ID: nht79-1.11

DATE: 01/09/79

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

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 9 1979

NOA-30

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

Please excuse the delay in responding to your letter of October 25, 1978. You asked whether a webbing guide you are planning for the rear seat belt in station wagon vehicles would have to comply with the strength requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

The agency has examined the drawings included in your letter and discussed this new webbing guide with Volvo engineers. We have concluded that the webbing guide would not qualify as an "anchorage" and, therefore, would not have to comply with the Standard 210 requirements for anchorages. The standard defines "anchorage" as a device that transfers seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure. Your proposed webbing guide is not intended to transfer loads to the vehicle structure, and will only be added to increase the comfort of the assembly. As you indicated, the device marked "B" on your drawings would qualify as an anchorage and would have to meet the strength requirements of the standard.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

October 25, 1978

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 900 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS No. 210

Dear Mr. Levin:

Volvo is planning to modify the belt geometry of the rear seat belt in our station wagons. We will introduce an extra webbing guide, which is marked "A" on the enclosed sketch. This modification will improve the belt use comfort and will thereby encourage increased seat belt usage.

It is Volvo's interpretation that this webbing guide is not a seat belt anchorage and is therefore not required to meet the strength requirements of FMVSS No. 210, S4.2. Please confirm whether our interpretation is correct. The device which Volvo uses "for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure", is marked "B" on the enclosed sketch, and is designed to meet the strength requirements of FMVSS No. 210, S4.2.

If additional information is required on this issue, don't hesitate to contact me at your convenience.

Sincerely yours,

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning & Development

Manager, Regulatory Affairs

WS/dpl ENCLOSURE (1)

ID: nht78-1.11

DATE: 12/05/78

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

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 20, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

Specifically, you asked whether the km/h label on Volvo speedometers could appear in upper case letters instead of the lower case letters appearing in Table 2 of the standard. The answer is yes.

Section 5.2.3 of the standard provides that "any such display for which no symbol is provided in Table 2 shall be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 3." There is no requirement that the identifying words or abbreviations be in the same type face, type size, or case as those printed in the Federal Register. Therefore, as long as the abbreviations are the same as those appearing in Table 2 and are visible, no problem arises because Volvo wishes to use upper case, rather than lower case letters.

SINCERELY

September 20, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS No. 101-80

Dear Mr. Levin:

According to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, the speedometers of 1981 and later model year passenger vehicles are to be labelled "MPH" and "km/h". It is our understanding that it is the intent of this requirement, along with FMVSS No. 127, to encourage the use of metric units of speed and distance. It is also the intent of this standard to present information to the vehicle operator as clearly and unambiguously as possible.

Enclosed is a preliminary example of a Volvo proposed speedometer face. Picture A is the proposed 1981 model year speedometer. Note that in this case, the metric unit for speed is labelled "KM/H". In other words, we have used upper case letters, but in exactly the same configuration. We believe that using the upper case letters does not detract from the clarity of the information being conveyed, nor does it discourage use of the metric system. Thus, we interpret the use of "KM/H" to satisfy the requirement of FMVSS No. 101-80.

Please advise us as to whether you agree with our interpretation of this standard. If I can be of any assistance, please feel free to call.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning and Development

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs

ID: nht74-2.32

DATE: 02/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kar-Kraft, Inc.

COPYEE: PESKOE; COMPTON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, in which you ask whether there is a distinction between the reference to the "lowest seating position" for motorcycles in S5.1.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, and the reference to "lowest seating surface" in proposed "Fields of Direct View" (Docket No. 70-7; Notice 2; 37 FR 7210, April 12, 1972). You also request an explanation for the difference between the reference to 15 inches above the seating surface in Standard No. 205, and 18 inches in Docket No. 70-7.

The notice in Docket No. 70-7, as you may know, has been withdrawn (38 FR 6194, March 7, 1973). However, we would consider the phrase "lowest seating position" to be synonymous with "lowest seating surface" with respect to these particular items. The 18-inch requirement proposed in Docket No. 70-7 represented a more recent evaluation than the 15-inch requirement in Standard No. 105 of the minimum desirable area for motorcycle visibility. Had that requirement become effective the agency would have taken steps to ensure that the requirements were consistent with each other.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 6, 1973

Richard B. Dyson -- Office of the Chief Council, N. H. T. S. A.

Dear Mr. Dyson:

In a recent conversation with your Mr. Peskoe, I asked a question relative to FMVSS 205 which Mr. Peskoe advised would best be asked in written form to which your office would make a prompt reply.

Accordingly, my question is this:

In FMVSS 205, Glazing Materials, at S5.1.2.1 "Safety plastic materials . . . may be used in a motor vehicle only in the following specific location at levels not requisite for driving visibility.

(b) Motorcycle windscreens below the intersection of a horizontal plane 15 inches vertically above the lowest seating position."

Additionally, in Docket 70-7, Notice 2, Paragraph S10.1 it says: "There shall be no obstructions forward of the forwardmost point of the driver's seat that are above a horizontal plane 18 inches above the lowest seating surface of the driver's seat . . ."

Specifically, what is the definition of the "lowest seating position" in FMVSS 205 and lowest seating surface in Docket 70-7 and what accounts for the difference in the 15 inch and 18 inch dimensions?

We look forward to your prompt reply in this matter.

Sincerely,

KAR-KRAFT, INC.;

L. A. Volberding -- Administrative Manager

ID: 24393.rbm

Donald S. Litman, Esq.
The Mayerson Law Offices, P.C.
3540 Schuylkill Road
Spring City, PA 19475

Dear Mr. Litman:

This responds to your question as to whether plastic exterior door handles are prohibited by any Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). The short answer to your question is no, exterior plastic door handles are not prohibited under any of the safety standards.

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

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. FMVSS No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, most closely addresses your question regarding exterior door handles. FMVSS No. 206 does not directly regulate either interior or exterior door handles. It does, however, impliedly require both interior and exterior door handles or other release mechanisms in its regulation of door locks (see generally, 49 CFR 571.206, S4.1.3 and S4.4.2). FMVSS No. 206 does not prohibit or require that the door handles or release mechanisms be composed of any particular material. Rather, it specifies performance requirements.

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

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:206
d.6/24/02

ID: 77-4.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/77

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

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 15, 1977, letter asking several questions pertaining to Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

You first ask whether side-facing seats installed in school buses for purposes of transporting handicapped or convalescent passengers are exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 222. The answer to your question is yes. These seats are not considered "school bus seats" as that term is defined in S4 of the standard. The remaining forward-facing seats installed in the same bus, however, would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard.

In a related matter, you ask what your responsibility would be should a non-handicapped passenger use a handicapped passenger seat. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) realized when it adopted the limited seating exception applicable to seats for the handicapped that these seats might on occasion be used by non-handicapped passengers. The agency is continuing to study such problems in order to ensure that buses designed to accommodate handicapped passengers provide a sufficient level of safety for all individuals they routinely transport. Standard No. 222 does not place a responsibility upon school bus users to permit only handicapped students to sit in side-facing seats. Of course, any passenger seated in such a seat will not benefit from the protection provided by forward-facing seats that meet the requirements of the Federal standard.

In a final question, you ask whether the position of a wheel-chair in close proximity to the rear emergency exit of a bus would violate S5.4.2.1(a) of Standard No. 217. The NHTSA will measure the opening using the described parallelepiped device as the vehicle is constructed in its unloaded condition. Since the wheelchair would not be present when the vehicle was in its unloaded condition, your location of the wheelchair would not violate the standard.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

September 15, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton

Subject: FMVSS-222 and FMVSS-217 We are enclosing three (3) prints of a proposed Model 2200 with a seating plan for handicapped and non-handicapped persons.

Several questions have arisen concerning the legality of the proposed seating plan, and we are requesting your advice on these issues:

1. The side facing seats over the rear wheelhouses do not have to meet FMVSS-222 as per 571.222 (amended) S4, Definitions as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 134 - Monday, July 12, 1976. Are we correct in this case?

2. The other seats - 8 in number and all forward facing - must meet FMVSS - 222, are we correct in this case?

3. The preamble on page 28508 of the aforementioned Federal Register speaks to, and we quote "The decision to withdraw requirements for side facing used by handicapped or convalescent students will result in cost savings to manufacturers and purchasers. The action may encourage production of specialized buses that otherwise not be built if the seating were subject to the standard." Since it speaks only to the handicapped or convalescent, what if non-handicapped person occupies the seat? This can occur frequently since most of these buses are used for both non and also handicapped persons. Are we in compliance?

4. This question deals with FMVSS 2.7. As indicated in our floor plan, one wheelchair is close proximity to the rear emergency door. Since a wheelchair is movable and not an occupant seat, is the position of the chair in conflict with the FMVSS-S5.4.2.1(a)?

Once again we will mention that the configuration is of a specialized vehicle.

Thanking you in advance, we remain

James Tydings, Specification Engineer

ID: RIBILL23454

Mr. Charles F. Dolan
Administration
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
Division of Motor Vehicles
286 Main Street
Pawtucket, RI 02860

Dear Mr. Dolan:

This responds to your letter, and to telephone calls from John DiTomasso of your staff, asking whether a Rhode Island state law would be preempted by Federal law, in light of a possible inconsistency with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205. Your correspondence attached a copy of the law, and expressed concern regarding a subsection that allows the ownership and operation of motor vehicles with a light transmittance of less than 70 percent by persons with a physical condition that "makes it necessary to equip the vehicle with a sunscreening device." Based on our understanding of your correspondence, we believe that the legislation would not be preempted.

BACKGROUND

According to your correspondence, Section 31-23.3-2 of the Rhode Island General Laws prohibits persons from owning and operating any motor vehicle with nontransparent or sunscreen material to cover the front windshield, the side windows immediately adjacent to the right and left of the driver's seat, and other windows in a vehicle, unless the material has a total visible light transmittance of not less than seventy percent. ⁽¹⁾

Subsection (7) of Section 31-23.3-4 exempts from the 70 percent light transmittance for tinting material requirement "a motor vehicle registered in this state in the name of a person, or the person's legal guardian, who has an affidavit signed by a physician or an optometrist licensed to practice in this state indicating that the person has a physical condition that makes it necessary to equip the motor vehicle with a sunscreening device which may exceed federal standards."

The State law pertains to the light transmittance of glazing in motor vehicles, which is an aspect of performance regulated by FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). The standard incorporates by reference an industry standard, the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26), and specifies performance requirements and permissible locations for the types of glazing that may be installed in motor vehicles. The standard requires some glazing to allow at least 70 percent of the incident light to pass through. For passenger cars, the standard specifies the 70 percent light transmittance requirement for all glazing at levels requisite for driving visibility. For buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), the standard specifies the 70 percent light transmittance requirement for glazing installed in the windshield, the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility.

ANALYSIS

The provision of our statute referring to Federal preemption is section 30103(b) of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, which states in part:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) safety standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30112.) Thus, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), State laws that apply to the manufacture and sale of new vehicles, and to the same aspect of performance, must be identical to the FMVSS. Thus, if the Rhode Island provision applied to the sale of vehicles in Rhode Island, it would be preempted since it would purport to allow the sale of vehicles with light transmittance below that required by FMVSS No. 205.

However, NHTSA does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the States. Section 30103(b) does not require Rhode Island to set operational requirements that are "identical" to the FMVSS. Nonetheless, there are limits on State operational requirements, in that general principles of preemption law apply. These principles preclude States from adopting operational requirements that are more stringent than the requirements applicable to new vehicles under the FMVSS, because more stringent State requirements would have the effect of precluding the use of a Federally compliant vehicle in that State. The proposed Rhode Island law appears to be less stringent than the FMVSS, in that it would allow a light transmittance of less than 70 percent in certain areas of glazing where the Federal requirement is 70 percent. As such, the proposed State law would not preclude the use of vehicles certified to FMVSS No. 205, and thus would not be invalid under general principles of preemption. This conclusion is consistent with a 1996 letter to Betsy Dittmore, in which we stated that Iowa legislation allowing drivers with "light-sensitive disorders permits" to have darkened windows generally would not conflict with Federal laws. (See enclosed letter, dated November 18, 1996.)

Note, however, that a State law could not permit a modification that is prohibited by Federal law. 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. A State law that purported to permit the installation of dark tinting material by entities listed in 30122 where the tinting material results in a light transmittance through the glazing of less than 70 percent would not undermine the validity and enforceability of section 30122. ⁽²⁾ Nonetheless, in situations where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. In situations qualifying for exemption under your statute, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that applies the tinting material to the vehicle to accommodate the condition warranting the exemption.

In closing, we understand your safety concerns about decreased visibility through dark tinting material and concur with them. We ask States to limit use of the tint material to the extent necessary and to ensure that their operational requirements are commensurate with the safe operation of vehicles.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205#VSA
d.2/14/02





---

¹ As we read Section 31-23.3-4(3), it allows the "use" of tinting material that has at least 70 percent light transmittance. Therefore, when this material is placed on an original equipment manufacturer window that is already at 70 percent light transmittance, the combined transmittance of the glazing and tinting material could be down to 49 percent. This ambiguity, however, does not affect the outcome of our analysis.

² 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: NYBILL22661

Terry W. Wagar, Vehicle Safety Technical Analyst III
Technical Services Bureau
NYS Department of Motor Vehicles
6 Empire State Plaza, Room 111
Albany, NY 12228





Dear Mr. Wagar:

This responds to your letter and telephone calls asking whether a proposed New York State bill (A00359) would be preempted by Federal law, in light of a possible inconsistency with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205. I regret the delay in responding. Your correspondence attached a version of the bill and expressed concern regarding an amendment to the original language of the bill which imposes light transmittance requirements on windows to the left and right of the driver on sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and other multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). Based on our understanding of your correspondence and telephone conversations with staff, we believe that the legislation would not be preempted.

BACKGROUND

According to your correspondence, New York's amended proposed law states, in relevant part:

(b) No person shall operate any motor vehicle upon any public highway, road or street:

* * *

(4) the rear window of which is composed of, covered by or treated with any material which has a light transmittance of less than seventy percent. A rear window may have a light transmittance of less than seventy percent if the vehicle is equipped with side mirrors on both sides of the vehicle so adjusted that the driver thereof shall have a clear and full view of the road and condition of traffic behind such vehicle.

The proposed State law pertains to the light transmittance of the rear window of SUVs and other MPVs, which is an aspect of performance regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR '571.205). The standard specifies performance requirements and permissible locations for the types of glazing that may be installed in motor vehicles. The standard requires some glazing to allow 70 percent of the incident light to pass through. For buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), the standard specifies the 70 percent light transmittance requirement for glazing installed in the windshield, the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility.

The proposed State standard also pertains to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR '571.111). The standard at S6.1 requires that MPVs, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less must have either (a) a passenger car mirror system, which includes an inside rear view mirror; or (b) a light truck mirror system, which requires unit magnification (flat) outside rear view mirrors of a minimum size on each side of the vehicle. In vehicles using the passenger car mirror system, the rear window is used for visibility. An inside mirror is not required for use with the light truck mirror system.

Whether the proposed New York law would be preempted under our statute is determined by '30103(b) of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, which states in part:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

NHTSA safety standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30112.) Thus, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), state laws that apply to the manufacture and sale of new vehicles, and to the same aspect of performance, must be identical to the FMVSS.

However, NHTSA does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the States. Federal law does not require New York to set operational requirements that are "identical" to the FMVSS. Nonetheless, there are limits on State operational requirements, in that general principles of preemption law apply. These principles preclude States from adopting operational requirements that are more stringent than the requirements applicable to new vehicles under the FMVSS, because more stringent State requirements would have the effect of precluding the use of a Federally compliant vehicle in that State.

ANALYSIS

The proposed New York law would appear to be more stringent than the FMVSS, in that it would prohibit the windows to the rear of the driver on the left and right from having a light transmittance of less than 70 percent. However, NHTSA has determined in a 1998 rulemaking that the light transmittance levels of light truck and MPV rear glazing not used for driving visibility and light truck and MPV rear side glazing are not regulated under FMVSS No. 205, and that States are therefore free to set transmittance levels for those windows on those vehicles. Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking, July 14, 1998, 63 FR 37820. Thus, we conclude that the proposed New York law would not be preempted and that New York could prohibit the operation of light trucks and MPVs with rear windows that have a minimum light transmittance of less than 70 percent.

In addition, the proposed New York law would be less stringent than the FMVSS for mirrors because the New York law merely requires two outside mirrors rather than mirrors complying with the light truck mirror system in S6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 111. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed New York law would not be preempted under '30103(b).

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205
d.11/9/01

ID: Xiao.1

Mr. Xiaoda Xiao
President & CEO
ZX, Invention
135 Belchertown Road
Amherst, MA 01002




Dear Mr. Xiao:

This responds to your letter seeking an evaluation of your product (the Vector Blind Spot Mirror enclosed with your letter), in order to determine whether the mirror, when properly installed, blocks the front windshield or shakes during driving. Because, we do not conduct certification testing or offer product endorsements, we are unable to provide such an evaluation. The following discussion briefly explains how our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) operate and how they may pertain to your product.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards (see 49 CFR Part 571) before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

As you are probably aware, FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, sets forth requirements for mirrors on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses, and motorcycles in order to provide a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear (49 CFR 571.111). New vehicles must be certified as complying with the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, as well as all other applicable standards.

However, the packaging and descriptions of your product suggest that it would not be installed on the vehicle as original equipment, but instead, it would be sold as aftermarket equipment. Accordingly, we believe that your product would be a supplemental mirror that is not covered by FMVSS No. 111, so you would not have any corresponding certification responsibilities under our standards.

With that said, there are certain limitations on aftermarket installation of motor vehicle equipment. For example, 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. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles.

Beyond compliance with relevant federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. We are also returning to you the sample mirror provided with your letter. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:111
d.4/14/05

ID: 05-008127drn

Herr Franz Horneffer
ZF Getriebe GmbH
Postfach 25 67
D-88015 Friedrichshafen
GERMANY




Dear Herr Horneffer:

This responds to your request for our legal opinion whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) require that passenger cars with automatic transmissions must have a parking brake. The answer is that all passenger cars must have a parking brake. Thus, passenger cars with automatic transmissions must have a parking brake.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs, which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into, the United States of America. (See Title 49 of the United States Code Section 30112.)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.

The answer to your question is found in FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems. FMVSS No. 135 applies to passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 2000. (See S3. Application.)Equipment requirements are specified at S5. of FMVSS No. 135. Parking brake systems are addressed at S5.2, which states:

Each vehicle shall be equipped with a parking brake system of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain engagement.

The requirement for "each vehicle to be equipped with a parking brake system" means that passenger cars with automatic transmissions must have a parking brake.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:102#135
d.11/3/05

ID: nht95-5.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 3, 1995

FROM: Thomas K. O'Connor -- Chief of Maintenance and Operations, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Verification of Seat Belt Regulations for Step Vans Over 10,000 Pounds GVW-Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 207, 208, 209, and 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS K. O'CONNOR (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: We are requesting written verification on the type of seat belt needed for our step van vehicles in order to comply with FMVSS 207, 208, 209, and 210. At issue is whether a lap-only seat belt versus a shoulder harness seat belt is needed for compliance. In a phone conversation between members of our respective staffs, we were informed that a lap-type belt would comply. We were further informed that written verification of this could be obtained by writing to your office.

In our field work, we use step vans with a Gross Vehicle Weight over 10,000 pounds, equipped with two front seats, a passenger's seat and a driver's seat. The passenger's seat is mounted on a metal pedestal which allows the seat to tilt forward, making easier access to the rear. The driver's seat is stationary. If both the passenger and driver seats are certified by the manufacturer to comply with FMVSS 207, 208, and 210 when properly installed, and if a certified seat belt (FMVSS 209) is properly installed, the question arose as to whether a lap-only seat belt would comply with FMVSS 207, 208, 209, and 210, or whether a shoulder harness type belt had to be used.

If there are any questions concerning our request for written verification on this matter, please contact Sally Yagol of my staff at (708) 222-4080, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., CST, Monday-Friday.

Thank you for consideration.