ID: nht68-1.29

DATE: 10/22/68

FROM: Joseph R. Gorman for Francis Armstrong -- NHTSA

TO: Valley Buick Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 15, 1968, regarding safety standards applicable to the Austrian "Haflinger" vehicle.

This vehicle will be required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Enclosed are copies of the Act and the Standards and amendments through August 1963.

I have reviewed the prospectus you enclosed with your letter and would conclude that the "Haflinger" vehicle meets the definition of a multipurpose passenger vehicle as specified in Section 255.3 of the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Accordingly, any vehicle of this type, manufactured after January 1, 1963, must conform to the following Standards which have application to multipurpose passenger vehicles of less than 80 inches overall width:

FMVSS #103 - "Windshield Defrosting and Defogging"

FMVSS #104 - "Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems"

FMVSS #106 - "Hydraulic Brake Hoses"

FMVSS #107 - "Reflecting Surfaces"

FMVSS #111 - "Rearview Mirrors"

FMVSS #205 - "Glazing Materials"

FMVSS #209 - "Seat Belt Assemblies"

FMVSS #211 - "Wheel Nuts, Wheel(Illegible Words)

In addition, vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1969, will be required to comply with:

FMVSS #106 - "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment"

FMVSS #112 - "Headlamp Concealment Devices"

FMVSS #113 - "Head Latch Systems"

(Illegible Words)

August 15, 1968

National Highway Safety Bureau Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Attention George Nield

Gentlemen:-

The early part of this year we arranged to handle a Vehicle named Haflinger, through Overland Vehicle Corp. of North Miami Beach, Florida, the imported. This vehicle is built in Austria. We are attaching a fly covering the specifications.

The Haflingers we have sold were 1967 Models, ie; built prior to January 1, 1963. All have been sold to operators of Ranches, such as the King Ranch. This vehicle is designed for cross-county, off the highway use. It has a maximum speed of forty-seven miles per hour.

The 1967 models we received were equipped with Seal-Beam Headlights, Parking and Stop-Lights. Directional Signals with Amber Side Lights mounted on each side at the front of the vehicle, tail and licence plate lights and windshield wipers.

About ninety days ago we placed an order with Overland Vehicle Corporation for twenty Haflingers accompanied by a letter of Credit. One of the conditions of the Letter of Credit, was that the vehicle would meet the Federal Safety Standards. We have been unable to contact any one during the last thirty days with the Overland Vehicle Corporation, and it appeared they had closed their office in North Miami Beach.

We have now been in communication with the Manufacturer of the vehicle in Austria and they advise that their contract with Overland expires August 31, 1963 and they have offered to sell us direct. This vehicle has created a lot of interest among farmore and ranchers in the area, as well as hunters.

It will be appreciated if you will give us an official ruling as quickly as possible of the Safety Standards necessary to enable us to import this vehicle for sale in the United States.

Thanking you, we are

Yours very truly,

VALLEY BUICK COMPANY -- Carl A. Murphy

ID: 08_003193 Martini--14 Nov 08--sa

ID: nht90-4.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Martin E. Simms -- Chartered Consulting Engineer

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to instruction sheet dated 9-85 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Standards and Regulations (text omitted)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter on behalf of an Australian client who is proposing to construct, in conjunction with an American company, vehicles for sale in both Australia and the United States. You asked a number of questions about the substantive and procedural requirements of the safety standards. I will answer your questions in order.

1. What standards currently apply in America to 4 wheel drive vehicles (of about the same size as your Ford F350)? Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards still the current standards?

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are still the applicable standards. The FMVSS may be found in Part 571 of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR Part 571). Each standard states the classes of motor vehicles to which it applies. Examples of classes of vehicles are passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Definitions of those terms may be found in the definitions section of the FMVSS (49 CFR S571.3).

2. Where can those standards be purchased and at what cost?

The FMVSS may be obtained from: Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Phone: (202) 783-3238 Prices must be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents since they are subject to periodic change. For further information, please refer to the information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" that is encl osed with this letter.

3. What is the procedure for proving compliance with American Federal standards and how long does it take to obtain approval (from time of application) to be able to market a vehicle?

The United States does not have an approval process similar to that of some other nations. In the United States, a manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certificati on need not be based on actual tests, but may, in appropriate situations, be based on engineering judgment or computer simulations. The manufacturer is required to exercise due care in making the certification. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567.

4. What government costs/fees are associated with seeking approval to

market a vehicle in America?

As explained above, the United States does not have an approval system.

5. Is there a classification system for vehicle types under U.S. Federal standards?

There is a classification system for motor vehicle types. Examples of classifications are passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. These terms are defined at 49 CFR S571.3.

6. In instances where our Australian design rule standards are based on FMVSS rules, would testing done in Australia to FMVSS standards be acceptable in America?

As discussed above, there is no requirement in the United States that manufacturers submit test data for approval. Instead, manufacturers must exercise due care in certifying their compliance with the FMVSS. In appropriate cases, manufacturers may be a ble to rely on testing done in Australia to certify compliance with some United States safety standards.

7. Is there any requirement for testing laboratories to meet specific standards for compliance with FMVSS standards?

There is no explicit requirement that testing laboratories meet specific standards. However, an element of the due care that manufacturers must exercise in certifying compliance with FMVSS would be to use appropriate testing laboratories.

8. What requirements exist for the retention and/or submission of test data to American Federal agencies?

As mentioned above, manufacturers are not required to submit test data to have their vehicles approved. However, manufacturers would be well advised to retain such data as evidence of their due care in certifying compliance with the FMVSS. In addition, manufacturers must retain records concerning nonconformity with the FMVSS and possible defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Requirements concerning record retention may be found at 49 CFR Part 576.

9. In Australia, compliance with certain FMVSS standards will be accepted as compliance with Australian standards in some instances (subject to actual test data being submitted to the Australian authorities). Does such an arrangement exist in America?

As discussed above, manufacturers are not required to submit test data as part of any vehicle approval process. Manufacturers, in their exercise of due care in certifying compliance with the FMVSS, may rely on compliance with Australian standards in app ropriate instances. This would be most appropriate when the Australian standard is identical to the FMVSS requirement.

You also asked if there is other information about which your client should be aware. Your client should know that all manufacturers

headquartered outside of the United States must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders, and decisions. This designation is to be mailed to the Chief Counsel of NHTSA. In accordance with 49 CFR S551.45, the designation must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

7. The signature of one with authority to appoint the agency. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

I have enclosed, for your review, a designation letter which has been accepted by the agency.

In addition, your client should know that the Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers concerning safety-related defects and failures to comply with the FMVSS and to remedy such defects and noncompliances without charge. Please ref er to 49 CFR Parts 573, 577, and 579 for further details.

We are enclosing an information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." This document highlights the major regulatory provisions that may be applicable to your client.

I hope that you find this information useful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: 15121.wkm

Mr. Robert O. Martin
Division Vice President
Corporate Quality Assurance Division
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
50 Century Boulevard
Nashville, TN 37214

Dear Mr. Martin:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff, in which you asked whether you may install light truck (LT) metric tires that comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, on a "Presidential Limo" that you describe as "basically a modified passenger vehicle." The installation of LT tires would not be permitted on a passenger car under the provisions of FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims.

NHTSA defines a "passenger car" as "a motor vehicle. . ., except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less." A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) is one designed to carry 10 persons or less but which "is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." Finally, a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons is classified as a bus.

You did not specify the original vehicle that you modified to create the presidential limo, other than to call it a modified passenger vehicle, nor did you describe the modifications you made to it. All the vehicles described in the previous paragraph are passenger vehicles, but each has different functions, classifications, and requirements. Thus, the classification of the basic vehicle determines which set of tire requirements apply to it.

If you "stretched" a passenger car, for example, or if you modified a passenger car other than by stretching it, the issue then becomes whether the vehicle as modified is still a passenger car or whether it should be recertified as a different type of vehicle. If it still carries 10 persons or less or if it has not become an MPV, it retains its classification as a passenger car. Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 110 states that passengers cars must be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. Installation of tires certified as complying with FMVSS No. 119 is not permitted on passenger cars because of the high speed performance test required of passenger car tires but not of LT tires. Specifically, paragraph S4.2.2.6 of FMVSS No. 109 requires that passenger car tires be subjected to a high speed test, while paragraph S6.3 of FMVSS No. 119 applies the high speed test only to motorcycle tires and "non-speed-restricted tires of 14.5-in nominal rim diameter or less marked load range A, B, C, or D." We can assume that a stretched limo, in at least a few situations, may be driven at high speeds. If, on the other hand, the original vehicle was certified as an MPV, truck, or bus, FMVSS No. 120 specifies that tires that comply with either FMVSS Nos. 109 or 119 may be installed on it, provided that if passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 109 are installed on it, they would be subject to the 10 percent load rating correction factor specified in paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:109#110#119#120
d.10/1/97

ID: 06-005825drn

ID: Bruno 2954

ID: 1691y

The Honorable Howard Wolpe
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Wolpe:

Thank you for your letter to former Secretary Burnley on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr of Lansing, Michigan. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Mr. Furr is concerned about the potential safety problems that may result if school bus seats are being overloaded. In particular, Mr. Furr asks whether NHTSA's Highway Safety Program Guideline (HSPG) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR /1204.4), is consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222), with regard to seating specifications. Mr. Furr is particularly interested in how manufacturers are calculating the number of seating positions on a bench seat.

I am pleased to address your constituent's concerns. Before I begin, I want to note that we have answered a number of similar inquiries from Mr. Furr in past years.

We have two sets of "regulations" for school buses. The first, issued under the Vehicle Safety Act, includes our motor vehicle safety standards which apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Compliance with these standards is mandatory for new vehicle manufacturers, and is enforced by this agency with civil penalties. FMVSS No. 222, with which your constituent is concerned, is one such safety standard. The second set of "regulations," or guidelines, for school buses was issued under the Highway Safety Act. Guidelines issued under this Act are not mandatory for the states; rather, they are recommended practices. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, to which Mr. Furr frequently refers in his letter, consists of recommendations to the States for operating their school buses and pertains to Federal funding of State highway safety programs.

Both FMVSS No. 222 and Guideline No. 17 contain specifications for school bus seating. Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 states: "The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number." The guideline for seating accommodations in HSPG 17 states:

Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufacturers to provide seating accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3.

Mr. Furr appears to see a conflict between the formula used in calculating the forces to be applied to the seats of large school buses under FMVSS No. 222, on the one hand, and the use by States and manufacturers of 13-inch seating positions for rating the capacity of a 39-inch seat, on the other hand. I believe that Mr. Furr's belief in the existence of a conflict rests on a misunderstanding.

We view Standard No. 222 and HSPG 17 as complementary, not inconsistent. HSPG 17 reflects NHTSA's belief that all school bus passengers should be seated in the interest of safety. To that end, the guideline provides that there should be a seating position for each passenger and that the position should be at least large enough to accommodate a 5th percentile adult female. The hip width (sitting) of a 5th percentile adult female is 12.8 inches.

The figure "15" in FMVSS No. 222's compliance formula is not a minimum requirement for the width of a seating position. It is the number which is used to establish the number of designated seating positions and ensures that the forces applied to the seat during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash. It is also the number which ensures that the width of the smallest seat is approximately equal to the hip width of the 5th percentile female. That is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female. Use of the figure "15" in the FMVSS No. 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (for a 38-inch wide seat.) That is only slightly smaller than the 12.8 inch hip width of the 5th percentile female. For a 39-inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger than the hip width of a 5th percentile female.

It should be remembered, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the FMVSS No. 222 formula is not meant to be a measure of the absolute capacity of the bus for all size occupants. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of widely varying ages and sizes, reasonable accommodations may vary between those values. The decision on how many passengers may be comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passengers involved.

NHTSA does not have the authority under either the Highway Safety Act or Vehicle Safety Act to regulate how States use school buses. Therefore, NHTSA could not preclude a State from carrying more passengers on a bench seat than there are designated seating positions. However, this agency agrees with Mr. Furr that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalization. We believe that Mr. Furr's concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by his working with the local school board and state officials.

Mr. Furr is also concerned about a reference in our occupant crash protection standard (No. 208) to a 95th-percentile adult male occupant size. He asks why FMVSS No. 222 uses a 15-inch seat dimension, when FMVSS No. 208 references the 95th-percentile adult male occupant size in specifying occupant sizes which safety belts must adjust to fit.

Both FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 222 are directed at providing occupant crash protection. Both of these standards set forth comprehensive requirements that are directed at protecting occupants likely to be inside a vehicle in a crash. With regard to school buses, the agency determined that the crash protection requirements should be developed taking into account the full size range of passengers typically riding on school buses. If we designed the force and deflection (energy-absorbing) characteristics of the seats for the 95th percentile males, the seats may be too stiff for a small child.

Finally, Mr. Furr asks whether, when voluntarily installing safety belts on large school buses, States are violating Federal law by using S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 in determining how many positions (and belts) there are on a bench seat. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 222 requires safety belts only for the passenger positions of small (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) school buses. Under S5 of the standard, belts on a small school bus bench seat are installed at "W" seating positions, as determined under S4.1. If a State wishes to order belts on its new large school bus and to use the same method for determining the number of belts to be installed, the State may do so.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed /ref:VSA#222 d:2/23/89

ID: 22118evisor1

Mr. David H. Coburn
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-1795





Dear Mr. Coburn:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing materials, with respect to a product that would "automatically, and virtually immediately upon activation, create a shade band on top of the front windshield of a vehicle."

You state in your letter that your client, Al-Coat, Ltd., a corporation based in Israel, has developed an electro-optical sun visor known commercially as e-Visor. The e-Visor is composed of a thin plastic band attached to the top part of the windshield. The e-Visor is approximately 5 inches wide and is made out of an electronically controlled light modulating (ECLM) film generally constructed with Polymer Dispersed Liquid Crystal technology. The ECLM film lightens with the application of voltage and returns to a darkened state when no voltage is applied. An electronic unit mounted under the dashboard controls the voltage applied to the band. A control unit mounted on the dashboard allows the driver to turn the band on or off, or place it in an automatic mode.

In the automatic mode, the voltage applied to the band is controlled by a sunlight sensor mounted on the front windshield of the vehicle. The sensor responds to sunlight, causing the ECLM film to "instantaneously" assume a darkened state in "blinding or bright sunlight." In a darkened state, the e-Visor reduces the light transmittance of the windshield to approximately 1 percent, while the light transmittance in its lightened state is "approximately 50 percent." You state that the e-Visor "would have no effect on any part of the front windshield other than the area traditionally reserved for a shade band located near the top of the front windshield." You also state that Al-Coat seeks to import this product into the United States. The e-Visor would be made available to original equipment manufacturers and/or marketed as an aftermarket product for installation on used vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Installation in New Vehicles

A manufacturer of a new vehicle must certify that its vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Any person who manufactures or sells a new vehicle which does not conform to any safety standard is subject to civil penalties and recall action under our statute.

NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, to establish performance and location requirements for glazing in each new motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates an industry standard, the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26.1)." Under FMVSS No. 205 and the ANSI standard, glazing for use at levels intended for driving visibility must meet all of the requirements of the standard, including those on light transmittance. FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.1 apply a 70 percent light transmittance requirement to areas of glazing that are requisite for driving visibility.

In all vehicles, the windshield is considered requisite for driving visibility. However, ANSI Z26.1 provides that a manufacturer may provide an area on the glazing that has a light transmittance of less than 70 percent as long as the areas requisite for driving visibility have a light transmittance of 70 percent. Our longstanding position has been that the area of the windshield traditionally comprising a shade band is not considered requisite for driving visibility, so that area may have a light transmittance of less than 70 percent.

After reviewing the information you have submitted, we have concluded that the e-Visor operates and is intended to operate as a shade band. We have reached this conclusion based on the specific facts and purposes of your client's particular design and on your representations that the product would not affect any part of the windshield other than within the area traditionally reserved for a shade band; i.e., an approximate 5-inch band located near the top of the windshield. As a shade band in that location, the e-Visor would not be subject to FMVSS No. 205's light transmittance requirement.

Although the agency has concluded that your shade band is not in an area considered requisite for driving visibility, it is important to note that we are in the midst of rulemaking on limiting the width of shade bands. We have published an August 4, 1999, notice of proposed rulemaking (64 FR 42330) on this subject. It may be appropriate for you to examine whether the e-Visor would be affected by a possible new shade band requirement.

Of course, a new vehicle with the e-Visor must be certified, for its location and installation (e.g., windshield), as meeting all other requirements in FMVSS No. 205, including all applicable performance requirements of the standard (haze resistance, scratch resistance, and etc.). In addition, there are a number of other standards that might be affected by installation of the component. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to FMVSS No. 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems, FMVSS No. 212, Windshield mounting, FMVSS No. 219, Windshield zone intrusion, and FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. You should carefully review these and all other FMVSSs to determine how the product would affect a vehicle's conformance with these standards.

In addition, S5.3.5 of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and displays, reads as follows:

Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 110 mm rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated.

The purpose of this requirement is to prevent glare visible to the driver. If the e-Visor control unit installed in view of the driver were capable of operation while the vehicle is in motion, it would be subject to this requirement.

As an Aftermarket Item of Equipment

The e-Visor is an item of motor vehicle equipment since it would be sold as part of a motor vehicle or as an addition to a vehicle. (See 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30102(a)(7)). While the e-Visor is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards directly applicable to this product if it were sold directly to consumers for installation on used vehicles. However, the manufacturer, whether your client or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120 which set forth the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the product is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

The installation of the e-Visor by a commercial entity is also subject to other restrictions. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the e-Visor could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the ability of a vehicle's glazing to comply with the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 205, as well as the compliance of a vehicle with any other FMVSS. You should carefully review the FMVSSs to determine whether installation of the e-Visor would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standards. ⁽¹⁾

I note that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You should contact that Administration at (202) 366-2519 for information about any requirements that may apply to your product. In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions and may have restrictions on shade bands. Therefore, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

Also, there is a procedural regulation that you need to meet to import the e-Visor into the United States. 49 CFR Part 551, "Procedural Rules," requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured motor vehicle equipment to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under section 551.45:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b).

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205
d.2/20/01





---

1. The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles.

ID: babcock1.ztv

Mr. Robert Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This is in reply to your letter of July 1, 2003, relating to my response of May 2, 2003 to a question you asked regarding possible preemption of a California statute relating to the distance between the front turn signal lamp and fog lamps (California Title 13, Section 691) by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108.

In brief, fog lamps are not required items of lighting equipment under FMVSS No. 108. Thus, if California were to preclude fog lamps, FMVSS No. 108 would not preempt such an action. Similarly, California can address the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps. However, California could not regulate fog lamps in a manner that would be inconsistent with the functioning of front turn signal lamps, which we do regulate. Based on available information, we concluded that FMVSS No. 108 did not preempt the California statute.

You have expressed concern that your inquiry did not provide the full scope and context of your questions, and requested a further interpretation. You also requested our confirmation that "the California requirements would be preempted should that state fail to waive the inconsistent portions of its requirements in favor of FMVSS 108." We have been provided a copy of a letter sent to you on July 11, 2003, by the Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP) in reply to your letter to it of July 1, 2003 "regarding the spacing required between turn signal lamps and other forward-facing lighting devices." The CHP concluded that "the spacing requirements contained in 13 CCR for turn signal lamps in relation to fog lamps and passing lamps are, therefore, not identical to those contained in FMVSS 108." The CHP then cited California Vehicle Code (VC) Section 26103(b) which states, in effect, that the provisions of FMVSS No. 108 covering the same aspect of performance shall prevail over those that California has adopted. Then, the CHP concluded that "Any device complying with the FMVSS, with respect to any aspect of performance prescribed by the FMVSS, but in conflict with the VC or 13 CCR, is lawful in this state."

As a result of its conclusion, the CHP informed you that "turn signal lamps may be mounted closer to fog lamps and driving lamps than specified in 13 CCR, provided they comply with all requirements contained in FMVSS No. 108," and that it "accepts the manufacturers certification regarding compliance with the FMVSS . . . ."

CHPs letter indicates to us that it has acceded to Hyundais request for a favorable interpretation of California law relating to the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps. In a telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on August 8, 2003, you confirmed that you interpret CHPs letter as resolving any issue you may have had with the State relating to the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps. Therefore, we regard your request of July 1 for a further interpretation as mooted by CHPs letter of July 11.

Different fact situations may arise in the future in which you would like us to provide an opinion on the relationship between California law and FMVSS No. 108 as it affects Hyundai, and we would be willing to consider them at that time.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.8/12/03

ID: 11-000700 J.Hoffrichter (Std No. 207)