicle safety standards i to establish minimum standards with which all manufacturers must comply. It is our hope that manufacturers will exceed these minimum standards in a way which offers the public greater protection, either throughout an entire vehicle line or by optional equipment which a purchaser may buy. your device appears to fall in this latter category.; The NHTSA does not provide evaluation or approvals of inventions, an we would be unable to advise you whether a vehicle equipped with your device would comply with Standard No. 114 without a more complete description. Based on the information you have provided, however, your device does not appear to conflict with the Standard as currently established. Should you have any specific questions in this regard after reading the enclosed material, please call (202-426-1834) or write Frederic Schwartz, Jr. of my office who will be able to assist you further. You should also be aware that if your device is meant to be installed by the owner if a vehicle after the vehicle is sold by the dealer, the Standard would not apply.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel