ID: aiam2780

Dear Mr. Ratz: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*, would be applicable to a Type I seat belt assembly used as a securement device for wheelchairs in an urban transit bus.; Safety Standard No. 209 is an equipment standard that is applicable t any seat belt manufactured for use on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses. Therefore, the seat belt in question would have to comply with the performance requirements of that standard.; Safety Standard No. 210, however, only specifies requirements for sea belt anchorages at the driver's position on buses. Since the assembly you are concerned with would be at a passenger seating position in the bus, it would not have to comply with the anchorage requirements of Standard No. 210.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2779

Dear Mr. Ratz: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*, would be applicable to a Type I seat belt assembly used as a securement device for wheelchairs in an urban transit bus.; Safety Standard No. 209 is an equipment standard that is applicable t any seat belt manufactured for use on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses. Therefore, the seat belt in question would have to comply with the performance requirements of that standard.; Safety Standard No. 210, however, only specifies requirements for sea belt anchorages at the driver's position on buses. Since the assembly you are concerned with would be at a passenger seating position in the bus, it would not have to comply with the anchorage requirements of Standard No. 210.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1555

Dear Mr. Takami: This responds to your July 8, 1974, question whether publication of brochure that lists the rims that may be used with the tires produced by Toyo Tire Corporation would meet the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 119, *New pneumatic tires for vehicles other that passenger cars.*; Publications of such a brochure would meet the requirement of S5.1 s long as the tires ar listed in accordance with S5.1(ak), that is by manufacturer name or brand name, followed by a listing of rims that may be used with each tire listed. The brochure would have to be supplied to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon request, and in duplicate to: Tire Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 10177

Mr. Paul Frink
Engineering Manager
Avionic Structures, Inc.
1429 North State College Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92806

Dear Mr. Frink:

This responds to your letter and telephone call asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206).

Your letter stated that your company manufactures a door and frame system designed for installation on a "recreational motor home," which you described as a self-propelled, self-contained recreational vehicle seating six and with a gross vehicle weight rating of under 10,000 pounds. The door system is installed on the right front side of the vehicle and is the primary means of ingress/egress. You stated that the door's latch/striker assembly is purchased from Tri-Mark Corporation, and that Tri-Mark assures you that the latch/striker assembly conforms to the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. You ask what the classification of the vehicle would be and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply to the door in question.

By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The statute establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency ensures compliance by purchasing vehicles and/or equipment in the retail market and testing them as set forth in the applicable standards. If the vehicle or equipment is found to meet the requirements of the standards, no further action is taken. If the vehicle or equipment fails to meet the standards, the manufacturer is responsible for correcting the noncompliance(s) at no cost to the purchaser. NHTSA also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the defect free of charge.

For the purposes of the FMVSSs, NHTSA classifies motor vehicles as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, motorcycles, and trailers. From your description, the vehicle concerned would be classified as an MPV, which is defined in the definitions section of our FMVSSs (49 CFR 571.3; see enclosed) as a motor vehicle "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off- road operation."

You first ask about the classification of the vehicle and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply. FMVSS No. 206 (copy enclosed) applies to passenger cars, MPVs and trucks. Since the vehicle on which your door and frame system will be installed is an MPV, the standard would apply to the vehicle. The standard requires that, with certain exceptions not applicable here, components on any side door leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating accommodations must comply with the requirements of the standard (see S4 of FMVSS No. 206). The door in question meets this description of S4. According to your letter, there is a step area extending from the door opening into the coach and the passenger seat closest to the door is behind this step area. The presence of the step area does not negate the fact that the door in question leads directly into a compartment that contains passenger seating accommodations. Thus, the components of the door must comply with the requirements of FMVSS 206.

To clarify your understanding of the applicability of FMVSS No. 206, the standard applies to new completed vehicles. Therefore, it would be the vehicle manufacturer who would "certify" compliance with the standard, not the various manufacturers of the components of the door lock system. Sometimes the vehicle manufacturer will rely on the assurances of the suppliers, such as Avionic and Tri-Mark, that the components conform to the requirements of the applicable standards, in making the certification to FMVSS No. 206. However, the vehicle manufacturer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 206, and therefore must determine whether those assurances are bona fide.

Also enclosed for your information are fact sheets issued by this agency entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of

Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment" and "Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations," respectively. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you need any additional information or have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:206 d:9/2/94 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

ID: 11701DRN

Mr. Ernest Cuff
General Manager
Sputhe Engineering, Inc.
11185 Lime Kiln Road
Grass Valley, CA 95949-9715

Dear Mr. Cuff:

This responds to your letter asking several questions concerning your planned manufacture of motorcycles. You explain that your company presently manufactures Aaftermarket [motorcycle] engine and transmission components@ and is negotiating with an Australian company to manufacture and sell motorcycles in the United States.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, our statute establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer has the responsibility to certify that its product meets all applicable standards.

Your questions are as follows:

1. What if any, standards must be met for U.S. production?

ANSWER: The following Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 C.F.R. Part 571) apply to motorcycles: Standard No. 106, Brake hoses; Standard No. 108 Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment; Standard No. 111 Rearview mirrors; Standard No. 115 Vehicle identification number - basic requirements; Standard No. 116 Motor vehicle brake fluids; Standard No. 119 New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars; Standard No. 120 Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars; Standard No. 122 Motorcycle brake systems; and Standard No. 123 Motorcycle controls and displays.

Each motorcycle must be certified by its manufacturer as meeting all applicable safety standards. The certification must be made in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. In addition, if a vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the vehicle manufacturer must notify all owners, purchasers, and dealers of the defect and provide a remedy without charge.

A new manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture (49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification). I am, for your information, enclosing an information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment" and another sheet that describes how you may obtain copies of NHTSA=s standards.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established motor vehicle noise and emission standards. For information on EPA's requirements, please contact:

Office of Mobile Sources, ANR-455 Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Telephone (202) 260-7645

2. Is there an annual level of production at which certain rules would apply, or would all rules apply for a production of as low as 2 to 3 units per year?

ANSWER: Each motorcycle must be certified as meeting the safety standards, regardless of production levels. Thus, even if only one motorcycle is manufactured, all the requirements mentioned in our response to question one would apply.

3. Would the Australian certification be accepted here, or would it be necessary to initiate a whole new round of testing to achieve U.S. certification?

ANSWER: As noted above, it is the manufacturer, not NHTSA, who self-certifies its motor vehicles or items of equipment. Manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to initiate any kind of testing for their certifications.

Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. However, NHTSA does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA.

If NHTSA's compliance test were to show an apparent noncompliance of a vehicle with the standard, the vehicle manufacturer would be asked to show the basis for its certification that its vehicle complies with the standard. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer would

be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance.

It may be simplest for a manufacturer to establish that it exercised "reasonable care" if the manufacturer conducted testing that strictly followed a specific standard's compliance test

procedures. However, "reasonable care" might be shown even if modified test procedures were used.

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,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:571.3 d:4/24/96

While the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties for the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance free of charge.

ID: 18361.wkm

Mr. Malcolm Prestage
Legislation & Standards Engineer
Hawtal Whiting Engineering Ltd.
Southam Road
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV31 1FQ, England

Dear Mr. Prestage:

Your electronic mail inquiry addressed to Ms. Donna Gilmore of this agency and with the notation "Please forward to Barry Felrice or Administrator for Part 523" was forwarded to this office for reply. You requested clarification of the phrase "static loaded radius arc" found in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 523.2, Definitions.

You also requested clarification of the phrase "and the tire inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure," which is part of the definition of "static loaded radius arc" found in 49 CFR 523.2. You asked whether that language refers to the tire inflation pressures recommended by the vehicle manufacturer rather than by the tire manufacturer. Following a telephone conversation with Messrs. John Finneran, safety assurance engineer, and Walter Myers of my staff on February 5, 1999, you sent a telefax to Mr. Myers stating that the tire pressures that you would use are within the tire manufacturers' load ranges, although slightly higher than the tire manufacturer's minimum pressures relative to the loads imposed. You sent a further telefax to Mr. Myers on February 12, 1999 in which you stated that your objective is to ensure that a 4-wheel drive (4WD) vehicle with off-road capability would qualify under Part 523 to be classified as a light truck for fuel economy purposes. You also cited the example of a 195/80R15 tire for which the customary minimum recommended inflation pressure would be 33.4 pounds per square inch (psi). By increasing the inflation pressure to 40.6 psi, the static loaded radius, and therefore the vehicle's ground clearance, would be increased by at least 7 millimeters. The 40.6 psi inflation pressure would then become the minimum pressure recommended on the tire label for that axle.

The term "static loaded radius arc" is defined in 49 CFR 523.2 as:

[A] portion of a circle whose center is the center of a standard tire-rim combination of an automobile and whose radius is the distance from that center to the level surface on which the automobile is standing, measured with the automobile at curb weight, the wheel parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and the tire inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure.

Although the term "static loaded radius arc" does not appear in Part 523 other than in the definitions section, the radius to which it refers is used to determine vehicle classification for purposes of fuel economy standards.

Note that the definition of "static loaded radius arc" includes the criteria by which the radius is to be determined:

1. Measured from the center of the tire-rim combination to the level surface on which the vehicle stands;
2. With the vehicle at curb weight;
3. With the wheel parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle; and
4. With the tire inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure.

The definition of "curb weight" in Part 523 refers to the definition of "vehicle curb weight" found in 40 CFR 86.082-2, which reads as follows:

Vehicle curb weight means the actual or the manufacturer's estimated weight of the vehicle in operational status with all standard equipment, and weight of fuel at nominal tank capacity, and the weight of optional equipment computed in accordance with 86.082-24; incomplete light-duty trucks shall have the curb weight specified by the manufacturer.

This agency has stated by interpretation that "curb weight" is calculated by adding the weight of the vehicle with all of its standard equipment, including its maximum capacity of fuel, oil, and coolant and the weights of the air conditioner and optional engine, if the vehicle is so equipped. No other optional items of equipment are included, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options, nor are occupants and cargo included in calculating the curb weight.

Paragraph S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 110, Tire selection and rims, applicable to passenger cars, and paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, require vehicle labeling to include the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure for the tires, such that the sum of the load ratings of the tires on each axle is appropriate for the vehicle's gross axle weight rating.

It is this agency's interpretation, therefore, that the static loaded radius arc is determined by making the measurement prescribed in Part 523 with the vehicle at curb weight and the tires inflated to the recommended inflation pressure specified on the vehicle's label. However, in no case may the inflation pressure used to determine the static loaded radius arc exceed the maximum rated inflation pressure specified on the tire sidewall.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:523
d.4/21/99

ID: 3039yy

Mr. Michael L. Harmon
President
Classic Interiors
30244-2 County Road 12 West
Elkhart, IN 46514

Dear Mr. Harmon:

This responds to your letter asking whether Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, permits the installation of a built-in child restraint system (i.e., a child restraint system that is an integral part of the vehicle) in a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), and if so, what requirements apply.

As discussed below, a child restraint system built into an MPV would fall within the definition of "child restraint system" in Standard No. 213 and would therefore have to comply with all the provisions of the standard that are generally applicable to child restraint systems. Since such a restraint would not be portable, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, by its own terms, or those of the compliance test procedure for that requirement, specifically applicable to "add-on child restraint systems" only. Since it would be built into an MPV instead of a passenger car, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, for the same reasons, specifically applicable to "built-in child restraint systems" only.

The following sections of Standard No. 213 contain requirements that would apply to a child restraint built into an MPV: S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability). The principle requirements of the standard that would not apply are those in S5.l.l relating to dynamic performance.

In view of the importance of the dynamic performance requirements for ensuring the safety of child restraint systems, we intend to begin rulemaking to apply those requirements to all built-in systems, not just to those installed in passenger cars. In the meantime, we suggest that manufacturers of such systems for MPVs carefully consider whether the systems provide protection comparable to that provided by built-in child restraint systems in passenger cars. You should also be aware that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1381-l431) imposes responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety-related defects. Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the vehicles and equipment they manufacture are free from safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. If the manufacturer or the agency determines that a safety-related defect (or noncompliance with an FMVSS) exists, the manufacturer is obligated under 151 et seq. of the Act to notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Legal Analysis

Standard No. 2l3 applies to child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft. See section S3. The term "child restraint system" is defined as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." See section S4. A child restraint system that is an integral part of an MPV would come within this definition.

Some of Standard No. 2l3's requirements apply generally to "child restraint systems," i.e., without regard to whether a child restraint system is built-in or add-on or whether, if it is built-in, it is installed in a car or other type of vehicle. Since a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV comes within the definition of "child restraint system," it is required to meet all such requirements unless excepted. The following sections of Standard 213 contain requirements which apply generally to "child restraint systems": S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability).

In a number of instances, however, particularly with respect to dynamic performance, Standard No. 2l3 either specifies separate requirements for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems," or provides a test procedure for these two types of child restraint systems only. The standard defines "add-on child restraint system" without respect to the type of vehicle to which it might be added, i.e., as "any portable child restraint system." The term "built-in child restraint system" is defined more restrictively, as "any child restraint system which is an integral part of a passenger car." (Emphasis added.) A child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV does not come within either of these definitions, since such a restraint is neither portable nor a part of a passenger car. Therefore, Standard No. 2l3's requirements for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems," do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV. Similarly, those requirements for which the standard specifies a test procedure for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems" only do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:213 d:6/l2/9l

ID: nht78-4.12

DATE: 11/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 8, 1978, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number. Since the agency was considering petitions for reconsideration when your letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of the amendments to the standard and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the standard are enclosed.

In confirmation of your meeting with Messrs. Carson, Erickson, and Schwartz, you are correct in stating that vehicle description section (VDS) informational content can change from model year, to model year even though the actual characters in the VDS remain the same. All changes in the informational content of the VDS must, of course, be submitted to the NHTSA as required in S6 of the standard.

As you point out in your letter, "dividers" which would appear at the beginning and the end of the VIN would not be considered part of the VIN and, therefore, would not be regulated by the standard. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the dividers are neither alphabetic nor numeric characters which might be mistaken for part of the VIN.

In your meeting with NHTSA staff, you requested clarification concerning which manufacturer identifier should be used when the vehicle assembly is carried out by one company on behalf of another. In this instance, the manufacturer identifier of the company under whose authority the assembly is carried out and which maintains responsibility for the vehicle's compliance with safety standards should be used. You have also asked for a definition of the term "transfer document." A "transfer document" will vary in content from manufacturer to manufacturer, but means the document(s) given to the owner of the vehicle for use when the vehicle is being titled.

We would also call to your attention proposed changes to the standard contained in the enclosed notice of proposed rulemaking. If the proposed changes are adopted, the check digit would be placed in the fourth position of the VIN, and the first and second characters of the VDS, which immediately follow the check digit, would be alphabetic.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Volkswagen of America, Inc.

September 8, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Esquire -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RE: VW/NHTSA Meeting on Vehicle Identification Numbers

Dear Mr. Levin:

On September 8, 1978, representatives of Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volkswagenwerk AG met with Messrs. Carson, Erickson, Parker and Schwartz of the NHTSA to discuss FMVSS 115, the Final Rule on Vehicle Identification Numbers as published in the Federal Register of August 17, 1978.

VW explained that the vehicle identification numbering system it adopts must be compatible with the new NHTSA VIN rule, various international regulations and its own internal purposes. VW indicated that the NHTSA Final Rule had furthered compatibility by changing the position of the VIN check digit from the third to the second section.

VW presented to the NHTSA representatives its proposed concept for fulfilling the requirements of FMVSS 115 including the reporting system (see attachment). NHTSA agreed that the same five digit code within the second section could be used, even if the characteristics of the specific attributes change, for example horsepower or displacement increases from one model year to a new model year. NHTSA also observed that the key used for reporting and deciphering the attributes will consist of the WMI, the five characters of the second section and the model year.

VW described the Common Market directive requiring the use of so-called "dividers" at the beginning and end of the vehicle identification number. These "dividers" are characters which are not part of the VIN and would be in the nature of a star, asterisk or company logo. NHTSA indicated that dividers can be used for vehicles sold in the U.S. provided the VIN is distinct and the divider could not be confused as part of the VIN.

VW requested a clarification as to the meaning of "transfer documents." NHTSA informed VW that "transfer documents" were the official documents needed for titling a vehicle in accordance with state requirements.

VW described the manufacturing process involved in production of its Type 2 Camper vehicle and Scirocco. The Camper's final stage and the Scirocco are assembled by other companies. VW assumes full responsibility for both of these finished vehicles. Therefore, NHTSA agreed that VW's WMI should be used for these vehicles.

We appreciate the willingness of NHTSA to meet with us in order to clarify several aspects of the final VIN rule. It is our intent to institute VIN and reporting systems in accordance with these interpretations by NHTSA.

Sincerely,

Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr. Washington Representative

[Attachment Omitted]

ID: nht94-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 2, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul Frink -- Engineering Manager, Avionic Structures, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 07/11/94 from Paul Frink to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 10177)

TEXT: This responds to your letter and telephone call asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206).

Your letter stated that your company manufacturers a door and frame system designed for installation on a "recreational motor home," which you described as a self-propelled, self-contained recreational vehicle seating six and with a gross vehicle weight rating of under 10,000 pounds. The door system is installed on the right front side of the vehicle and is the primary means of ingress/egress. You stated that the door's latch/striker assembly is purchased from Tri-Mark Corporation, and that Tri/Mark a ssures you that the latch/striker assembly conforms to the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. You ask what the classification of the vehicle would be and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply to the door in question.

By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. T he statute establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency ensures compliance by purchasing vehicles and/or equipment in the retail market and testing them as set f orth in the applicable standards. If the vehicle or equipment is found to meet the requirements of the standards, no further action is taken. If the vehicle or equipment fails to meet the standards, the manufacturer is responsible for correcting the no ncompliance(s) at no cost to the purchaser. NHTSA also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy t he defect free of charge.

For the purposes of the FMVSSs, NHTSA classifies motor vehicles as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, motorcycles, and trailers. From your description, the vehicle concerned would be classified as an MPV, which is def ined in the definitions section of our FMVSSs (49 CFR 571.3; see enclosed) as a motor vehicle "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

You first ask about the classification of the vehicle and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply. FMVSS No. 206 (copy enclosed) applies to passenger cars, MPVs and trucks. Since the vehicle on which your door and frame system will be installed is an MPV, th e standard would apply to the vehicle. The standard requires that, with certain exceptions not applicable here, components on any side door leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating accommodations must comply with the requiremen ts of the standard (see S4 of FMVSS No. 206). The door in question meets this description of S4. According to your letter, there is a step area extending from the door opening into the coach and the passenger seat closest to the door is behind this ste p area. The presence of the step area does not negate the fact that the door in question leads directly into a compartment that contains passenger seating accommodations. Thus, the components of the door must comply with the requirements of FMVSS 206.

To clarify your understanding of the applicability of FMVSS No. 206, the standard applies to new completed vehicles. Therefore, it would be the vehicle manufacturer who would "certify" compliance with the standard, not the various manufacturers of the c omponents of the door lock system. Sometimes the vehicle manufacturer will rely on the assurances of the suppliers, such as Avionic and Tri-Mark, that the components conform to the requirements of the applicable standards, in making the certification to FMVSS No. 206. However, the vehicle manufacturer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 206, and therefore must determine whether those assurances are bona fide.

Also enclosed for your information are fact sheets issued by this agency entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment" n1 and "Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations," respectively.

n1 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means tha t the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you need any additional information or have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: Nakachi

Matthew K. Nakachi, Esq.
Law Offices of George R. Tuttle
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1160
San Francisco, CA 94111





Dear Mr. Nakachi:

This responds to your letters of November 30, 2000 (as supplemented by an email of December 18, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office), and January 3, 2001, concerning the applicability of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards to sidecars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable FMVSSs. ⁽¹⁾ The FMVSSs apply in different ways. Some apply only to new motor vehicles, others apply to new items of motor vehicle equipment ("equipment standards"), while others apply to both new vehicles and new equipment.

Your letters concern the importation of sidecars which would be sold to individuals who already own motorcycles. These sidecars would not be considered "motor vehicles" but would be considered motor vehicle equipment. ⁽²⁾ Therefore, standards that apply only to new motor vehicles would not apply to these sidecars. However, as discussed below, the sidecars would be subject to certain equipment standards.

If an aftermarket sidecar incorporates motor vehicle equipment that is regulated by an equipment standard, the equipment would have to independently comply with the applicable standard. (See NHTSA's May 4, 1982 letter, copy enclosed). Of particular relevance to sidecars are our standards for brake hoses, tires, tire rims and glazing, all of which apply to individual items of

equipment. Brake hoses, tires, tire rims and glazing, if provided on a sidecar, must meet the requirements of Standard Nos. 106, 119, 120, and 205, respectively, that apply to equipment for motorcycles.

You note, for certain of these standards, that the "scope" sections do not mention sidecars but only include such equipment that is used with "passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles." That the standards do not list sidecars is not of significance, because the lists only include vehicle types, and a sidecar is an accessory item (not a vehicle itself). A sidecar is an accessory for a motorcycle. Therefore, equipment on a sidecar is equipment for use on a motorcycle. To determine whether a standard applies to the equipment on a sidecar, we check the application section of the standard to see whether it applies: (a) to items of motor vehicle equipment, and (b) that is for use in motorcycles. If the answer to both of these is yes, then the equipment on the sidecar would have to comply with the standard.

Standard No. 108

In the May 4, 1982, letter we also stated that lighting equipment on a sidecar would have to comply with Standard No. 108. We have reconsidered our views on this issue. Standard

No. 108 applies, in relevant part, to certain types of motor vehicles including motorcycles, and to "(l)amps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies." Since an aftermarket sidecar is sold as an accessory to a motorcycle and not to replace a part of a motorcycle, any lamps, reflective devices or associated equipment on the sidecar would not be "for replacement of like equipment" on the motorcycle. Therefore, Standard No. 108 would not apply to an aftermarket sidecar. This would be true whether the sidecars were imported as single items or with the sidecar fenders incorporating lighting equipment separated from the rest of the sidecar.

However, detached and discrete items of lighting equipment that could be installed either on motor vehicles to which Standard No. 108 applies, or on an aftermarket sidecar, could not be imported unless the items of lighting equipment comply with Standard No. 108. We do not understand that your client intends to import detached items of lighting equipment.

Standard No. 119

Our understanding is that the tires of the sidecar are not labeled in any manner. Unlabeled tires would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 119. The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119, "New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars" (49 CFR 571.119), are set forth in paragraph S6.5 of the standard. Paragraph S6.5(b) requires that each tire be marked with "the tire identification required by part 574 of this chapter." Section 574.5, "Tire identification requirements," specifies that "[e]ach tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures, except tires manufactured exclusively for mileage contract purchasers or non-pneumatic tires of non-pneumatic tire assemblies, by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number (TIN) containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section." According to this paragraph, the information must be molded into or onto the sidewalls of the sidecar tires. Of course, the tires would also have to comply with all performance requirements applicable to new motorcycle tires.

Standard No. 120