ID: 12581.wkm

Mr. Stan R. Gornick, P. Eng.
Manager Engineering Quality
Western Star Trucks
2076 Enterprise Way
Kelowna, British Columbia
Canada V1Y6H8

Dear Mr. Gornick:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on October 10, 1996, and your letter of October 11, 1996, addressed to Mr. Myers. You asked whether emergency doors on sleepers manufactured by your company for installation on the back of truck cabs must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The answer is no.

You stated in your letter that your company offers a sleeper that can be mounted on the back of a truck cab. Access to the sleeper is provided through an opening in the back wall of the cab and the front wall of the sleeper. An emergency door 20.25 inches wide and 28 inches high may be installed as an option on the passenger side of the sleeper. Although the interior opening is the primary access, the emergency door provides a means of both ingress and egress to the sleeper from outside the cab. There are no seating accommodations in the sleeper, only a bed. The bed is equipped with 2 restraint straps to hold an occupant in place if the vehicle were to suddenly stop or to roll over. Nothing is provided, however, for anyone sitting on the edge of or at the back of the bed.

As you correctly pointed out in your letter, paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 206 provides that "[c]omponents on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" must comply with the

requirements of the standard. The key words here are "directly" and "one or more seating accommodations."

On July 28, 1972 this office issued a letter to Mr. J. Donald Waldman of Resources Applications, Designs & Control, Inc. (copy attached), in which we stated in response to a question similar to yours that even though the sleeper is a passenger compartment, it is a separate unit with no seating accommodations. Thus, FMVSS No. 206 would not apply. However, we went on to say that:

[I]f the sleeper berth equipment is installed in such a way that it is contiguous to the truck cab and can be entered by the driver from within the cab, then any side doors on the sleeper berth equipment would be side doors leading into a passenger compartment (the cab) containing seating accommodations and they would have to meet the requirements of the Standard.

This language could be interpreted to say that if there is any means at all of ingress or egress through the sleeper door into the cab, even if one must crawl through the sleeper compartment and over the bed to get into the cab, then the door must comply with FMVSS No. 206. We think that such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the plain language of the standard. Accordingly, in a letter to Mr. Jiro Doi of Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc., dated April 26, 1996 (copy enclosed), we stated that a back door "that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" means:

[A] door through which vehicle occupants enter from outside the vehicle directly into a vehicle compartment in which occupant seats are located, or exit the vehicle directly from a compartment in which they have been seated to the outside of the vehicle.

Thus, doors "leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" means just that, and does not include a compartment through which or over which a person must crawl or climb to reach a compartment containing seating accommodations. Accordingly, the small emergency door leading into or out of your sleeper compartment does not lead directly into a compartment containing seating accommodations, and is therefore not

required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. Any interpretation to the contrary that is stated or may be inferred in the Waldman letter is hereby rescinded.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:206

d:11/18/96

ID: nht71-1.37

DATE: 06/15/71

FROM: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Hill; Lewis; Adams; Goodrich & Tait

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 10 to Francis Armstrong, Director of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of Vehicle Industries, Inc. Your client wishes to import dune buggy chasses, either in kit or assembled form, for sale to a distributor-dealer organization and subsequent resale by them to retail customers who will complete the final manufacture of the incomplete vehicle as a dune buggy. You have asked questions concerning compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards ("safety standards") and other regulations.

Your letter indicates that you are familiar with our two Mini-Bike Interpretations and the criteria we use in determining whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act"). There have been no further additions to these Interpretations. We view a dune buggy as a "motor vehicle" primarily because it is licensable for use on the public roads. Conversely all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and some categories of mini-bikes are not considered "motor vehicles" because of State statutory prohibitions forbidding their registration for on-road use. Because a dune buggy is constructed with "special features for occasional off-road use" it is a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" ("MPV") under the safety standards, and must, at the time of its manufacture, comply with all safety standards applicable to MPVs. Equipping a vehicle with speed restrictive components would not affect this opinion unless the equipment rendered the completed vehicle unlicensable for on-road use.

Until January 1, 1972, the product Vehicle Industries wishes to import, either in kit form or as an assemolage, is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the Act. It is not a chassis-cab, as you suggested, because it has no cab. Since section 102(5) of the Act includes an importer in the definition of "manufacturer." Vehicle Industries is considered the manufacturer of the motor vehicle equipment it imports, and responsible for compliance of that equipment with applicable safety standards.

Regulated equipment items for MPVs and corresponding safety standards are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106), brake fluid (No. 116), glazing (No. 205), seat belt assemblies (No. 209), and wheel covers (No. 211). If the kit or assemblage contains any of these items, the item must comply upon inportation, and Vehicle Industries must provide certification to the distributor-dealer that the equipment item meets the appropriate safety standard. The certification obligation is imposed by section 114 of the Act as amplified by a notice published on November 4, 1967, copy enclosed. There are no other labeling or informational obligations. The requirements of this paragraph remain in effect after January 1, 1972, to any dune buggy chassis imported in kit form.

If the chassis is imported in assembled form, on and after January 1, 1972, Vehicle Industries as importer - manufacturer of an assemblage will be considered an "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" and the assemblage an "incomplete vehicle" as those terms are defined in 49 CFR Part 568, the regulations governing vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I enclose a copy of Part 568 for your guidance and call your attention to @ 568.4, requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Section 568.4(a)(7) will require Vehicle Industries to provide with the incomplete vehicle a list of those standards applicable to MPVs, together with one of three appropriate statements for each such standard. If Vehicle Industries has provided certification prior to January 1, 1972, covering an equipment item in the assemblage, for instance brake hoses, the appropriate statement on and after January 1, 1972 would appear to be set out in @ 568.4(a)(7)(i), that the vehicle when completed will comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hose and Brake Hose Assemblies, if the final assembler makes no change in the brake hoses or brake hose assemblies. You ask if these regulations may be followed as a "guideline" before January 1, 1972. Because the @ 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement is a representation of compliance, it is a de facto certification of compliance and, in my opinion, Vehicle Industries may provide such a @ 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement in advance of January 1, 1972, that includes a regulated equipment item, to satisfy the existing equipment certification requirement.

You have also asked if it is possible to "retail the unit in its present form with an item of equipment on it" that doesn't comply with the safety standards. The answer is no, if that item is directly regulated by a safety standard. However, if a safety standard applies to vehicle categories only - and most of them do - then an item encompassed in that safety standard need not comply until time of final assembly. For example, Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, applies to MPVs and passenger cars, and not to the equipment items specified therein. Consequently, the horn ring and steering wheel assembly hub of the assemblage need not have a finish in accordance with Standard No. 107, but these items must comply with reflectance requirements when the assemblage is completed as a dune buggy.

In closing, I want to call your attention to section 110(e) of the Act and 49 CFR @ 551.45, which require that manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment who offer their products for importation into the United States appoint a resident agent for service of process. I enclose a copy of @ 551.45 with the informational requirements underlined and request that you ask the Spanish manufacturer of the dune buggy chassis to file a designation of agent with us.

If you have any further questions I shall be happy to answer them for you.

Enclosures

ID: 8021

Mr. David M. Hart
President
Flushsaver
5440 W. Century Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90045-5992

Dear Mr. Hart:

This responds to your letter of November 16 asking for "feedback" on your plan to market a decal called "Flashit" for installation over a center high-mounted stop lamp.

I enclose a copy of an agency letter representative of our advice to inquirers on this subject. Though this letter, to David M. Romansky, dates from September 3, 1987, it remains the agency's position today.

Should you wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators on this subject, please note that its new address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:12/10/92

ID: nht72-4.32

DATE: 12/11/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Intercontinental Equipment Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 25, 1972. You have enclosed a copy of a letter from Suzuki Motor Company, Ltd., dated September 14, 1972, in which it objects to the certification label that you propose to attach to Suzuki trucks imported by you for sale. The label shows Suzuki as the manufacturer and Intercontinental Equipment Corporation (IEC) as the importer of the trucks.

Suzuki bases its objection on the fact that:

". . . the vehicles as manufactured by Suzuki does (sic) not conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and it will be misrepresentation by our company to make such statement."

Suzuki also comments "the responsibility for compliance rests sorely (sic) on both IEC and Yachiyoda but this fact is not clearly shown on the label."

This agency's position is that the certification scheme you have described is an appropriate one for imported vehicles that have been modified after manufacture to conform to the standards.

We do not consider the certification label necessarily to be a representation by the original manufacturer. The question of who is responsible for the correctness of the certification, and for conformity, must be decided on the facts of the individual case. In this case, the representation is by IEC, not Suzuki, and IEC is responsible for conformity of the vehicle.

ID: nht92-9.63

DATE: 01/01/92 EST

FROM: Scott D. Boone -- Van Conversions, Inc.

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/8/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Scott D. Boone (A40; Std. 208; Part 568)

TEXT:

We at Van Conversions convert from time to time Ford E-150's for day care centers. We usually do a 21 passenger capability and would like to have in writing all the State laws we need to comply with, from bolts used and materials preferred.

We won't touch anything until we hear from you. Thank you very much.

Usually Ford E-150's 21 passenger Step well Isle runner Tell me about seat belts 3 pt. Tell me about bolts used and grades.

ID: nht92-1.28

DATE: 12/10/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DAVID M. HART -- PRESIDENT, FLUSHSAVER

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-16-92 (11-16-91) FROM DAVID M. HART TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 8021); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-3-87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO DAVID M. ROMANSKY (STD. 108)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 16 asking for "feedback" on your plan to market a decal called "Flashit" for installation over a center high-mounted stop lamp.

I enclose a copy of an agency letter representative of our advice to inquirers on this subject. Though this letter, to David M. Romansky, dates from September 3, 1987, it remains the agency's position today.

Should you wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators on this subject, please note that its new address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: aiam4242

Dear Mr. Edwards: I am writing in response to your recent inquiry concerning interio over-head luggage racks on school buses. Your first question seeks this Agency's opinion on whether interior luggage racks on school buses should be considered 'projections likely to cause injury' under the National Minimum Schoolbus Standards. These standards are recommendations by the National Conference on School Transportation (NCST), and are not developed by NHTSA. Requests for interpretation of these Standards should be mailed to the Interpretation Committee, addressed to:; >>>Mr. Norman Loper, Coordinator of Pupil Transportation, Alabam Department of Education, 304 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36130<<<; Requests for modification to these Standards and development of ne Standards should be directed to the chairman of the Interim Committee, addressed to:; >>>Mr. Bill G. Loshbough, Asst. State Supt. for Transportation, Dept of Education, Education Bldg., Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786<<<; In response to your second question, there are no federal standards o regulations which specifically address the issue of over-head luggage racks on school buses. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) S571.222 addresses the issue of school bus passenger seating and crash protection. Specifically, S5.3.1 of that standard establishes the head protection zones. As defined in S5.3.1.1, that zone extends up to a horizontal plane 40 inches above the seating reference point. If the luggage rack were to be located within the head protection zone, the rack would have to meet the head form impact requirement in S5.3.1.2 and the head form force distribution requirement in S5.3.1.3.; Please feel free to contact this office if you have any othe questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 18170.wkm

Mr. M. Kikkawa
Mazda North American Operations (ESE)
1203 Woodridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kikkawa:

This responds to Mazda's letter asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, as it applies to sliding side doors. You ask what loads would be applied to such a door, and where on the door the loads would be applied.

Paragraph S4.3 of the standard provides: "The track and slide combination or other supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total transverse load of 17,800 Newtons (4,000 pounds) is applied, with the door in the closed position."

The doors are tested to that requirement in accordance with S5.3, which specifies that: "Compliance with S4.3 shall be demonstrated by applying an outward transverse load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) to the load-bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (17,800 Newtons (4,000 pounds) total). . . ."

You suggest that test loads should be applied at three positions on the door. Your letter enclosed drawings, Figures 1 and 2, depicting a sliding door on a van-like vehicle. Marked on figure 1 are: (a) the location on the door where the roller in the upper front edge of the door is located; (b) the location where the roller in the lower front edge of the door is located; and (c) the location of the center roller and door lock in the rear center edge of the door. You suggest on figure 2 that a test load of 1,000 pounds (lb.) should be applied at both the (a) and (b) locations and a load of 2,000 lb. applied at the (c) location.

The requirement in S4.3 applies to "the track and slide combination or other supporting means for each sliding door." Applying this to figure 1, we agree with you that S4.3 provides that the track and slide combination at locations (a) and (b) and the supporting means for the door at location (c) are required to withstand the 4,000 lb. applied load.

With regard how the load is applied to these positions, S5.3 requires that a load of 2,000 pound lb. be applied "to the load-bearing members at the opposite edges of the door." Locations (a) and (b) are at the opposite edge of the door from (c). NHTSA would test your door by applying a 2,000 lb. load to the front edge of the door at locations (a) and (b), and a 2,000 lb. load to the rear edge of the door at location (c). Instead of applying a 1,000 lb. load at (a) and (b) as you suggest, we would attach a bar between (a) and (b) and would apply the 2,000 lb. load to the center of the bar so as to ensure that the loads at attachment points (a) and (b) are nominally equal.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any 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:#206
d.9/21/98

ID: nht90-1.98

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 3, 1990

FROM: Harold Williams

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to H. Williams (A36; VSA 108(a)(2)(A); Std. 111)

TEXT:

My company is making a addon passenger mirror wiper for big truck mirrors. It is air operated and hooks into the trucks air system, what we must know is the requirements for materials to be used on a after market product like this, it will hook into the seat or wiper air supply, we are using industrial grade fittings, hoses and valves at this time, and we want to be within the D.O.T. requirements in marketing a after market product like this, would you please send me all the information that you have re garding the rules and regulations in this area, as soon as possible. Thank you very much

ID: 18089.ztv

Mr. Donald J. Rager
Chief Operating Officer
Shelby American, Inc.
501 S. Rancho Drive, Suite H-53
Las Vegas, NV 89106

Dear Mr. Rager:

This will acknowledge receipt of the application by Shelby American, Inc., for temporary exemption of the Shelby Series 1 from the automatic restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. The application, which is dated May 29, 1998, meets our procedural requirements, and we are preparing a notice for the Federal Register asking for public comment on your request.

We note that you planned to begin production of the Series 1 on July 1, 1998. Because of the statutory requirement that the public be offered an opportunity to comment on exemption applications, we generally afford a 30-day comment period. and a decision is reached 30 to 60 days after that. This means that Shelby must not sell any Series 1 vehicles unless and until the Administrator has responded affirmatively to Shelby's petition for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 208. We shall, of course, inform you when a decision has been made.

We also note (p. 2 of the application) that Shelby requests exemption from S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208, quoting S4.1.5. to the effect that passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must comply with S4.1.2.1. You are using an outdated version of the Standard. Passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1997, must comply with S4.1.5.3, which, in turn, references S4.1..5.1(a)(1).

In the meantime, we have comments on certain information contained in the application regarding the Shelby Cobra CSX3000 Series Continuation Cars ("Continuation Cars"). You have informed us that the Continuation Cars are assembled "from certain new old stock parts surviving from . . . 1965 . . . supplemented by new parts manufactured from original tooling or build new to original specifications." We understand that "These vehicles are registered when sold as 1965 vehicles." We further understand that only two Continuation Cars have been built to date, and that the market for these cars is estimated at one to two units a year.

In our opinion, a vehicle assembled in 1997 or 1998 from parts manufactured in 1965 as well as from parts recently manufactured from original 1965 tooling is a motor vehicle that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect and applicable to it at the time of its assembly, unless it has been exempted by the Administrator. Because Shelby did not include the Continuation Cars in its petition for exemption from Standard No. 208, we surmise that the company may be proceeding under the assumption that the Continuation Cars are not required to comply with any Federal requirements because they are registered as 1965 models. This is incorrect. We believe that Shelby should review the Continuation Car program in light of its Federal obligations before manufacturing more of them. With respect to the two Continuation Cars that have already been sold, if Shelby determines that they do not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied at the time of their assembly, it is required to notify their owners of that fact and offer to repair, repurchase, or replace them. Alternatively, Shelby, after its determination, may apply to the Administrator for a decision that the noncompliances are inconsequential to safety and that it should be excused from notification and remedy.

Shelby's application explains that parts for the Continuation Cars survive from the original planned production run of 100 cars, approximately half of which were completed in 1965. This was "the basis for homologation of the racing program." We understand that Shelby would like to continue the manufacture of the Continuation Cars indefinitely, until the supply of parts is exhausted. Under our interpretations, the Continuation Car would not be a motor vehicle subject to our regulations if it is manufactured for competition on closed courses, trailered from event to event, and not licensed for use on the public roads. You may wish to consider this approach with respect to future production of the Continuation Cars. Any statement of origin issued for these vehicles under this approach should state that they are not to be titled for highway use.

We have comments as well on the Shelby Cobra CSX4000 Series Component Vehicles ("Component Vehicles"), and the Daytona Coupe and 289 Cobra, which you also inform us are component vehicles. The term "component vehicles" refers to vehicles that are sold without engine and transmission; these components will be installed by the owner or at his or her direction, "and privately register the resulting vehicle." Under our interpretations, the installer is regarded as the manufacturer of the motor vehicle and responsible for its compliance with all applicable Federal regulations. However, Shelby is responsible for the compliance (and certification of compliance) of any part that it has manufactured recently from original tooling if that equipment item is directly covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The principal components we refer to are the vehicle's glazing and lighting equipment (we assume that brake hoses, brake fluid, tires, and seat belt assemblies are purchased new from suppliers who have certified their compliance with the Federal safety standards). In light of this paragraph, Shelby may wish to consider converting its Continuation Cars into Component Vehicles.

However, I must advise you that, under longstanding interpretations, we would still regard Shelby as the vehicle's manufacturer and responsible for compliance and its certification if it offered the Continuation Car's engine and transmission for sale to the purchaser of a Component Vehicle Continuation Car concurrently with the Component Vehicle or as part of the sales transaction.

We would appreciate your views on this issue.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Mac Yousry
FAX 714-974-3816
d.7/17/98
ref:571