ID: 24258.drn

Mr. Mark Perez
UniServ Director/Education Support Personnel Specialist
Georgia Association of Educators
100 Crescent Centre Parkway, Suite 500
Tucker, GA 30084-7049

Dear Mr. Perez:

This responds to your question about how Federal law would affect legislation being considered in Georgia that would require upgrades of older public school buses to meet current Federal school bus standards. Our answer is provided below.

In your letter, you state that proposed legislation in Georgia:

would call for all current buses to be modified to include such items as: cross-over mirrors on each bus which shall be adjusted such that the driver may view the front and both sides of the bus from the drivers seat; functioning parking brakes on each bus; and an extension arm or gate on the front of each bus which may be activated by the driver to prevent passengers from crossing immediately in front of the bus.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the proposed legislation would apply only to public school buses that are already owned by the schools or school districts (i.e., used school buses). You further stated that the legislation would apply only to vehicles that, when first sold, were certified by the manufacturer as meeting Federal school bus safety standards. You also asked that we discuss only the proposed legislations requirements for convex-cross view mirrors, parking brakes and crossing control arms.

Mirrors and Parking Brakes

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) require that all presently manufactured school buses have convex-cross view mirrors (Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors) and parking brakes (Standards No. 105, Hydraulic and electric brake systems and No. 121, Air brake systems). Since the school buses that are the subject of the legislation were manufactured before the effective dates of the school bus mirror and parking brake requirements, the proposed legislation would require retrofitting of older buses to meet current requirements.

One issue raised by your inquiry is whether the State legislation would be preempted by Federal law. Our answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSAs) preemption authority, specified at 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), states in part:

(1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter [49 U.S.C. Sections 30101 et seq.], a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter.

We assume that you are asking about a State provision that would require that only school buses that have the specified school bus mirrors and parking brakes can be operated in the state. Generally, a State is not required to impose operational requirements that are "identical" to the FMVSSs. Nonetheless, there are limits on State operational requirements, in that general principles of preemption law apply. These principles generally preclude States from adopting operational requirements that are more stringent than the requirements applicable to the vehicles under the FMVSSs, because more stringent State requirements would have the effect of precluding the use of a Federally compliant vehicle in that State. However, these preemption principles do not apply to vehicles, such as school buses, procured by a State or local governmental jurisdiction for its own use. Since the legislation you describe would apply only to public school buses, 30103(b) would not preempt the legislation you describe.

Another issue raised by your inquiry is whether NHTSA has any restrictions on the type of modifications that can be made to used vehicles. Nothing in NHTSAs laws would prohibit an owner (i.e., public or private school) from upgrading its used school buses to meet the most current Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The provision in NHTSAs statute addressing modifications of new and used vehicles is at 49 U.S.C. Section 30122(b), which states:

a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter [49 U.S.C. Section 30101 et seq.] unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

Section 30122(b) does not apply to an owner modifying its own vehicles. It does not apply to private schools, public schools or public school districts that make changes to their own used school buses in their own bus garages or repair and maintenance facilities. It does apply to other entities, e.g., motor vehicle repair businesses that, in making modifications for a school district, may do so in a way that takes a school bus out of compliance with a FMVSS requirement. For example, FMVSS No. 121 specifies requirements for the time to apply and release the service brakes via the drivers treadle control. If the modifications to achieve functioning parking brakes resulted in a longer time to apply or release the service brakes that exceeded the FMVSS No. 121 requirement, the motor vehicle repair business would be in violation of the aforementioned section.

Crossing Control Arms

No FMVSS specifies crossing control arms on a school bus. NHTSA had considered requiring crossing control arms on school buses to reduce the risk of school buses striking student pedestrians, but decided against doing so:

After reviewing these comments [public comments on an advance rulemaking notice], the agency has determined not to propose requiring these devices on school buses. The agency notes that a crossing control arm does not provide school bus drivers with a positive means for detecting the presence of a pedestrian. Instead, a crossing control arm merely offers a backup device to help keep children in areas more easily observable by the driver. The agency believes that improving mirror systems offers a larger potential benefit to improving school bus pedestrian safety. Nevertheless, States which favor this device should continue to install them on school buses.

See 56 FR 20171, at 20178; May 2, 1991, copy enclosed. Thus, a State requirement for crossing control arms on public school buses would not be preempted.

State Liability Issues

Further, you expressed concern about "potential liability" that could be associated with this proposed legislation. Since the proposed legislation would amend Georgia law, any liability issues would be determined by Georgia law. I would suggest that your organization consult with an attorney knowledgeable about this aspect of Georgia law for advice on potential liability issues.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure

ref:VSA#571.3

d.8/2/02

ID: 24259.rbm

Mr. Ron Thompson
Fedex Express
2007 Corporate Avenue, 4th Floor
Memphis, TN 38132-5612

Dear Mr. Thompson:

This responds to your recent correspondence asking if your company, Fedex, may have the door locks on its airport vehicles disabled. In a subsequent conversation with Rebecca MacPherson, a Senior Counsel on my staff, you indicated that the vehicles are originally ordered as an incomplete chassis cab and are subject to final manufacturing customized to Fedex specifications. It would be part of this final manufacturing process to disable the existing door locks. You also reiterated that the vehicles, as manufactured, will not be operated anywhere other than airport property, and will not be licensed for street or highway use.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

The Vehicle Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the definition, it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and providing the GVWR.

FMVSS No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, is one of these standards. S4.1.3 of the standard specifies that "[e]ach door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle." However, if the vehicles for which Fedex wishes to have the door locks disabled are not motor vehicles, there is no requirement that they meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 206, or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Whether we consider those vehicles to be motor vehicles depends on their use. We have long stated that vehicles such as airport runway vehicles, that are designed and sold solely for off-road use, are not considered motor vehicles under the Vehicle Safety Act, even if they are operationally capable of highway travel.

As noted in your letter and in the subsequent conversation with Ms. MacPherson, the Fedex vehicles in question will be customized by the final stage manufacturer for airport use, will remain on airport property, and will be used solely for transporting cargo to and from airplanes. Accordingly, we have determined that these vehicles would not be motor vehicles as defined in the Vehicle Safety Act, and you are not prohibited from having the final stage manufacturer disable the door locks on those vehicles.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:595
d.7/16/02

ID: 24322.ztv

Mr. Jesus Cid
3139 Minonee Lane
Carson, NV 89701

Dear Mr. Cid:

Senator Reid has asked us to reply to your e-mail to him requesting information on the legality of neon lights "on the outside or inside" of your car.

I am enclosing copies of representative letters we have sent some other persons who asked this question. These are our letters of April 21, 1992, to Allan Schwartz of Tron Industries, and of July 29, 1993, to Charles D. Shipley, Director, Ohio Department of Public Safety. The views expressed in these letters remain unchanged today, in 2002 (however, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) no longer provides interpretations of State laws).

You did not specify the location on the outside of the car where you would like to install neon lights. The most frequent location appears to be under the car, and the letters we are sending you address underbody neon lighting. However, these letters do not cover neon lighting in the interior (see discussion below).

Federal law permits you as a vehicle owner to modify your vehicle personally in any way you wish. However, these modifications are subject to State law. We are not conversant with State laws, and, specifically, we do not know whether neon lighting on or in a motor vehicle is permitted by Nevada. We suggest that you call your local office of the Department of Motor Vehicles.

If the neon lighting is to be installed by a person other than yourself (specifically, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business), there is an applicable provision of Federal law. This law is intended to ensure that the performance of original equipment installed as required by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is not diminished by modifications after the vehicle is first sold. To avoid violating this law, the installer of the neon lighting should determine that its use would not have a negative effect upon the performance of the vehicle's original lighting equipment which has been installed, as required, by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (or any other equipment installed in accordance with such a standard). For example (see our letter to Mr. Schwartz), the intensity of neon lights on the exterior should not mask the intensity of turn signal and stop lamps. A neon light in the interior should not be placed in the rear parcel shelf to avoid confusion and diminishing the effect of the center highmounted stop lamp. Even if you and the installer decide that the neon lighting you desire would not have a negative effect upon the performance of other lamps, the legality of neon lighting remains subject to the laws of Nevada, or any other State where the car is driven.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.5/17/02

ID: 24333

Mr. Wayne Millson
Collins & Aikman
500 Laird Road
Guelph, Ontario N1G 3X7
Canada

Dear Mr. Millson:

This responds to your e-mail of March 22, 2002, in which you ask several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." Each of your questions is addressed below.

Frequency of Testing

First, you ask whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Safety Act," Title 49, United States Code, Chapter 301), specifies how frequently an item of motor vehicle equipment must be tested for the purpose of compliance with the FMVSSs. Specifically, you ask: "If a part is tested once, is there any requirement to re-test the part at a model year change if there has been no change to the part itself?"

The answer is the Safety Act does not specify how frequently an item of motor vehicle equipment must be tested. However, the Safety Act does require that manufacturers exercise "reasonable care" to ensure that their products conform to each applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30115(a)). A manufacturer must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that each part covered by FMVSS No. 302, if tested according to the requirements of the standard, would meet those requirements.

Surrogate Testing Requirement

Second, you ask about a provision in S5.2.1 for surrogate testing. You ask: "The end of paragraph S5.2.1 refers to a surrogate testing requirement under S4.1.1. S4.1.1 only says [Reserved]. What does this mean? How do I find out when it is acceptable to use surrogate data?"

The answer is there is no surrogate testing provision in FMVSS No. 302. As explained below, the reference in S5.2.1 to surrogate testing is an obsolete provision from a 1975 rulemaking, and should be disregarded.

S5.2.1 contains specifications for the preparation of test specimens. The last sentence of S5.2.1 reads: "The maximum available length or width of a specimen is used where either dimension is less than 356 mm or 102 mm, respectively, unless surrogate testing is required under S4.1.1." As you note, S4.1.1 is reserved.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had added the surrogate testing option in a March 31, 1975 final rule (40 FR 14318) in response to comments suggesting that small components be exempted from the testing requirements of FMVSS No. 302. The agency denied the request to exempt small components, but added S4.1.1 to the standard to provide for surrogate testing of small components, e.g., switches, knobs, gaskets, and grommets, because they were too small to be effectively tested under the procedures in place at the time.⁽¹⁾ In a September 16, 1975 final rule (40 FR 42746), NHTSA deleted S4.1.1 (and "reserved" the paragraph for codification purposes) because several vehicle manufacturers wanted an opportunity to comment on the surrogate testing provision. NHTSA reissued the provision in the form of a notice of proposed rulemaking that same day (40 FR 42756). However, the agency did not later adopt the surrogate testing proposal. NHTSA also did not remove S4.1.1 or the reference to it in S5.2.1. Thus, the reference to a surrogate testing requirement in S5.2.1 remained even though the surrogate testing requirement was deleted.

Surfaces Created By Cutting a Test Specimen

Finally, you ask about the meaning of the last sentence in S4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 302. S4.3(a) reads:

When tested in accordance with S5, material described in S4.1 and S4.2 shall not burn, nor transmit a flame front across its surface, at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. The requirement concerning transmission of a flame front shall not apply to a surface created by cutting a test specimen for purposes of testing pursuant to S5.

You ask how the last sentence would apply to:

a sectioned instrument panel where the sample consists of an outer PVC skin that is the finished surface the vehicle occupant sees and is only a couple of millimeters thick fully adhered to a polyurethane foam which comprises the remainder and bulk of the one-half inch sample being tested. In this instance, the PVC skin does not burn, but the flame is transmitted across the foam portion of the composite.

Our answer is that any surface not created by the cutting of the test specimen is required to comply with the burn-rate limit of S4.3(a). However, surfaces created by the cutting of the test specimen are excluded from this requirement because cutting certain materials to the prescribed thickness produces a tufted surface upon which a flame front may be propagated at a faster rate than it would be upon the surface of the material before cutting, thereby creating an artificial test condition.

Based on the information in your e-mail, this exclusion would not apply to the polyurethane foam portion of your test sample because that surface was not created by cutting the material to be tested to the prescribed thickness. Rather, the foam portion and the PVC outer skin should be tested as a composite material, as required by S4.2 of FMVSS No. 302. (S4.2 requires any portion of a single or composite material that is within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space to meet the burn-rate requirements of S4.3. S4.2.2 specifies that any material that adheres to other materials at every point of contact shall meet the requirements of S4.3 when tested as a composite with the other materials.)

I hope you find this information helpful. For your convenience, I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes NHTSA's requirements and that tells you how you can obtain copies of our regulations. If you have any further questions, please contact Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:302
d.5/17/02

^1. S4.1.1 had read: "If a test sample at least 6 inches long cannot be produced from a component because of its size, a test sample or samples with composition identical to that of the component material(s) shall be produced in the shape of a rectangle 4 inches wide, 14 inches long, and as thick as the component, up to inch, and shall be used for testing pursuant to S5."

ID: 24338

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

Dear Mr. Dierks:

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

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

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

Low Chassis Vehicle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Purpose Vehicle

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

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

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

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

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

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

ref:224

d.8/1/02

ID: 24345.ztv

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

Dear Mr. Kish:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: 24365-2.rbm

Ms. Kimberly Boucher
Spartan Motor Chassis, Inc.
1165 Reynolds Road
Charlotte, MI 48813

Dear Ms. Boucher:

This responds to your letter asking whether fire trucks are required to have side door locks that meet the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (FMVSS No. 206). Your question is addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. FMVSS No. 206, which generally regulates door latches, hinges and locks, applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks.

In your letter, you requested NHTSA to make a determination that a fire truck is an incomplete truck rather than a multi-passenger vehicle. You also asked whether it is permissible to have the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) assign a unique vehicle identifier for an incomplete truck,^[1] and whether such an identifier would exempt the vehicle from the side door lock requirements of FMVSS No. 206. In a follow-up conversation with a member of my staff, you clarified that your concern was whether the incomplete vehicles manufactured by your company are trucks or multipurpose passenger vehicles, not whether the vehicle was incomplete or finally manufactured.

NHTSA defines vehicle types according to their particular attributes in 49 CFR 571.3. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A truck is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

The Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may examine the appropriateness of the manufacturer's classification in the context of an enforcement action.

While we can provide opinions about vehicle classification, you do not provide sufficient information in your letter to offer a specific opinion. I note, however, that we would generally expect vehicles commonly referred to as fire trucks to be considered trucks under our regulations, since they are designed primarily for the transportation of firefighting equipment. It is possible that a vehicle operated by a fire department that is designed primarily to transport passengers rather than specialized equipment could be characterized as a multi-purpose vehicle.

As to your question regarding the requirements for side door locks on trucks, I note that the response depends on what type of door the truck is equipped with. FMVSS No. 206 applies to all doors other than folding doors, roll-up doors, doors designed to be easily attached to or detached from the vehicle, and doors equipped with a wheelchair lift that is attached to an alarm system. These doors are excluded from the standard pursuant to S4(c). Additionally, FMVSS No. 206 only regulates the components on side doors that do not fit into one of these excluded categories if the doors lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations (see S4(a)). The standard also specifies requirements for back doors (S4.4). However, these requirements only apply to passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles.

FMVSS No. 206 requires categories of side doors to meet differing requirements depending on where the door is located and how it is attached to the vehicle. The requirements for hinged side doors other than cargo doors are found in S4.1, while the requirements for cargo doors are found in S4.2. Sliding side doors are addressed by S4.3. Of these categories of side doors, only hinged side doors are required to have door locks.

Under S4.1.3, door locks, all hinged side doors covered by the standard must be equipped with a locking mechanism that can be operated from the interior of the vehicle. Additionally, S4.1.3.1, side front door locks, requires all side front doors to have a lock that prevents the door from being opened from the outside of the vehicle when the door lock is engaged.

S4.1.3.2, side rear door locks, requires side rear doors that when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release mechanisms be inoperative. However, S4.1.3.2 does not apply to trucks; it only applies to passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Thus, if the vehicle in question is a truck, it does not need to meet this particular requirement.

I note that under S4.4.2, door locks, each back door system covered by the standard that is equipped with interior door handles, or that leads directly into a compartment with one or more seating accommodations must have a locking mechanism that can be operated from both the inside and the outside of the vehicle. Additionally, when the locking mechanism is engaged, both the inside and outside door handles must be inoperative. However, as noted earlier, FMVSS No. 206's requirements for back doors apply only to passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles and not to trucks.

As a final note, our records indicate that your company already has a vehicle identifier for trucks. Accordingly, there is no need to request the SAE to come up with a unique identifier for any fire trucks that you manufacture.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

ref:206

d.8/2/02

^[1] The first 3-6 characters (depending on the size of the vehicle manufacturer) of a vehicle's vehicle identification number (VIN) are assigned by the SAE and identify the vehicle manufacturer and type. For more detailed information on VINs, please refer to 49 CFR 565.

ID: 24366.ztv

Mr. Brian Kavanaugh
Trade Advisor
Deringer Logistics Consulting Group
1 Lincoln Road, Suite 225
Rouses Point, NY 12979




Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:

This is in reply to your letter asking for an interpretation covering MR-100 and MO-100 compact trailers. You stated that "the MR-100 is for use on the highway and is equipped with DOT approved tail and marker lights." You further stated that "The MO-100 off road trailer is not equipped with any lighting." We understand that you wish to import these trailers into the United States from Canada.

We appreciate your sending us illustrations of both trailers, as that enables us to provide you with a more definitive response to your questions.

We first address your opinion that "the MO-100 off road will not require any DOT approval as it is not for use on the highway." However, you have provided no arguments in support of your conclusion. We do not accept such statements of use at face value when it appears to us that a vehicle is capable of being used both on and off the public roads. As we see them, the MO-100 and the MR-100 are both capable of on and off road use; they are almost identical in appearance and size, and their interior dimensions and volume are identical. There are, to be sure, some distinctions between the two trailers. The rear fender well molding on which the MR-100s rear lamp is mounted has been removed from the MO-100, opening the wheelwell (which might facilitate brush clearance) and the MO-100 is equipped with "AT-22 x 11-8 2 ply tires." However, there does not appear to be any practical reason why the owner of an MO-100 could not replace these tires and their rims with the "5.30 x 12 6 ply tires" of the MR-100. These features taken alone fail to establish that the MO-100 is not likely to be used on the public streets , roads, and highways. I also note that the MO-100 is advertised as having "high speed quality hubs & bearings," which suggests on-road capability.

We would consider such arguments as you care to present in support of your opinion that the MO-100 "is not for use on the highway." We have issued numerous interpretations on the issue of whether particular vehicles are "motor vehicles." I am enclosing one of these interpretations for your consideration (letter to Ronald Sheldon, dated May 4, 2000). For purposes of this letter, we consider that both the MO-100 and MR-100s are motor vehicles and required to comply with the FMVSS that apply to trailers and to be certified as complying with these FMVSS.

You have asked four questions:

"1) Are these trailers in compliance with DOT requirements?"

We do not know. The MO and MR trailers must be manufactured to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 (lamps and reflectors), 119 (tires), and 120 (rims). The MO and MR trailers are too long and too wide to qualify for the exceptions for lighting equipment allowed for smaller trailers under S5.1.1.14 and S5.1.1.15 of Standard No. 108. The manufacturer of the trailers must ensure that they are equipped with all lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 and that they are equipped with tires and rims that meet Standards Nos. 119 and 120 as well.

"2) Do they need a DOT Approval letter to import these trailers into the United States as the Original Manufacturer."

No. There are no "DOT Approval" letters. Each trailer must have a manufacturers certification label affixed to it in the form and manner prescribed by 49 CFR Part 567. That will enable the trailer to be readily imported into the United States.

Nor are there "DOT-approved tail and marker lights" as you referred to them in your letter. A DOT symbol appearing on an item of lighting equipment represents its manufacturers certification of compliance with U.S. Federal requirements. It does not represent any "approval" by DOT. We have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" vehicles or equipment.

"3) Will they have to be entered through a Registered Importer?"

A trailer that has been certified by its original manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (see answer to Question 2 above) may be directly imported into the United States. Vehicles that have not been so certified must be imported through a registered importer, and many other requirements may apply.

"4) Do they have to assign a designated agent for a foreign manufacturer? (Service of Process)?"

Yes. The Canadian manufacturer of the trailers must file such a designation, and the designation must follow the form and content specified in 49 CFR 551.45.

I enclose a copy of information that the agency provides prospective manufacturers of motor vehicles.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.8/15/02

ID: 24384.drn

Susanne Krg, Account Manager
Lemfrder Corporation
Schaltungssysteme GmbH
Technical Center
15811 Centennial Drive
Northville, MI 48167

Dear Ms. Krg:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. You wish to know whether a motor vehicle that includes several proposed shift-by-wire shift patterns would meet Standard No. 102.

You included with your request ten pages of drawings, each of which is stamped "CONFIDENTIAL." We agree these drawings are entitled to confidential treatment as the disclosure of the depictions contained within them is likely to cause competitive harm. In the future, a request for confidential treatment consistent with Part 512 of the Agencys regulations should be included with any such submissions.

With your letter, you show 16 proposed configurations of shift-by-wire shift patterns (not counting the shift pattern of the BMW 7 Series). We assume that the shift patterns are intended to be used in motor vehicles with automatic transmissions. In a telephone conversation with Ms. Nakama, you explained that the shifting would be done by means of a joy stick, which, after being shifted, would return to a default position designated as the "X" position. You further explained that the joy stick may be moved straight up, straight down, and to the right and left (i.e., imagining the face of a clock, to the 12 oclock, 3 oclock, 6 oclock and 9 oclock positions) only. Diagonal movements such as to the one oclock or two oclock positions would not be permitted. I note that most of the shift patterns have two neutral positions. In all of the shift patterns depicted, before it may go into "drive" or "reverse," the joy stick must first be moved to "neutral." Thus, for example, to go into reverse, one moves the joy stick straight up (to go to neutral) and then to the left (to reverse).

Shifting from "Neutral" to "Drive" or "Reverse"

Requirements for shift patterns are specified at paragraph S3.1.1 of Standard No 102, which states in part:

A neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions . . . If the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, it shall be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position.

All of your proposed shift patterns meet the requirement that "a neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions." Since nothing in S3.1.1 specifies that only one neutral position is to be provided, your patterns that would include two neutral positions are not prohibited by S3.1.1.

Shift Patterns with a "Park" Position

The second quoted sentence in S3.1.1 specifies that the "if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, it shall be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position." Two of your shift patterns (Pattern Number Six on the fourth page, Pattern Number Fourteen, on the tenth page) depict the joy stick as going directly from "X," the default position, to "park." If in fact the park position is part of the shift pattern, a vehicle with a joy stick that goes directly from "X" to "park" would not meet S3.1.1. If it is provided as part of the shift lever sequence, the park position must be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position.

The park position requirement in S3.1.1 was addressed by this office in a letter of September 25, 1998, to BMW of North America, Inc. (BMW). In that letter, we stated in part:

Paragraph S3.1.1 explicitly limits the requirement to those park positions included within the Ashift lever sequence.@ It is our interpretation that if park is not selected by the movement of the shift lever, then the park control is not part of the shift lever sequence. In this case, the sentence quoted above does not apply, and the park control does not have to be located at the end, adjacent to reverse.

The park position described in BMWs letter was not in the shift lever sequence. It was selected not by the movement of the shift lever but by pushing on a push-button control mounted on the end of the transmission shift lever. For this reason, we determined that BMW=s vehicle with the park position control (as described in BMWs incoming letter to NHTSA) need not meet the park position requirement in S3.1.1 of Standard No. 102.

Patterns Depicting Functions Other Than Park, Reverse, Neutral and Drive

The fundamental shift patterns (reverse-neutral-drive) of both Pattern Number Nine (page six) and Pattern Number Sixteen (page ten) would meet S3.1.1 of Standard No. 102. However, both Pattern Number Nine and Pattern Number Sixteen each depict at least two additional functions that are not park, reverse, neutral, or drive. Without more specific information about these functions, including what these functions are and how many of them are to be provided, we are unable to provide an opinion whether a motor vehicle with these functions would meet Standard No. 102.

Standard No. 102s Identification of Shift Lever Position Requirements

Unlike traditional transmission shift levers that stay in the gear position selected by the driver, the joy stick in your design defaults to the "X" position after the gear is selected. As a result, a visual display other than the joystick must inform the driver of the current gear selection.

Section 3.1.4 specifies requirements for identification of shift lever positions as follows:

Vehicles with Park Positions- S3.1.4.1 specifies that except when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle, if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist: (a) the ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted; (b) the transmission is not in park.

Vehicles Without Park Positions - S3.1.4.2 specifies that except when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle, if the transmission shift lever sequence does not include a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever the ignition is in a position in which the engine is capable of operation.

S3.1.4.4 specifies that the information required in S3.1.4.1 or S3.1.4.2 must be displayed in view of the driver in a single location. At the option of the manufacturer, redundant displays providing some or all of the information may be provided.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

ref:102

d.8/1/02

ID: 24388.drn

Mr. Brian Barrington
President
Liberty Bus, Inc.
P.O. Box 449
Lima, OH 45802-0449

Dear Mr. Barrington:

This responds to your letter requesting information about sales of your companys vehicles to child care centers. You explain that your company manufactures new vehicles that meet the school bus crashworthiness Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but do not have the school bus flashing lights and stop arms. You wish to know whether child care providers may purchase and use these vehicles.

By way of background, it might be helpful to keep in mind that Federal law restricts the types of new buses that may be sold for school transportation purposes but does not restrict the use of vehicles. Your customers State laws regulate how school age children in a State are to be transported. NHTSA has revised its interpretation of "school" to exclude Head Start Programs. However, sales of new buses to child care centers that provide transportation to or from school must involve a school bus.

Sales of New Buses to Child Care Centers

Your question regarding sales of new buses to child care centers has been addressed for the most part in the enclosed interpretation letter of May 9, 2001, to Collins Bus Corporation (Collins letter). In the Collins letter, we explain dealers responsibilities in selling new buses to day care centers that will be using the vehicles to transport children to or from schools. All the enclosures mentioned in the letter are provided.

The Collins letter discusses prohibitions on sales of new buses that do not meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) school bus standards. Briefly, any person selling a new 'school bus" must sell a bus that meets our school bus standards. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which NHTSA decides is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons (49 CFR 571.3(b)).

NHTSAs longstanding position has been that day care centers in and of themselves are not 'schools" within the meaning of our statute because of their primarily custodial, rather than educational, emphasis. However, when a day care center is providing transportation to or from school or school- related events, then the transportation constitutes the described action-- transporting students to or from school--contemplated by the statute. In a letter of July 23, 1998, to Mr. Don Cote of Northside Ford (copy enclosed), we advised that when a dealership sells or leases a new bus to a child care facility to drop off and pick up school children from school "on regular school days," the dealership must sell or lease only a bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

The Collins letter stated that NHTSA currently does not presume that day care centers universally are engaged in the transportation of children to or from school. However, where the purchaser or lessor of a new bus is a day care center, in light of the widespread publicity that has surrounded the issue, we expect a dealer to inquire as to whether the vehicle would also be used to drop off or pick up students from school. If it appears that a vehicle will be used significantly for student transportation, the requirement to sell a certified school bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses would apply.

Sales of New Buses to Head Start Programs

Your letter also stated: "Head Start and Child Care providers operate vehicles under identical conditions. In other words, children are picked up and released off of thoroughfares and usually in parking lots and drive ways." For these reasons, you ask whether you can sell to child care centers an "allowable alternate vehicle" (AAV) as defined by the Head Start Bureau. The answer is no.

Head Start defines an AAV as "a vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more people, including the driver, that meets all the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses, except 49 CFR 571.108 and 571.131." (See 45 CFR Section 1310.3) Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) establishes requirements for lamps and associated equipment, and Standard No. 131 (49 CFR 571.131) establishes requirements for stop arms.

Sales of new buses to child care centers that provide to and from school transportation can be distinguished from sales of new buses to Head Start Programs. The latter type of sale has been the focus of recent Congressional and administrative action that have led us to reconsider our previous determinations in this area. In an interpretation letter of August 3, 2000 to Helen H. Taylor, Associate Commissioner of the Head Start Bureau (copy enclosed), NHTSA agreed to Head Starts request to revise our interpretation of "school" to exclude Head Start Programs. NHTSA made this revision after being informed that in 1998, Congress amended section 636 of the Head Start Act by employing the term "school readiness," thereby distinguishing Head Start Programs from school programs. In the letter to the Head Start Bureau, NHTSA stated in part:

Accordingly, we are revising our interpretation of "school" to exclude Head Start. Consistent with the evident intent of section 636, we conclude that a Head Start agency is not operating a "school" for the purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act. This means that buses sold to transport children to and from a Head Start site will no longer be required under the Vehicle Safety Act to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. In revising our interpretation, we act with the knowledge that HHS intends to implement a rule requiring that Head Start children be transported in vehicles meeting the Federal school bus safety standards other than those for traffic control devices. This will serve to ensure the childrens safety.

As you are aware, in a final rule of January 18, 2001, the Head Start Bureau established 45 CFR Part 1310, Head Start Transportation, which includes the definition of "allowable alternate vehicle."

Conclusion

Sales of new buses to child care centers that provide to and from school transportation have not been affected by the recent Congressional activity on Head Start buses. Sales of new buses to child care centers to transport students to or from school are still subject to the Vehicle Safety Act mandate to sell complying school buses. However, you may be interested to know that on March 21, 2001, NHTSA granted a petition from the Rabun-Gap Nacoochee School of Rabun-Gap, Georgia, to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to create a new school bus classification known as the "school activity bus." The petitioner asked that this classification "consist of buses which are used for transporting school children to or from school related activities, but are not used to transport children between home and school." Among other issues, the petitioner asked that school buses meeting this new category be exempted from the requirement for school bus warning lights (S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108) and the requirement for school bus pedestrian safety devices (Standard No. 131). The agency is presently in the rulemaking process.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address, or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/14/02