Mr. Harley Holt

Harley Holt & Associates, Inc.

1704 Random Stone Court

Reston, VA 20190-3251

Dear Mr. Holt:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems. You asked when a manufacturer is required to certify compliance with this standard if it passes the small volume manufacturer threshold of 5,000 vehicles in the middle of one of the September 1 to August 31 phase-in years. As discussed below, a manufacturer is subject to the regular phase-in requirements for the entire phase-in year if it manufactures more than 5,000 vehicles in that period.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This letter interprets FMVSS No. 126 based on our understanding of the information you have provided.

You stated that you represent an importer of all-electric vehicles, and explained that the manufacturer of the vehicles has not yet begun to produce vehicles for the U.S., but will begin production sometime during 2009. You stated that the manufacturer did not anticipate producing more than 5,000 units during the first production year, i.e., September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2009. However, you stated further that production is expected to exceed 5,000 units sometime during the period from September 1, 2009 and August 31, 2011. You asked, therefore, on what date a manufacturer is required to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 126 if it exceeds the small volume limit of 5,000 units produced sometime during a production year from September 1 through August 31 of any of the three years of the phase-in period for that standard.

Paragraph S8.7 of FMVSS No. 126, Small volume manufacturers, states that

Vehicles manufactured during any of the three years of the September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2011 phase-in by a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000 vehicles for sale in the United States during that year are not subject to the requirements of S8.1, S8.2, S8.3, and S8.5.

49 CFR 571.126, S8.7. Thus, small volume manufacturers producing less than 5,000 vehicles for sale in the United States in a given phase-in year are not subject to the S8 phase-in requirements. However, if a manufacturer exceeds the 5,000 unit threshold for a phase-in year, it does not qualify as a small volume manufacturer for purposes of S8.7, and it is subject to the regular phase-in requirement for the entire phase-in year.[1] The 5,000-unit threshold was chosen to ensure that only manufacturers that are truly small volume are excluded from the phase-in requirements for ESC.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:126

d.1/16/09

Mr. Brian Latouf

Director, Safety Regulations and Consumer Information

General Motors North America

Mail Code 480-111-S56

30200 Mound Road

Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Latouf:

This responds to your letter concerning a February 6, 2007 final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. You ask about the door locks requirements for back doors, particularly S4.3.1 and S4.3.2s requirement for separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior latch release control. You also ask about unlatching doors via a remote transmitter (key fob).

In your letter, you do not discuss in detail the back doors to which you are referring. For purposes of this letter, we assume, based on informal conversations with you and other General Motors (GM) representatives, that your questions about the door locks requirements are concerning hatchback/station wagon back doors and lift gates on sport utility vehicles, i.e., hinged back doors that open a cargo compartment that does not have a partition between the cargo space and the last row of forward-facing seats. As discussed below, these types of back doors are subject to current door lock requirements as well as to the amended door locks requirements for back doors.

The February 6, 2007 final rule amended and updated requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 206, and harmonized with the worlds first global technical regulation (GTR) for motor vehicles (72 FR 5385). (The effective date of the final rule is

September 1, 2009; there are pending petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882.) To prevent inadvertent rear side and back door openings, the amended standard specifies, among other requirements:

S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which has a lock release/engagement mechanism located within the interior of the vehicle and readily accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door, and which, when

engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other interior latch release control and requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control.

S4.3.2 Back doors. Each back door equipped with an interior door handle or other interior latch release control, shall be equipped with at least one locking device that meets the requirements of S4.3.1.

Paragraph S4 states that these amended requirements apply to all side and back doors, that lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations and the associated door components .

Back Doors

You state that, because the GM back doors at issue do not have interior door handles and do not lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations, hinged back doors that open a cargo compartment that does not have a partition between the cargo space and the last row of forward-facing seats should not be subject to amended FMVSS No. 206. We disagree. Where there is no partition between such a cargo compartment and the passenger compartment, there is a risk that unbelted passengers could be ejected through the gap and through the rear window (see, e.g., the definition of back door in S3 of the standard; the September 28, 1995 final rule extending FMVSS No. 206 to back doors of passenger cars and MPVs so equipped, including hatchbacks, station wagons, sport utility vehicles, and passenger vans with a [gross vehicle weight rating] of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less (60 FR 50124, 50127); and a May 2, 2007 letter to Lance Tunick, copy enclosed). Since preventing injuries resulting from such an event is one of the primary purposes of FMVSS No. 206, the agencys position is that such back doors are considered leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations and, thus, such back doors must meet amended FMVSS No. 206 door lock requirements in paragraph S4.3.2.

Since the GM doors at issue must comply with door locks requirements for back doors (S4.3.2), the requisite interior lock release/engagement mechanism for a back door must, when engaged, require separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior latch release control.

Separate Action to Unlock

You ask about the permissibility of a permanently mounted switch located in the proximity of the driver which when pushed results in the unlatching of the back door. This switch is only operable when the vehicle is stationary (i.e., placed in park for vehicles with automatic transmission), or moving less than 3 kilometers/hour (km/h) for vehicles with manual transmissions.

We would consider this driver-side back door release button to be an interior latch release control. As such, per S4.3.1 and S4.3.2, when the back door is locked, there must be separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior latch release control. The question you raise is whether placing a vehicle in park (for vehicles with automatic transmissions), or moving less than 3 km/h (for vehicles with manual transmissions) satisfies this requirement.

Although NHTSA has not addressed which types of actions are permissible separate actions, the agency explained that the door lock requirements for rear and back doors are in place to reduce inadvertent door openings due to impact upon or movement of the inside or outside door handle. 33 FR 6465 (April 27, 1968); 72 FR at 5395. Thus, the safety concern this requirement intends to mitigate is risk of ejection from a moving vehicle through inadvertent rear and back door openings. We have analyzed your system with this safety risk in mind.

The following observations bear on the safety risks at issue. According to your letter, in a vehicle with an automatic transmission, the precondition for the driver-side button to be operable is that the vehicle must be placed in park. Since the vehicle will be in park, the relevant safety concern (ejection risk) is not present when this driver-side back door release button is operable (able to open the door) because the vehicle is not in motion. However, in vehicles with manual transmissions, the driver-side back door release button that you describe in your letter is operable when the vehicle is in motion (when the vehicle is going 3 km/h or less). Thus, ejection risk may still be present where a driver-side back door release button is operable by a single push when the vehicle is in motion.

We now turn to the requirement of separate actions to unlock the door and operate theinterior latch release control (driver-side back door release button). Because the requirement addresses a concern of inadvertent door openings, we conclude that S4.3.1 requires a separate, discrete action on the part of the consumer indicating a definitive decision, or intent, to unlock the door. The separate actions required by S4.3.1--particularly, for your letter, the action to unlock the door--should be distinct from the actions that a driver normally uses to drive a vehicle, and should be purposeful toward unlocking the door and consistent with an intent to egress. Otherwise, the consumer may not know that the door has been unlocked in the course of executing normal driving actions. If there is a discrete action separate from the normal motions of driving, it is less likely a door will be inadvertently opened.

Automatic Transmission Vehicles

For these reasons, we interpret the amended FMVSS No. 206 door lock requirements to permit the system you describe for the automatic transmission vehicles, where a vehicle is placed in park, and the driver-side single-hold switch unlatches the back door. Placing an automatic transmission vehicle in park is a distinct action done when the vehicle is parked and indicates intent to egress the vehicle. Placing an automatic transmission vehicle in park is not a driving motion.

We acknowledge that placing your vehicle in park does not actually unlock the back door of the vehicles you describe (i.e., if the back door is locked while the vehicle is in motion, it will remain incapable of being opened from inside or outside after the vehicle is placed into park).  However, the conventional understanding of separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control is the actuation of a plunger or other unlocking mechanism followed by the actuation of the door handle.  The first action (actuation of the plunger) is the action to unlock the door, and the second action (actuation of the door handle) is the action that operates the interior latch release control.  With your vehicle, the action of placing a vehicle in park is arguably a better indication that the relevant safety concern (ejection risk) is no longer present than the conventional first separate action, actuation of a plunger.  A vehicle can only be placed in park when it has come to a complete stop, whereas a conventional plunger can be actuated while the vehicle is in motion.  Accordingly, NHTSA considers placing a vehicle in park to be functionally equivalent to a separate action to unlock the door.  Thus, we conclude that the driver-side switch you describe in your letter meets the separate action requirements of S4.3.1 for automatic transmission vehicles where the driver-side back door release button is inoperable unless the vehicle is placed in park.

Standard Transmission Vehicles

In contrast, we do not interpret the door lock requirements to permit such a driver-side switch in the manual transmission vehicles you described, because we do not consider the mere act of braking to 3 km/h to be a distinct action separate from the common actions a driver engages in while operating a vehicle in normal use. Braking to 3 km/h is not a discrete, or individually distinct, action indicating that the vehicle is being parked. Additionally, braking to 3 km/h does not indicate any intent to egress the vehicle. It is a motion a driver engages in while operating a vehicle in normal use. Accordingly, we do not interpret the operability of a switch to unlatch a back door while moving less than 3 km/h to be compliant with S4.3.1s requirement for separate actions to unlock the door, and operate the interior latch release control.

Key Fobs

Regarding remote transmitters (key fobs), FMVSS No. 206 does not currently address key fobs and, thus, does not prohibit a single-hold function that both unlocks and unlatches a back door lock. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not rule out the possibility of such door lock controls being regulated in the future.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:206

d.7/24/09

George Carl Pezold, Esq.

Pezold, Smith, Hirschmann & Selvaggio, LLC

120 Main Street

Huntington, NY 11743-6936

Dear Mr. Pezold:

This responds to your request for an interpretation asking whether the COBUS 2700 is a motor vehicle subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As explained below, our answer is yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. They must also ensure that their vehicles and equipment are free of safety-related defects.

In your letter, you explained that your client, COBUS Industries, LP, would like to sell the COBUS 2700 Airport bus to the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) which intends to use it as a free shuttle bus for shoppers along the 16^th Street Mall in downtown Denver. You state that the bus is virtually identical to the COBUS 3000 model, which this office had determined in 1999 was not subject to the FMVSSs as an airfield bus.[1] That is, the Cobus 3000 in that letter was built specifically for airfield use, to transport passengers between a remotely parked aircraft and the terminal or from terminal to terminal. Id. You believe that the substantial similarity in the use and application of the COBUS 2700 to the COBUS 3000 should justify a similar conclusion.

In your letter, you describe the 16^th Street Mall as follows:

The Mall is a 1.3-mile-long portion of the 16^th Street from Broadway to Wewatta Street. It has wide sidewalks with shops and restaurants lining both sides of the street. The center path was designed for the free mall shuttle bus fleet, which connects with the RTDs regional and express lines at either end of the Mall.

You further write that the Mall is closed to all vehicular traffic except for the mall shuttle buses and authorized emergency and service vehicles. You note that the intersections with cross streets to the Mall are open to regular cross vehicular traffic and are controlled by traffic lights timed for the mall bus operating cycles.[2] You also state that from a stop at each intersection, the mall bus accelerates to about 15 miles per hour, then decelerates to a complete stop at the next intersection, opens all doors to discharge and board passengers, closes all doors and accelerates again to the next stop. The buses serve an average of over 50,000 commuters and tourists a day. You further state that each day, the vehicles will be driven on a regular city public street two miles to and from the RTDs bus storage and maintenance facility at a governed speed of 20 miles per hour.

Agency Analysis

We have considered the views you have expressed in your letter but disagree with the suggestion that the COBUS 2700 bus is not a motor vehicle. Motor vehicle is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) in pertinent part as: a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways. The question to answer is whether the vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways.

Our answer is yes, for several reasons. First, your letter states that the COBUS 2700 would run daily on a regular city public street to and from RTDs bus storage and maintenance facility. This is a regular and expected use of the public roads by the COBUS 2700. Second, we do not agree that the closure of 16^th Street to most vehicular traffic between Broadway and Wewatta Street renders 16^th Street no longer a public road. Between Broadway and Wewatta Street, there are signal lights and numerous public roads crossing 16^th Street. There is also a significant pedestrian presence in the shopping area. This close interface with motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic leads us to conclude that the bus will be operating on a public road. On a final note, NHTSA has previously considered pedestrian mall buses to be motor vehicles.[3]

The COBUS 2700 differs from the airport bus that was the subject of the agencys 1999 letter on the COBUS 3000. Airfields on which the COBUS 3000 was designed to be used differ significantly from shopping areas in downtown Denver. Airfields are closed, isolated areas where vehicular traffic is restricted and pedestrian traffic nonexistent. In

contrast, the 16^th Street Mall is open to substantial vehicular cross-street and pedestrian traffic. It is important for the bus to meet the FMVSSs for crashworthiness and crash avoidance protection.

Because it is intended to travel on public roads, the COBUS 2700 is a motor vehicle, more specifically, a bus. Therefore, before it is sold for use in the United States, the COBUS 2700 must be certified as meeting all applicable FMVSSs.

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

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA102(4)

d.2/3/09

Mr. Solomon Bekhor

Inventor

428 N. Hayworth Avenue, # 110

Los Angeles, CA 90048

Dear Mr. Bekhor:

This letter responds to your letter enclosing a patent abstract for the Communicar system you have developed. Briefly described, the Communicar consists of a multiplicity of warning lights around the vehicle, as well as words embedded in the windows that can be illuminated electronically through a computer-controlled system connected to the vehicle. In a phone conversation with Ari Scott of this office, you asked us to discuss the applicability of Federal law to your system. Furthermore, you asked for information on how to request changes in current regulations. 

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

Compliance with Federal Standards

The Communicar system presents a number of compliance issues with the FMVSSs, most significantly FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. FMVSS No. 108 is our regulation that applies to vehicle lighting. It specifies requirements for certain specific items of lighting equipment.  While your description of the Communicar is lengthy, it does not describe in detail the placement, appearance, and functionality of front and side-mounted warning lamps. However, based on the aforementioned phone conversation, we believe that these would function primarily as

auxiliary brake lights and turn signals. Furthermore, that the lighted words that appear on the windows of the vehicle (consisting, in part, of STOP, HELP, SLOWING DOWN, LEFT TURN, RIGHT TURN, REVERSE, and U-TURN,) would also be considered auxiliary signal lighting.

Based on the information you provided, the Communicar would not be permissible as original motor vehicle equipment. If an item of lighting equipment other than those specified is provided as original equipment, it is allowed under paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 only if it does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.1.3 reads as follows:

No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard.

In our view, impairment of driving signals may occur if the following driver is confronted with messages and symbols that are unfamiliar in the motoring environment and have the potential to confuse. We believe that products such as the one you described would be prohibited by S5.1.3. The array of warning lamps on the front and sides of the vehicle is likely to be unfamiliar to most drivers, who are accustomed to seeing the traditional signal lamps. Furthermore, the illuminated words appearing on some or all windows of the vehicle have the potential to create substantial distractions from the required signal lamps and general driving environment.

As we have said before, traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly and unhesitatingly recognize the meaning lamps convey and respond to them. The required signal lamp system provides an important and standardized message. It is our opinion that the addition of an array of novel signal lamps such as the Communicar that deploys an array of front- and side-mounted signal lamps, as well as displays wording on the vehicles windows, would divert a driver's attention from the required signal lamps and cause confusion with respect to their meaning, and thereby impair the effectiveness of the required lamps.

With respect to the aftermarket, 49 U.S.C. 30122 has the effect of requiring that the installation of any aftermarket vehicle lamp, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, must not "make inoperative" any element of design or device installed on a vehicle in accordance with Standard No. 108. As with original equipment, we regard the addition of a novel signal lamp system such as the Communicar to make inoperative a vehicle's original required lighting equipment by diverting a driver's attention from the required signal lamps, and causing confusion with respect to their meaning.

Additionally, because part of the Communicar affects the windshield and windows of the vehicle, there is the potential for your product be affected by FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for motor vehicle glazing. While we do not have enough information to address this issue in detail, we would note this to be an additional area of concern.

Requesting Changes to Federal Regulations

Any interested person may request that NHTSA adopt a new standard or amend an existing one. Such requests are formally submitted via a petition for rulemaking. The requirements for petitioning for rulemaking are set forth in 49 CFR 552.4. The petition must be in the English language, the word "Petition" must be in the heading preceding the text, and the petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that an amendment is necessary, set forth a brief description of the substance of the amendment which it is claimed should be issued, and contain the name and address of the petitioner.

Petitions must be sent to:

Administrator

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, W41-307

Washington, DC 20590

We have a specific policy with respect to evaluating requests related to signal lamps, which would encompass the Communicar system. We believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals. As you might imagine, the agency is frequently presented with new lighting ideas intended to enhance safety. Many of these are not allowable under Standard No. 108 because of deviations from the performance of the lighting equipment mandated by the standard. These ideas are often submitted without proof of their effectiveness. On December 13, 1996, we published a Federal Register notice that articulated the agency's general policy regarding new signal lighting ideas and how that policy would apply in the case of four specific brake signaling ideas (61 FR 65510). In a subsequent notice, published on November 4, 1998 (63 FR 59482), we expressed our intent to participate in efforts to develop an international consensus on how to handle new signaling ideas. We went on to say that, until a new international consensus emerges, we will follow the policy described in the December 1996 notice. I enclose a copy of both the 1996 and 1998 notices.

Of particular interest to you will be the discussion on p. 65517 of the December 1996 notice in which we advised inventors to provide our Office of Research and Development with candidates for future agency research. We summarized our policy as follows:

In summary, a petitioner seeking to persuade the agency to mandate a lighting invention for new vehicles bears the initial burden of establishing its safety value and cost effectiveness. The burden for those inventors seeking to make an invention optional is to convince the agency that the invention will not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment through creating ambiguity or negatively affecting standardization of signals.

Before submitting any invention to the agency, we urge you to carefully read the enclosed Federal Register notices, and make sure that you are submitting the kind of data necessary for us to evaluate your petition.

Furthermore, for your convenience, I am also enclosing some information for new manufacturers of vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This should help to answer some common questions that the agency is asked.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:108

d.7/24/09

Mr. Stephen Vasatko

Vice President of Operations and Business Development

LDV, Inc.

180 Industrial Drive

Burlington, WI 53105

Dear Mr. Vasatko:

This responds to your question asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask about the standards application to buses that are designed to seat 48 passengers and that offer an entertainment experience that unfolds outside the vehicle throughout the tour of New York, particularly with regard to the provision of emergency exits. The buses have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds. The passenger seats are side-facing, arranged in three aisles running the length of the bus. As explained below, it appears the bus does not provide a sufficient number of emergency exits.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue and enforce safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. With regard to a statement in your letter concerning your use of DOT-approved roof exits, please note that we have not approved the exits described in your letter.

FMVSS No. 217 Requirements for the Provision of Bus Emergency Exits

Requirements for the provision of emergency exits on buses are specified at S5.2 of FMVSS No. 217. S5.2 specifies that buses other than school buses (non-school buses) with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds must meet the requirements of S5.2.2, or S5.2.3. Apparently you have chosen to certify the buses to S5.2.2. S5.2.2.1 specifies that non-school buses must provide unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total square centimeters, to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus. Under S5.2.2.1, at least 40 percent of the total

required area of unobstructed openings must be provided on each side of a bus. Further, S5.2.2.1 specifies that, in determining the total unobstructed openings provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area, shall be credited with more than 3,458 square centimeters of the total area requirement.

FMVSS No. 217 further states at S5.2.2.2 that buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds must meet the unobstructed opening requirements in S5.2.2.1 by providing side exits and at least one rear exit that conforms to S5.3 though S5.5. Under S5.2.2.2, the rear exit must meet the requirements of S5.3 though S5.5 when the bus is upright and when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit. Further, S5.2.2.2 specifies that when the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit, a roof exit that meets the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, must be provided in the rear half of the bus.

Description of Emergency Exits in Your Vehicle

In your letter, you state that each bus will be built on a MY 2008 Prevost H3-45 bus chassis and will have 48 passenger positions. Your bus will thus have 49 designated seating positions (48 plus the drivers seating position).

According to your letter, you will be providing emergency exits on the bus as follows:

• Two emergency roof exits, one in the front half of the bus, the other in the rear half of the bus. Each roof emergency exit accounts for 3,266 square centimeters (sq cm).
• On the curb side (right side) of the bus, you will have the front door (14,000 sq cm).
• On the right side, there is an emergency exit window (16,129 sq cm) near the front.
• On the street side (left side) of the bus, you will have one emergency exit window near the front and another emergency exit window towards the rear. Each of these windows accounts for 22,826 sq cm (each).
• You state that the bus provides 75,781 sq cm of emergency egress area.

Agency Response

Under S5.2.2.1 of FMVSS No. 217, a bus with 49 designated seating positions must provide at least 21,168 sq cm of unobstructed openings for emergency exit (49 x 432). Under S5.2.2.1, at least 40 percent of the total required area of unobstructed openings must be provided on each side of a bus, with no emergency exit credited with more than 3,458 square centimeters of the total area requirement. (Because the emergency roof exits are not on the sides of a bus, they do not count towards 40 percent of the total required area of unobstructed openings on each side of the bus.) Accordingly, for your bus, 8,467.2 sq cm must be provided on each side of the bus (40 percent of 21,168 = 8,467.2 sq cm).

Right side - In your letter, you have informed us that on the curb side (right side) of the bus, emergency exits will consist of the front door[1] and an emergency exit window near the front. Since each of these emergency exits cannot account for more than 3,458 sq cm of the total area requirement, on the right side, your bus provides a total of only 6,916 sq cm (3,458 sq cm x 2) of the total area. This figure is less than the 8,467.2 sq cm required on each side of the bus. Therefore, if your bus is to meet S5.2.2.1, one more emergency exit of at least 1,551.2 (8,467.2 minus 6,916) sq cm must be provided on the right side of your bus.

Left side - You further state that on the street side (left side) of the bus, emergency exits will consist of two emergency exit windows, one near the front of the bus and one towards the rear. Since each of these emergency exits cannot account for more than 3,458 sq cm of the total area requirement, on the left side your bus provides a total of 6,916 sq cm (3,458 sq cm x 2) of the total area. This figure is less than the 8,467.2 sq cm required on each side of the bus. Therefore, if your bus is to meet S5.2.2.1, one more emergency exit of at least 1,551.2 (8,467.2 minus 6,916) sq cm must be provided on the left of your bus.

Window Retention Requirements Since no information on this issue was presented, we are unable to comment on the window retention requirements at S5.1. Window retention requirements apply to windows whose minimum surface dimension measured through the center of the area is 8 inches or more. You should review S5.1 to determine whether your buses will meet the requirements of that section.

Labeling and Other Requirements No labels are depicted in the photographs. Each emergency exit must meet labeling requirements specified at S5.5.1 and S5.5.2. You should review S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 to determine your vehicles compliance with applicable labeling requirements. In addition, other emergency exit requirements must be met, such as those for emergency exit release (S5.3).

Other Requirements This letter mainly addresses FMVSS No. 217 issues. It is your responsibility to determine your vehicles compliance with all applicable FMVSSs and to certify that your vehicles comply. Please note that NHTSA does not regulate how your bus will be used or operated. Because it may be a commercial vehicle, requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) may apply. For further information about FMCSA, please contact FMCSA at 1-800-832-5660 or at www.fmcsa.dot.gov. Your bus must also meet all applicable State and local operational requirements.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:217

d.1/16/09

The Honorable Russell D. Feingold

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Feingold:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Bob Fraik, regarding his sons electric car. Information provided with your letter indicated that his son has developed an electric vehicle and would like the Federal regulation on low speed vehicles to be changed from 25 mph to 35 mph. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Chapter 301 provides that a person may not "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are certified to comply with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has used its authority to, among other things, establish a special category of motor vehicles called low speed vehicles (LSVs). This was done in part to accommodate the use of small golf cars as personal transportation vehicles in controlled, low-speed environments, such as retirement communities. In order to qualify as an LSV under the agencys definition,[1] a vehicle must, among other things, have a speed capability no higher than 25 mph and a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 3,000 pounds. LSVs are subject to a limited set of safety requirements, including ones related to the installation of lamps, mirrors, seat belts and a windshield. However, LSVs are not subject to most of the occupant protection standards with which other light vehicles such as passenger cars are required to comply, including many of our standards designed to protect occupants in the event of a crash.

NHTSA recently considered and denied petitions requesting that the agency commence rulemaking to create a new class of motor vehicles known as medium speed vehicles, which would have a maximum speed capability of 35 mph. The petitioners contemplated

Page 2

The Honorable Russell D. Feingold

that these vehicles would be subject to a set of safety standards greater than those that apply to LSVs but substantially less than the full set of safety standards that apply to other light vehicles such as passenger cars.

We denied the petitions (copy enclosed) because it is our belief the introduction of such a class of motor vehicles without the full complement of safety features required for other light vehicles would result in significantly greater risk of deaths and serious injuries.

As we discussed in that notice, vehicles with a speed capability above 25 mph are more likely to be driven outside controlled, low speed environments, and the limited LSV safety requirements are not appropriate for such vehicle operation. Moreover, the traffic environment in which medium speed vehicles would likely travel, including, e.g., urban roads with a speed limit of 35 mph or 45 mph, is an environment for which the full set of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is needed to prevent fatalities and serious injuries.

I would like to note that there is intense work all over the world to develop and bring to market hybrid vehicles, battery-powered vehicles, and many other types of low-fuel consuming vehicles. Some are available now and other more advanced vehicles, according to the manufacturers, will be available by the 2010 model year. These vehicles, which are available to U.S. consumers, are certified to meet all the required safety standards.

If you have any questions, please have your staff contact me or Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, at (202) 366-1810.

Sincerely yours,

James F. Ports, Jr.

Enclosure

ref:500

d.12/30/08

Matt Wald, Director of Government Affairs

Recreation Vehicle Industry Association

1896 Preston White Dr.

P.O. Box 2999

Reston, VA 20195-0999

Dear Mr. Wald:

This responds to your letter to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Deputy Administrator James Ports asking whether recreation vehicles manufactured by your members are motor vehicles. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We apologize that we could not find the original correspondence you sent in August 2008.

You seek clarification that the appropriate jurisdiction over the class of vehicles known as recreation vehicles is with NHTSA and not with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As explained below, recreation vehicles (RVs) that meet NHTSAs definition of a motor vehicle are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 30101, Vehicle Safety Act) and are subject to NHTSAs regulation. However, please note that this conclusion may or may not preclude HUD from regulating the vehicles as manufactured homes. That issue must be determined by HUD, and this letter makes no comment about HUDs authority to regulate the vehicles.

As you are aware, the Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. An RV is subject to the authority of this agency if it is a motor vehicle under the Act. Motor vehicle is defined in the Act (49 U.S.C. 30102(6)) as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

In your letter, you stated that RVs include motor homes, fifth wheel trailers, travel trailers, folding camping trailers and truck campers. In an October 9, 2008 email to Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you further focused your question on RVs [that] are designed to be drawn by a vehicle without a special highway movement permit. I.e., they are designed and

built to be a vehicle used on a highway on a daily basis. The RVs you describe would meet the Vehicle Safety Acts definition of motor vehicle, and thus are regulated by NHTSA as motor vehicles. RVs include motor vehicles that are motor homes (vehicles with motive power) and recreation vehicle trailers (trailers designed to be drawn by a vehicle with motive power).[1]

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

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:VSA

d.11/12/08

Chris Tinto, Vice President

Toyota Motor North America, Inc.

Washington Office

601 Thirteenth Street, NW

Suite 910 South

Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays, as it applies to Toyotas electronic keyless system with push button activation on gasoline engine vehicles and hybrid vehicles. We provide our response below.

In your letter, you stated that Toyota currently utilizes an electronic keyless system with push button activation on both gasoline engine vehicles and hybrid vehicles. In the gasoline engine vehicles, the push button is identified by the words Engine Start Stop, i.e., the identifying words specified in Tables 1 and 2 of FMVSS No. 101. In the hybrid vehicles, the push button is identified by the word Power and the ISO power on/off symbol. In the future, Toyota wishes to use a common push button for both its gasoline engine vehicles and its hybrid vehicles. It is considering adopting one of two options. The first option is a push button labeled with the ISO engine start symbol and the ISO engine shut-off symbol.[1] The second option is a push button labeled with the ISO power symbol.[2] You asked whether these options would be permitted under FMVSS No. 101.

The FMVSS No. 101 requirements at issue can be summarized as follows. That standard specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls, telltales and indicators. More specifically, the standard specifies that each covered vehicle that is fitted with a control, a telltale or an indicator listed in Table 1 or Table 2 must meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification, color and illumination of that control, telltale or indicator. Engine start controls are listed in Table 2, and engine stop controls are listed in Table 1. The identification specified by this standard for these controls is the wording Engine Start and Engine Stop, respectively. The tables include a footnote for these two controls that states: Use when engine control is separate from the key locking system. The standard also provides that supplementary symbols, words or abbreviations may be used at the manufacturers discretion in conjunction with any symbol, word, or abbreviation specified in Table 1 or Table 2.

I will now address the question you asked separately for gasoline engine and hybrid vehicles.

Gasoline engine vehicles

In your letter, you note FMVSS No. 101s requirement that engine start and engine stop controls be identified by the words Engine Start and Engine Stop. You argue, however, that these identification requirements do not apply to your vehicle based on the footnotes stating that this identification is to be used when the engine control is separate from the key locking system. You state that Toyotas electronic keyless system with push button activation is designed so that the key locking system is activated by pushing the Engine Start Stop button which leads to communication between the electronic/electrical key and ECU in the vehicle. Toyotas view is that given this linkage, the Engine Start Stop control is not separate from the key locking system, and is therefore not required to be labeled Engine Start and Engine Stop. You believe further that it is permissible instead to identify the button with the ISO power symbol or the ISO engine start.and engine shut-off symbols.

In considering your question, we note that the footnotes in question have been included in FMVSS No. 101 for decades. We believe the rationale for the footnotes is as follows. In vehicles with a traditional mechanical key locking system which is combined with the engine start/stop function, the location where the mechanical key is inserted is obvious given its physical characteristics, and drivers are ordinarily familiar with turning the key in such systems to start and stop the engine. There has therefore been no need to require separate identification to enable drivers to know that this control is used to start and stop the vehicle.

This rationale is not relevant to an electronic keyless system with push button activation. There is no reason to assume that drivers will know the function of the push button unless it is identified. As discussed above, FMVSS No. 101 specifies identification requirements for Engine Start and Engine Stop controls, and we believe the specified words are appropriate for your system.

Hybrid vehicles

In a January 20, 2003 interpretation letter to Toyota, we addressed how FMVSS No. 101s requirements in this area apply to hybrid vehicles. For reasons discussed below, we concluded that the standard's requirements for labeling "Engine Start" and "Engine Stop" controls would not apply to your hybrid vehicles "Power" button, and that identification of the button would be at the option of the manufacturer.

In your incoming December 2002 letter that led to that interpretation, you described a planned Toyota hybrid vehicle that would provide motive power by using both an electric motor and a gasoline engine. This vehicle would be turned on by the driver inserting the key and depressing a "Power" button. "Turning on" this vehicle would mean that the vehicle was activated to be propelled by the electric motor, not that the engine was actuated. After such activation of the vehicle, the engine would automatically start when the ECU determined that the vehicle needs extra power. Similarly, the engine would automatically stop when the ECU determined that the vehicle does not need the engine to provide additional power.

You stated in the December 2002 letter that Toyota believed that the identification requirements for engine start and engine start controls would not apply to this vehicle's "Power" button, because the engine is neither started nor stopped by this button. You also stated that Toyota planned to use the word "Power" along with the ISO power symbol to label the button.

In our January 2003 interpretation, we agreed that since the button at issue on Toyota's hybrid vehicle would neither start nor stop the engine, it was not covered by Standard No. 101's requirements for engine start and engine stop controls. We stated that since the standard does not otherwise specify requirements for this control, its identification was at the option of the vehicle manufacturer. Toyota was therefore free to identify it by means of the word "power" and the ISO power symbol.

While there appear to be differences between the Toyota vehicle discussed in our January 2003 interpretation and the current one (e.g., the earlier vehicle apparently did not have an electronic keyless system), we assume that the vehicle characteristics that led us to conclude that the button at issue was not a control that started or stopped the engine have not changed. Therefore, the identification of this control is at the option of the manufacturer, and either of the suggested two options described in Toyotas letter to us may be used.

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

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:101

d.7/24/09

Thomas R. Erickson, Esq.

Scott, Hulse, Marshall, Feuille, Finger & Thurmond, P.C.

Attorneys at Law

1100 Chase Tower

201 East Main Drive

El Paso, TX 79901

Dear Mr. Erickson,

This responds to your request for an interpretation on behalf of your client, asking several questions related to platform lifts and/or modifications to buses.

We note that some of the questions you ask relate to Mexican law, i.e., whether certain buses would be considered newly manufactured for purposes of importing them into Mexico. While we can provide interpretations concerning the U.S. Federal statutes and regulations that we administer, we cannot provide interpretations or other information about Mexican law. Therefore, we are addressing the questions you ask only in the context of U.S. law.

Similarly, while we can address the issue of whether modified used vehicles or vehicles constructed with both new and used parts would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of the laws and regulations administered by this agency, we would suggest that you contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it would be appropriate to advertise such a vehicle as new.

In your correspondence, you explained that your client owns a bus transportation company. Your client has designed a platform lift that it wants to manufacture and install on its own buses and on buses owned by other companies. Your client is also considering taking used 40 foot buses and using two such buses to create single 60 foot articulated buses which would be driven in the United States.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) (49 CFR Part 571) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not

provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers of new vehicles or new equipment are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. These manufacturers must also ensure that their vehicles and equipment are free of safety-related defects.

Question One - Your first question concerned platform lifts, which your client would like to manufacture and install on buses. You note that FMVSS No. 404 requires that platform lifts be installed in accordance with the installation instructions provided by the lift manufacturer. You asked whether there are any regulations that would require that the persons installing the lifts have any particular certification, such as being a certified welder or mechanic.

NHTSAs Response - There are no requirements in FMVSS Nos. 403 or 404 that persons installing platform lifts have any particular credentials. We note that State laws or regulations may speak to this issue.

Question Two - Your second question addressed taking two used 40 foot buses and joining portions of them to create a single 60 foot articulated bus. You note that there are no FMVSSs specifically addressing articulated buses and ask if the modifier would simply follow FMVSSs applicable to buses. You also ask if the modifiers who convert the two buses into one bus must have any particular type of certifications to do such work.

NHTSAs Response - There are no FMVSSs that apply solely to articulated buses. All articulated buses manufactured as new must meet the bus standards specified in the FMVSSs. The certification requirements (at 49 CFR Part 567) apply to manufacturers of new buses and alterers of new buses, before first sale of the new bus to the retail customer. However, we would generally not consider the joining together of portions of two used 40 foot buses to create a single 60 foot bus to constitute the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. (See also the response to the next question relating to this issue.)

Since your client plans to modify used buses, there is a statutory provision which I would like to bring to your attention: 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which states:

Prohibition. 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.

In general, this section prohibits the entities listed in Section 30122(b) from removing, disabling or otherwise making inoperative any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard.

We do not require manufacturers, alterers, or modifiers of motor vehicles to have any special certifications, although, again, State laws may address this issue. We note that this point also applies to your next question.

Question Three - Your third question addressed the circumstances in which modifications to used buses could create new buses, as well as vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements. You stated that a person at NHTSA stated that a used bus could be considered new if the engine, transmission and drive axle were replaced on the used bus and such parts were not from the same vehicle. You requested confirmation as to whether this is correct and, if not, whether there is a way to make used buses qualify as new buses so that a new VIN could be placed on the bus. You also asked, assuming that it is possible to turn a used bus into a new bus, whether it is permissible to take a totaled or burned bus and turn it into a new bus or to use parts from such buses in the manufacture of a new bus. You also asked whether the persons/companies doing the actual manufacturing of the new buses need any special certification.

NHTSAs Response - In most cases NHTSA does not regulate the repair or refurbishment of used motor vehicles, except that the make inoperative provision discussed earlier may apply, and some of our safety standards apply to new motor vehicle equipment that may be used during the repair/refurbishment process. However, in some cases, the modifications could be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new motor vehicle rather than a modified vehicle.

The replacement of a vehicles engine, transmission and drive axle would not create a new motor vehicle. Therefore, there would be no legal basis for the bus to be assigned a new VIN. We have enclosed two interpretation letters, addressed to Robert R. Keatinge, Esq., and C. N. Littler which address some of the circumstances in which modifications to buses could be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new vehicle.

If the modifications to a used bus were so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new vehicle, the person making the modifications would be considered the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle and would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture.

Other Responsibilities

In addition, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), (which are also part of the U.S. Department of Transportation) may have requirements that apply to your clients proposed changes. For further information about FHWAs requirements, please contact: Mr. Michael P. Onder, Team Leader, Truck Size and Weight, Office of Freight Management and Operations, FHWA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20590.

For further information about FMCSAs requirements, please contact: Mr. Mike Huntley, Chief, Vehicle & Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operation, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. bh 20590.

We also note that State laws may also apply to the modified used buses.

I hope this information is helpful. I am enclosing our publication, Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

If you have any further questions about NHTSAs platform lift requirements, please feel free to contact Mr. Ari Scott of my staff. All other questions may be directed to Dorothy Nakama of my staff. Both attorneys are at this address and may be reached by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA# 403#404

Jonathan Acton II, Assistant Attorney General

Maryland Department of Transportation

Motor Vehicle Administration

6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E.

Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062

Dear Mr. Acton:

This responds to your letter asking whether a can of tire sealant and a method for reinflating a flat tire, in lieu of a spare tire, should be considered under Maryland law a technological improvement that conforms with applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). As discussed below, we regret to inform you that we cannot answer your question since it is one of interpretation of state law that is not within the purview of this agency.

As you state in your letter, Maryland state law requires manufacturers to equip new cars sold in Maryland with a spare tire unless technological improvements, consistent with applicable [FMVSS], become available. Md. Code. Ann., Transp. 22-405.3 (2008). Your letter explains that a vehicle manufacturer is hoping to equip new vehicles with a can of tire sealant and a method for reinflating a flat tire in lieu of equipping the vehicle with a spare tire. You ask whether such equipment is a technological improvement that conforms with applicable [FMVSS].

Various FMVSS apply to spare tires. For example, all new spare tires must satisfy the requirements of FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic and Certain Specialty Tires (49 CFR 571.109), and be labeled in accordance with Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (49 CFR Part 574). However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not mandate that new vehicles must be equipped with a spare tire.

NHTSA could regulate the tire sealant as an item of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7) (defining, in relevant part, the term motor vehicle equipment as any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle ). However, NHTSA does not have an FMVSS that addresses tire sealants, nor have we made an agency determination that a tire sealant plus inflator is a technological improvement over a spare tire.

We believe that your letter asks a State law question: whether Maryland should consider the tire sealant plus inflator a technological improvement over a spare tire, permitting the new vehicle to be sold with the sealant and inflator instead of a spare tire. Since it is a matter of interpreting what Maryland officials had in mind when enacting the technical improvement provision, it is a question that Maryland state officials should answer, rather than NHTSA.

If you have any questions about the applicability of specific FMVSS provisions, we would encourage you to write us in greater detail regarding those questions.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571

d.7/24/08