ID: 17382.ztv

Tadashi Suzuki, Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153,
Japan

Re: Motorcycle Headlamp Arrangement

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1998, asking for confirmation of your interpretation of the motorcycle headlamp requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Stanley is considering developing a two-lamp motorcycle headlamp system, each of which contains an upper beam and a lower beam light source. The upper beam would be provided by the upper light source or by both light sources. The lower beam would be provided by the lower light source. The upper light source is outboard of the lower light source. You believe that this would be an acceptable arrangement because we have previously said that two headlamps with HB2 bulbs were acceptable if mounted symmetrically about the vehicle's vertical centerline.

Stanley's arrangement is permitted by Standard No. 108. Since Stanley is currently developing this system, however, we would prefer that the lower beam be provided by the upper light source, although this is not a requirement of Standard No. 108. This rearrangement of light sources would make Stanley's new system consistent with the two lamp motorcycle headlamp system permitted by S7.9.1(b) which requires a motorcycle headlighting system using half of a passenger car headlighting system to mount the lower beam as high as practicable. This is also consistent with requirements for two-lamp headlamp systems on other motor vehicles in which the lower beam is to be provided by the most outboard light source (or by all light sources) and the upper beam by the most inboard one(see S7.4(b). The reason for these specifications is that the lower beam will provide greater seeing distance at a higher and more outboard mounting location.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/3/98

ID: 17384.drn

Steve Cox, President
Cox Chevrolet
2900 Cortez Road West
Bradenton, FL 34207-1191

Dear Mr. Cox:

This responds to your letter regarding the use of 15-passenger vans by a dance studio to pick up school children from school "five days a week" to transport to the studio. You ask whether the vans are "school buses" under Federal law. As explained below, a new 15-passenger van leased for such a purpose is a school bus. When your dealership leases new buses to the dance studio for this purpose, the dealership must lease only buses that meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that your dealership leases three 15-passenger vans to Ms. Ellen Meade, who owns Ellen Meade Studios, a "Professional School for the Performing Arts."⁽¹⁾ You also provided copies of the three passenger van lease agreements, with each lease agreement describing the vehicle as "new."

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing NHTSA to issue safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events (emphasis added). 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, a 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If the new van is sold or leased to transport students (e.g., leased on a regular or long-term basis), the vehicle must meet NHTSA's school bus standards. Conventional 15-passenger vans cannot be certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold or leased, as new vehicles, to carry students on a regular basis.

In your situation, Ms. Meade writes that she is using the vans to "retriev[e] children from the area schools for our after school program." It is therefore clear Ms. Meade's studio is using the vans to pick the students up "from school."

Whether the buses are "used significantly" to transport the students is an issue that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the intended use of the vehicle. In your case, we note Ms. Meade's letter states that the vehicles are used "five days a week" in picking up students from schools. In our view, such regular use of the vehicle to pick up students "from school" (even if the same students are not transported each of the five days), would constitute a "significant" use of the vehicle. Therefore, when leasing new buses to Ellen Meade Studios for the purpose of picking up students from school, you must lease buses that meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "school buses."

As you may be aware, in interpretation letters of May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 to Ms. Vel McCaslin, Director of Grace After School, an after school care program, NHTSA stated that buses used to transport children to Ms. McCaslin's program would be "school buses" only if the program is a "school or school-related event." The September 1991 letter indicated that the program picks up children from three area schools and brings them to the church on a "daily" basis. These letters concluded that Grace After School did not appear to be a "school," that the program was not a "school-related event," and that NHTSA's school bus requirements thus did not apply. NHTSA has reexamined the two letters to Ms. McCaslin in view of your letter. Upon reconsideration, we have decided that the letters to Ms. McCaslin did not focus enough on the fact that the buses were being used to transport school children "from school," as specified in 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, to the extent the May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 letters to Ms. McCaslin are inconsistent with this letter, they are hereby superceded.

We note that you have included a letter from Ms. Meade to you in which she seeks advice about "what to do." Requirements for the use of a motor vehicle are determined by State law, so Florida's requirements should be consulted to determine how students must be transported to and from school or school-related activities. In addition, NHTSA believes that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and therefore strongly recommends that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Using 15-passenger vans that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you and Ms. Meade may wish to consult with an attorney or insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

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,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Ellen Meade
Ellen Meade Studios
1323 63rd Avenue East
Bradenton, FL 34203
cc: Ms. Vel McCaslin, Director
Grace After School
10221 Ella Lee at Sam Houston Tollway
Houston, TX 77042

ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/1/98

1. It is unclear whether the dealership's representative arranging the leases knew that Ms. Meade owned a studio and that she intended to use the vans to transport her dance students from schools.

ID: 17385.wkm

Mr. William Daws
B & W Farm Center
7581 East Monroe Road (M-46)
Breckenridge, MI 48615

Dear Mr. Daws:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff asking whether the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121), would apply to your truck glider kits. The answer is yes.

The agency's regulation with regard to the combination of new and used components is found at 49 CFR 571.7(e), Combining new and used components (copy enclosed), which provides in pertinent part:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s)(as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

By its terms, therefore, paragraph 571.7(e) applies to specific situations in which a new cab or body is combined with used chassis components. Stated another way, the resulting vehicle will constitute a new vehicle unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s)are used and any two of those component came from the same vehicle. If, on the other hand, either the engine, transmission, and/or drive axle(s) are new or no two of them are from the same vehicle, then the vehicle is new. If the vehicle is considered new, it must be certified to meet all applicable safety standards (including ones requiring ABS) in effect as of the date of its manufacture (not the date the vehicle was ordered or delivered). See 49 CFR Part 567.

You also asked whether a truck is required to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards even if approximately 80 percent of its use will be off-road, in this case, farm use. The answer is yes.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.)(hereinafter Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Act defines "motor vehicle" 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.

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle.

Nothing in your letter suggests that your trucks should be treated any differently from any other trucks, which are clearly motor vehicles. We note that a particular customer's planned use would not ordinarily affect whether a vehicle is considered to be a motor vehicle. Moreover, even if your particular customers' planned use were relevant, 20 percent would represent a substantial amount of time on-road.

I am also enclosing for your information fact sheets entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment; Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations; and Federal Requirements for Manufacturers of Trailers.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:121#567#568#571
d.12/4/98

ID: 1738y

Conrad S. Brooks, Engineering Manager
Fisher Engineering
12 Water Street
P.O. Box 529
Rockland, ME 04841

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This responds to your December 1, 1988, letter concerning the applicability of Federal regulations to motor vehicles to which a detachable snowplow is attached. I will respond to each one of your specific questions below.

Question One: "Please confirm in writing that the substructure for a snowplow mounting that is permanently attached to a four wheel drive vehicle may be attached to and be forward of the front bumper without violating any existing or proposed vehicle safety standard."

Response: We cannot make such a blanket statement. The weight and the location of the substructure might affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR /571.105) and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.120). Any person attaching such a substructure before the first retail sale of the vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle with the substructure attached complied with all applicable safety standards. Any commercial business attaching such a substructure after the first retail sale of the vehicle must ensure that the addition of the substructure does not "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. Commercial businesses are prohibited from "rendering inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

Question Two: "Is the snowplow blade, being detachable and used only a few hours each year, considered as part of the vehicle payload when it is attached?"

Response: None of our regulations define or otherwise mention the term "vehicle payload." We assume that you are referring to calculation of the vehicle's weight when you speak of its "payload." If this is the case, we have definitions of many different weight calculations set forth in 49 CFR /571.3 and in our individual safety standards. Some of these weight calculations would exclude a detachable snowplow blade. For instance, "unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 as:

the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. (emphasis added).

In a January 18, 1977, letter to Mr. D.J. Henry, the agency stated that portions of a snowplow that would ordinarily be removed from the vehicle when they are not in use (such as a snowplow blade) would not be included in calculating the "unloaded vehicle weight."

If you would identify the particular weight calculation in which you are interested, we would be pleased to tell you whether the weight of a detachable snowplow blade should be included in that particular weight calculation.

Question Three: "Does this exempt a vehicle, with the blade attached and raised, from having to meet the Front Gross Axle Weight Rating restrictions?"

Response: No. There are no exemptions from the gross axle weight ratings. 49 CFR /571.3 defines gross axle weight rating as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces." The vehicle manufacturer or any vehicle alterer must base its certification of the vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards on the assigned gross axle weight ratings.

NHTSA answered the specific question of how detachable snowplow blades are considered in determining whether a vehicle is within its assigned gross axle weight ratings in a March 8, 1976, letter to Mr. Edward Green. In that letter, we stated that any determination of whether a vehicle was within its assigned gross axle weight rating would include the weight imposed on that axle system by a snowplow with the blade attached and raised.

Question Four: Is there a specific limitation of what percent of the vehicle curb weight can be supported by the front axle? The Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book specifies a maximum of 63 percent for the front axle.

Response: None of our regulations, including the definitions of "gross axle weight rating" and "gross vehicle weight rating," specify any weight distribution limitations or proportions for the front axle of a vehicle. The only issue for the purposes of our safety standards is whether the vehicle complies with all applicable standards when it is loaded to its assigned gross axle weight ratings. As long as the vehicle complies with our standards under those loading conditions, it makes no difference what proportion of the curb weight is assigned to each axle.

We assume the reason that Ford's guidebook specifies a maximum of 63 percent of the vehicle's curb weight to be supported by the front axle is to ensure that the proportional load stopped by the vehicle's front and rear brakes will be such that the vehicle can be certified as complying with our braking standard. Any commercial entity that modified a Ford vehicle in such a way that more than 63 percent of the curb weight were supported by the front axle would have to certify that the modified vehicle complied with our braking standard, if the modification were made before the first retail sale of the vehicle, or make an initial finding that the modifications did not result in "rendering inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with our braking standard, if the modification were made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

Question Five: If the portion of curb weight on the front axle is only dictated by vehicle performance, can NHTSA suggest a source for some general guidelines to avoid performance testing?

Response: As noted in response to Question Four, vehicle performance is the only limitation on the proportion of curb weight that can be assigned to the front axle. For vehicles that are modified before the first retail purchase, the entity making the modifications can consult the instructions provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. An example of these instructions is the Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book to which you referred in your letter. Those instructions generally establish some limits on the parameters of the completed vehicle, such as its weight, height of center of gravity, and so forth. When the entity modifying the vehicle completes the vehicle within the limits established by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the modifier is not required to conduct its own testing or engineering analyses.

When a vehicle is modified after its first retail purchase, the modifier could remain within the gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle weight ratings labeled on the vehicle. If the modifier does so, it would not need to conduct any testing or engineering analyses.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel /ref:571#105#120 d:3/20/89

ID: 1739y

Mr. Keith A. McDowell
Vice President - Engineering
Transportation Products Group
American Seating Company
901 Broadway, N.W.
Grand Rapids, MI 49504

Dear Mr. McDowell:

This responds to your recent letter asking this agency to "provide guidelines for the design and installation of seat belt assemblies on large buses (over 10,000 pounds GVW)." You explained that you were interested in this information for passenger seats of large buses used in transit service, not as school buses. I am happy to be able to explain our requirements to you.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) sets forth the crash protection requirements applicable to most vehicle types. Section S4.4 of that standard sets forth the requirements applicable to large buses other than school buses. That section requires large buses to have either a complete automatic protection system for the bus driver's seating position, or a seat belt assembly that conforms with Standard No. 209 at the driver's seating position. Standard No. 208 does not specify any requirements for either an automatic protection system or seat belt assemblies to be installed at any other seating positions in large buses.

Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210) also includes requirements applicable to the anchorages for any belt assemblies installed at the driver's seating position on large buses. Specifically, section S4.1.2 of Standard No. 210 provides that: "Seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position, except a passenger seat in a bus or a designated seating position for which seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly are required by S4.1.1." As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 210 exempts passenger seats in large buses from its requirements.

Finally, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209) sets forth requirements applicable to all seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles, including large buses. Thus, any seat belt assembly installed at the driver's position in a large bus would have to be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, as would any seat belt assembly voluntarily provided by a manufacturer for passenger seating positions in a large bus.

In short, our standards do not require seat belt assemblies to be installed in passenger seats of large buses, but any seat belt assemblies that are installed at those positions would have to comply with Standard No. 209. Your letter indicated that you were generally aware of the fact that seat belt assemblies were not required to be installed at passenger seating positions of large buses. Nevertheless, you asked us to provide you with "guidelines" for such installations, in response to the continuing demand for such installations by your company's customers. As a policy matter, NHTSA does not provide the sort of guidelines you have requested.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) sets forth certain specific requirements that must be satisfied by each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards established by this agency. Among these requirements are that each safety standard shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms (section 103(a) of the Safety Act) and each standard shall be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of vehicle for which it is prescribed (section 103(f)(3) of the Safety Act). NHTSA has determined that the current requirements of Standards No. 208 and 210, which do not apply to passenger seats in large buses, meet all of the statutory criteria.

The issuance of "guidelines" specifying measures beyond those required by our standards could readily be misinterpreted as an agency decision that these additional measures are necessary to satisfy the criteria of the Safety Act, or indirectly force manufacturers to comply with the "guidelines," in addition to the standards issued under the Safety Act. Either or both of these results would be inappropriate for passenger seats on large buses, because the information currently available to NHTSA indicates that no additional requirements are necessary in this area.

Indeed, if the agency were to learn of additional information suggesting the current requirements no longer meet all the statutory criteria, and that requirements for the installation of seat belt assemblies at passenger seats of large school buses would meet all the statutory criteria, we would have an obligation to consider changing the applicable standards. Any such change would be required to be made through the ordinary, notice-and-comment rulemaking process, rather than through issuance of supplemental guidelines.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:208#209#210 d:3/22/89

ID: 1740y

Mr. Keith E. Madden
Research Associate
College of Engineering
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering
125B Chemistry Building
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242

Dear Mr. Madden:

This is in reply to your letter of February 3, l989, with respect to importation of ethanol-fueled trucks from Brazil. You have requested assurance that "there are no legal or administrative roadblocks to this importation."

I am happy to provide the assurance you seek. Your letter indicates that you are well versed in our importation procedures, and that you have discussed this matter with Messrs. VanOrden and Vinson of this agency. The University of Iowa is permitted to import trucks that do not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards for purposes of test and experimentation, pursuant to Title l9, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(i)(vii). When the trucks reach the United States, the importer of record makes the appropriate declaration (in this instance, Box 7 of the HS-7 Form). If vehicles imported for testing and experimenting will be used on the public roads, the importer must attach a sheet to the Form stating the purpose for which the vehicles are imported, the estimated amount of time that the vehicles will be used on the public road, and whether after testing they will be exported, abandoned to the United States, or brought into compliance. Permission for the noncomplying vehicles to remain in the United States for the purposes of testing and experimenting is renewable annually for a maximum total of three years. Thus, for example, at the end of the first year, if the importer requires more time for on-road testing, it must write this Department of that need. Generally, permission is granted for an additional year. If a third year is needed for on-road testing, the importer must again request permission of this agency.

We see no legal or administrative impediments to this importation. Further, under these circumstances, the Brazilian manufacturer of these trucks has no responsibilities to the Department of Transportation under any of its laws or regulations.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:MIS d:3/24/89

ID: 17433.drn

L. W. Camp, Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Camp:

This responds to your February 27, 1998, request for an interpretation of requirements specified in Standard No. 221, School bus body joint strength. In that letter, you ask that we reconsider our November 28, 1997, interpretation letter to Ford of which joints "fall within the definitions of 'body panel joint' and 'bus body' as defined in Paragraph S4." You also ask for further guidance on how to "objectively test curved, compound, and reinforced body joints in accordance with paragraph S6."

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) has not yet issued a rulemaking document making a final decision about the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11142) on Standard No. 221. As previously stated in our November 1997 letter, until and unless Standard No. 221 is amended, the applicable requirements are those that are currently in Standard No. 221. Our earlier letter to you reiterated a longstanding agency position about which joints are subject to the standard.

As for testing curved and compound body joints, we have reconsidered the views in our earlier letter to you about testing these joints. There are two relevant provisions in Standard No. 221, S6.1.1 and S6.1.2. S6.1.1 specifies that if a body panel joint is 8 inches or longer:

cut a test specimen that consists of any randomly selected 8-inch segment of the joint, together with a portion of the bus body whose dimensions, to the extent permitted by the size of the joined parts, are those specified Figure 1, so that the specimen's centerline is perpendicular to the joint at the midpoint of the joint segment.

S6.1.2 provides: "If a joint is less than 8 inches long, cut a test specimen with enough of the adjacent material to permit it to be held in the tension testing machine specified in S6.3."

Our current view on testing curved and complex joints is that if NHTSA cannot cut a test specimen as described in S6.1.1 or in S6.1.2 (with adjacent material), the tension testing machine can not be used to test the joint. In these circumstances, if the test device specified in Standard No. 221 cannot be used to test the joint, NHTSA will not test that joint. Again, bear in mind that this and other issues relating to the performance and testing of curved and complex joints will be addressed in the pending rulemaking document on Standard No. 221.

I am very sorry for the delay in responding to your concerns. If you have any further questions at this time, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.7/17/98
ref:221

ID: 17435.wkm

Mr. Marlin Harbour
Heartland Rig International, Inc.
Post Office Box 1429
Brady, TX 76825

Dear Mr. Harbour:

This responds to your inquiry faxed to Walter Myers of this office on March 4, 1998 and your telephone conversations with Mr. Myers on April 14 and May 1, 1998. You sent a drawing of a trailer that you manufacture for the purpose of hauling oil drilling equipment and asked whether it is excluded from the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121). The answer is yes, as discussed below.

Standard No. 121 applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. However, subparagraphs S3(a) through (g) of Standard 121 lists seven types of vehicles to which the standard does not apply. Applicable to your trailer, paragraph S3(e) excludes:

Any trailer that has a GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds and whose body conforms to that described in the definition of heavy hauler trailer set forth in S4 (emphasis added).

Heavy hauler trailer is defined in S4 as:

[A] trailer which has one or more of the following characteristics, but which is not a container chassis trailer:

(1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or

(2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent "front end structure" as that term is used in 393.106 of [Title 49, CFR]. (NOTE: A copy of 49 CFR 393.106 is enclosed)

The drawing indicates that the GVWR of the trailer exceeds 120,000 pounds. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on April 14, you stated that the cargo-carrying surface of the trailer bed is forty-four inches (44 inches) above the ground, loaded. It would likely be higher than that, unloaded. Accordingly, your trailer does not meet criteria (2). You indicated in a telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on May 1, 1998, however, that your trailer's brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame. If so, that meets criteria number (1) above and, when combined with the trailer's GVWR of 121,500 pounds, excludes your trailer from the ABS requirements in accordance with S3(e) of Standard No. 121.

In summary, your trailer would meet criteria (1) of the definition of "heavy hauler trailer" and, combined with the trailer's GVWR, would be excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121 in accordance with paragraph S3(e) of the standard.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:#121
d.6/1/98

ID: 17440.drn

Jörg S. Mager, Vehicle Policy Engineer
Safer Vehicles, Roads & Rail
Vehicle Policy
Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand
Level 4
7-27 Waterloo Quay
P. O. Box 2840
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND

Dear Mr. Mager:

This responds to your request for information on U. S. requirements for aftermarket tinting of motor vehicle glazing by means of self-adhesive films. You posed several questions which are answered below:

The first question concerned the "current legal position" of motor vehicle tinting in the United States. You also wished to know what Federal policy is with respect to tinting.

NHTSA has the authority under 49 USC 30111 to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to all new motor vehicles at time of first sale to the consumer. Standard No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR Part 571.205) specifies performance requirements for glazing, and includes a requirement that all windows "requisite for driving visibility" (including all windows in passenger cars) have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. In establishing the 70 percent light transmittance requirement for motor vehicle glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined that level met the need for motor vehicle safety.

Although Standard No. 205 itself does not apply after the first sale of the vehicle, 49 USC 30122(b) prohibits a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "mak[ing] 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 . . . ." The effect of Section 30122(b) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard No. 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent.

Note however, that NHTSA's regulations do not apply to certain parties or actions. Vehicle owners are not restricted by Federal law in the modifications that they make to their vehicles, and could tint their windows as dark as they like without violating Federal law (although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than Standard No. 205 allows). NHTSA recommends that vehicle owners not degrade the safety features of the glazing in their motor vehicles by tinting the glazing darker than Standard No. 205 allows. Federal law also does not regulate the operation or use of vehicles, which is under the jurisdiction of the individual States.

Under certain circumstances, State laws would be preempted by Federal law. 49 USC 30103(b)(1) states "[w]hen a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect . . . a State . . . may prescribe . . . a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance . . . only if the standard is identical to the [federal standard]." A State law would be preempted by the Federal law to the extent that it regulates the same aspect of performance in a different way, or permits something prohibited by the Federal regulations (such as modifications by vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses that would violate Standard No. 205). A State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture and sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard No. 205.

State requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as the state requirements do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a State could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard.

You asked about the outcome of the "Blue Skies" case in the Middle District of Florida.

In a Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking of January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496) (copy enclosed), NHTSA noted the following regarding the "Blue Skies" case:

One Florida District Court has held that Standard No. 205 is not currently enforceable against window tinting businesses because the agency did not issue a "new and revised Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard" pursuant to the second sentence of Section 103(h) of the Safety Act. United States v. Blue Skies Projects, Inc., No. 90-253-CIV-ORL-18 (M.D. Fla., August 13, 1991) ... NHTSA strongly believes that the court's opinion was erroneous and that the current standard is valid and enforceable. (57 FR at 2507)

Please note that the U.S. government did not appeal the decision of the Florida District Court. Also, NHTSA has not yet issued a final determination regarding the January 22, 1992 Federal Register notice.

You asked if NHTSA has a list of the "legal requirements with respect to the minimum visible light transmittance allowed by the states for windows of motor vehicles."

Since NHTSA does not maintain such a list, we cannot provide it to you.

You also asked if "the requirements in terms of permissible minium visible light transmittance spelled out in FMVSS 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1:1995 will be adopted on a state level in the foreseeable future."

NHTSA has no information on any planned state actions in this area. As described in our answer to the first set of questions, depending on the conduct or aspects of performance it seeks to regulate, a State law reducing the level of window light transmittance below the Federal standard may be preempted by Federal law.

I am enclosing a copy of NHTSA's March 1991 "Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows." Among other matters, the report discusses: (1) the current performance requirements in the Federal standard concerning window light transmittance, (2) how vehicles on the road at the time the report was written compare to the standard's requirements, (3) the rules and regulation other countries have in effect (at the time the report was written) on light transmittance through windows, (4) research on the effect of various tinting levels on depth perception, night vision, or other faculties that affect safety.

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,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:205
d.6/22/98

ID: 17442.wkm

Mr. Gerard Koudijs
Vredestein Tyres Asia
c/o Elang-Desa Sukahati
Citeureup
Bogor 16810
Indonesia

Dear Mr. Koudijs:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter faxed to Walter Myers of my staff. You ask three questions which are discussed below.

You state that P. T. Elangperdana Tyre Industry (PTE) will produce tires under the trade name Epco and will apply for a DOT identification. Your first question asks whether that company would be required to apply again for a DOT identification if it produced tires for a private brand that it does not own. The answer is no.

I assume that your mention of a "DOT identification" refers to the manufacturer identification mark (MIM) issued by this agency as required by 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 574.6. Subsection 574.5 requires each new tire sold in the United States to have a tire identification number (TIN) labeled by the tire manufacturer on one sidewall of the tire. The MIM is the first grouping of the TIN (see subsection 574.5(a)). This TIN is intended to assist the agency in identifying the production source of a tire in the event of a noncompliance or defect. This agency issues a separate MIM for each plant that currently produces tires, but a plant can only have one MIM, whether or not the plant produces other tire brands. Further, the MIM remains in effect as long as the plant to which it applies remains in production. Therefore, once a MIM is assigned to the PTE plant, the plant may not be issued another MIM even if PTE produces tires for a different brand name owner. A different brand name owner, however, would be required to have its own TIN. Finally, the MIM assigned to the PTE plant cannot be reassigned to another plant, even if a second plant replaces the first.

With reference to designation of a resident agent, your second question asks if we could provide you copies of "section 110a and 1399a (west 1982)" that was referred to in some material Mr. Myers sent you in October 1997. Those two sections are the same, and refer to section 110(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, which was originally codified in Title 15, U.S. Code, section 1399(a). That provision has been recodified and is now found in Title 49, U.S. Code, section 30164, a copy of which is enclosed.

Your third question asks whether the designated agent could be a lawyer and the commercial affairs of the company handled through a trading company. Title 49, CFR, subsection 551.45 (copy enclosed), provides that a manufacturer offering to import a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment into the United States must designate "a permanent resident of the United States" as the importer's agent:

[U]pon whom service of all processes, notices, orders, decisions, and requirements may be made for him and on his behalf as provided in section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 718) (NOTE: as stated above, this section is now 49 U.S. Code, 30164). The agent may be an individual, a firm, or a domestic corporation. Any number of manufacturers may designate the same person as agent.

We read your question as asking whether PTE can have more than one resident agent, one to receive service of legal process and the other to conduct PTE's commercial business. The agent can be a lawyer (many are), but subsection 551.45 does not require that the agent be a lawyer. As quoted above, the agent can be an individual, firm, or domestic corporation. Thus, a U.S. trading company or any other U.S. firm or corporation can act as the resident agent. Although Part 551.45 does not prohibit designation of more than one agent or the designation of different agents for specific purposes, that is not recommended since it could cause confusion and cause your representatives to miss notifications or response dates. On the other hand, one agent can have many duties, including receiving service of legal process, marketing, distribution, and all other company activities in the United States.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
Ref:551#574