ID: 11888-1.PJA

Mr. John DiGregorio
235 Pello Road
Bricktown, NJ 08724

Dear Mr. DiGregorio:

This responds to your May 2, 1996, letter asking how Federal regulations would affect your product, a Atransparent tint@ film that sticks by static cling directly to the outside side view mirrors of vehicles. You state that the purpose of the product is to reduce glare from the mirror.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have any specific Federal motor vehicle safety standard directly applying to tint film for mirrors. However, if your product were manufactured for a new vehicle, Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), would apply to the vehicle. Standard 111 prescribes construction requirements for all mirrors, including the driver=s outside mirror on passenger cars. S11 of the standard requires a single reflectance mirror to have an average reflectance of 35 percent. If your product were installed on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the mirror/film combination reflected at least 35 percent of incident light.

There are other Federal requirements that affect the manufacture and sale of your product. Your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you would be subject to the requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to a statutory provision, that prohibits them from Amaking inoperative@ any device or element of design installed in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. ...." A business, such as a car dealer or repair shop, could not install your film on a new or used vehicle if it reduced the mirror reflectance below 35 percent.

We do not regulate vehicle owners adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles. Thus, if your product were installed by the vehicle owners, they would not need to meet any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Nevertheless, NHTSA urges them not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles. As for information on state requirements, we suggest you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in the states the tint will be sold or used.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:111 d:6/14/96

2

ID: 12450-1.pja

Donna A. Oshiro, Esq.
1000 Bishop Street
Suite 806
Honolulu, HI 96813

Via e-mail and mail

Dear Ms. Oshiro:

This responds to your e-mail enquiring about this agency's regulations concerning seat belts on city transit buses. Your understanding of our regulations is correct--seat belts are not required on large transit buses, except for the driver's seat.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to develop motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses and transit buses. Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type of vehicle. For example, different requirements apply to buses than to passenger cars. For buses generally, our requirements only specify that a safety belt must be installed for the bus driver (note that NHTSA does not regulate belt use, as your e-mail implied; that is left to the States). They do not require safety belts for passengers on large buses (over 10,000 pounds GVWR) used for pupil transportation and other purposes.

We have not required large buses to have safety belts for passengers because we have not found sufficient justification for such a requirement, given that buses have excellent safety records. This safety record arises in part from the fact that, in crashes with other vehicles, buses tend to be substantially heavier than the other vehicle. As a result, the crash forces experienced by bus occupants tend to be less than those experienced by car occupants. Also, because of the elevated seating positions in large buses, bus occupants sit above the area typically damaged in a collision with another vehicle.

NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on large buses from doing so. Although large buses are not required by Federal law to have passenger safety belts, bus owners are free to purchase their buses with safety belts installed if they believe their particular circumstances warrant such installation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d.12/17/96

ID: 11208

Mr. Jim Schroeder
Graco Inc.
P.O. Box 1441
Minneapolis, MN 55440

Dear Mr. Schroeder:

This responds to your inquiry about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) with which your trailer must comply. You state that your company plans to manufacture a trailer mounted striper that applies reflective paint stripes to roadways. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that your trailer will spend a significant amount of time traveling on public roads between job sites. Please note that we are returning the photographs attached to your letter that were marked Aconfidential.@

As way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the FMVSSs are promulgated. The statute defines the term Amotor vehicle@ as follows:

AAny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.@

Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is a Amotor vehicle@ within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and telephone conversation that the trailer spends extended periods of time on the public roads moving between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be its primary purpose.

The following Federal safety standards apply to trailers: Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which address conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers, and Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, while your vehicle is not required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.

In addition as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA=s safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA d:11/17/95

ID: 1985-02.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John L. Strickland

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John L. Strickland J.S. Welding Rt. 5 Box 496 Denham Springs, Louisiana 70726

Dear Mr. Strickland:

I am responding to your February 20, 1985 request for information regarding Federal regulation of trailer manufacturing.

There is no Federal Licensing requirement for the manufacture of trailers, which are considered motor vehicles under Federal law. As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, however, you must submit identification information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You must also certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal regulations. The procedure is specified in 49 CFR Part 567.

At this time, the only safety standards applicable to all trailers are Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, Safety Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, and Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number-Basic Requirements. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at Part 565. Trailers with certain braking systems also must meet Safety Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, Safety Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids, and Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. These standards are found in Part 571 of 49 CFR.

I am enclosing an information sheet that explains how you can obtain copies of these regulations. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

February 20, 1985

National Hwy. Traffic Safety Admin. Office of Chief Council 400 7th Street Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

I need all information on what I need to obtain the necessary manufacturing license for this operation.

The trailers will range from approximately 6' long by 6' wide; 1 axle - gross weight of 750 to 1500 pounds - to 20' long by 6' 6' wide; 3 axles - gross weight of 20,000 pounds.

As it stands in our business at the present we will be building between 10 and 20 trailers a year.

We are new in this field, if you need more information please contact me.

Yours truly,

John L. Strickland J. S. Welding Rt. 5 Box 496 Denham Springs, Louisiana 70726 504 - 6644593

ID: nht87-1.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ching-Hsien Huang

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Ching-Hsien Huang Branch Chief Structural Analysis Department Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan, Taiwan 33099 Republic of China

Dear Mr. Huang:

Thank you for your letter of May 4, 1987, asking several questions about Standard No. 210, Roof Crush Resistance, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether Standard No. 216 is still in effect. The answer is yes.

You also asked whether Standard No. 216 can be substituted for the rollover test contained in the first, second, or third option of Standard No. 208. - The answer is that compliance with the roof crush resistance requirements of Standard No. 216 cannot b e substituted for compliance with the rollover test of Standard No. 208.

I would like to clarify the applicability of the rollover test requirement of Standard No. 208 for you. The only rollover test contained in Standard No. 208 is found in 54.1.2.1 of the standard. A vehicle is subject to the test only if the vehicle's manu facturer chooses to meet it instead of an alternative requirement. 54.1. 2. l(a)- provides that a manufacturer has to meet the dynamic occupant protection requirements by automatic means in a frontal/angular crash test. In addition, a manufacturer must m eet 54.1.2.1(c). 54.1.2.1 (c ) provides a manufacturer with two options. A manufacturer can either meet the requirements of 54.1.2.1 (c)(l) and provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in a literal crash test and a rollover crash test or a ma nufacturer can meet the requirements of 54. 1. 2.1 (c) ( 2) and provide a manual lap or a manual lap/shoulder below at each front designated seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to meet 54.1.2.1 (c) ( 2), the vehicle must comply with 54.1.2.1(s) a nd provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in a frontal/angular test with the manual safety belt unfastened. In addition, the vehicle must provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in a frontal/angular test with the manual safety belt fastened.

I hope this answers your questions, if you need further information please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ERIKA Z. JONES CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION MAY 4, 1987

DEAR SIR,

WE ARE THE ENGINEERING CENTER OF YUE LOONG MOTOR COMPANY IN TAIWAN. PLEASE REPLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. (1) HAD STANDARD NO. 216, ROOF CRUSH RESISTANCE--PASSENGER CARS, BEEN REVOKED AFTER AUGUST 15, 1977)

(2) IF THE ANSWER OF (1) IS NO, CAN STANDARD NO. 216 BE A SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ROLLOVER TEST REQUIREMENT IN THE FIRST, SECOND, OR THIRD OPTION OF STANDARD NO. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION, NOWADAYS?

YOUR HELP WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

SINCERELY YOURS,

CHING-HSIEN HUANG BRANCH CHIEF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS DEPT.

ID: 22559.drn

William Kurtz, Department Manager
Environmental & Safety Engineering
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
One Mercedes Drive, P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350





Dear Mr. Kurtz:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. You wish to know whether your proposed vehicle design, in which the park position control is not included in the shift lever sequence, but is activated by a separate push-button control mounted on the end of the transmission shift lever, must meet the park position requirement in S3.1.1 of Standard No.102. As explained below, the answer is no.

Before addressing the substantive question that you raised, I note that you have asked for confidential treatment of certain bracketed information in your request for an interpretation, and have provided copies of the letter with the confidential information redacted. In order to save time, I agree to keep confidential the bracketed information, with the exception of a quotation from a letter of September 25, 1998, from Frank Seales, Jr., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Chief Counsel, to BMW of North America, Inc., which is a publicly available letter.

Paragraph S3.1.1 of Standard No 102, Location of transmission shift lever positions on passenger cars, states, in part, " . . . If the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, it shall be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position." [emphasis added.]

This provision was interpreted by this office in a letter of September 25, 1998, to BMW of North America, Inc., (BMW). In that letter, we stated in part:

Paragraph S3.1.1 explicitly limits the requirement to those park positions included within the "shift lever sequence." It is our interpretation that if park is not selected by the movement of the shift lever, then the park control is not part of the shift lever sequence. In this case, the sentence quoted above does not apply, and the park control does not have to be located at the end, adjacent to reverse.

The park position described in your letter is not included in the shift lever sequence. It is selected not by the movement of the shift, lever but by pushing on a push-button control mounted on the end of the transmission shift lever. Therefore, as was the case for the vehicle with the park position control described in our September 25, 1998, letter to BMW, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC's vehicle with the park position control described in your letter need not meet the park position requirement in S3.1.1 of Standard No. 102.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:102
d.2/2/01

ID: 19948.ztv

Mr. Ron Dawson
4224 Quince Road
Portsmouth, VA 23703

Dear Mr. Dawson:

This is in reply to your e-mail of May 5, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, on kit cars. We had previously written you on this subject on March 29, 1999, and you have two further questions. I apologize for the delay in our response.

In our earlier letter we informed you that we would regard the person installing the engine and transmission of a kit car, whether the kit purchaser or a commercial entity, as the manufacturer of the vehicle and responsible for its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You cite a letter from this Office to Kent Morris, dated April 22, 1991, in which we stated that a manufacturer is any person assembling more than one motor vehicle. Your asked whether we will "consider the kit purchaser who installs an engine and transmission into a single car a manufacturer."

The answer is that the assembler of a single kit car is a "manufacturer." We have reviewed the statement you cited in our April 22, 1991 letter and concluded that it was incorrect. In other letters, we have stated that a purchaser who completes a kit is a manufacturer (see 1979 letter to the Honorable John C. Stennis) and that even if someone produces only a single motor vehicle, that vehicle must be certified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards if its producer intends it to operate on the public roads (see 1997 letter to Mr. Dion A. DeVan).

You note that 49 U.S.C. 30112 states that, with certain exceptions, "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard . . . ." I would point out that driving a vehicle on the public roads would be considered an introduction into interstate commerce. Therefore, a person who assembled a kit car which did not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and then drove the vehicle on the public roads would be in violation of this section.

You also asked whether we would "enforce compliance upon a person who installs an engine and transmission in a kit car and then uses the completed motor vehicle for his/her personal highway use." If we should become aware of an apparent violation in such a situation, we would decide what action to take at that time. I would also note that, in addition to facing a potential Federal enforcement action, such a person might also be in violation of State laws. Moreover, in the event of a crash, there could be potential liability issues both for the assembler of the kit car and for the kit manufacturer. A local attorney could advise you about the laws of your state and potential liability issues.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/20/00

ID: 20937.ztv

[       ]

Dear:

This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1999, asking whether a lighting device you describe would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You requested that we keep your letter and our reply "in strict confidence." As Taylor Vinson of this Office informed you on December 2, 1999, our interpretations are publicly available and must contain sufficient information for the general public to understand the question being asked and our response to it. We can ensure that publicly available copies of interpretation letters do not identify the writer or the company involved, and you agreed that we could provide you an interpretation on this basis.

You report that "tractor/trailer combinations today have areas around the vehicle where the driver cannot see other vehicles that are passing them. These blind spots in the mirror systems can cause accidents." You are interested in a lighting device that " would be mounted high on the side of a trailer and would shine a light beam (laser or other type of lighting device) down and across the adjacent traffic lane." The light "would shine on the hood of a passing vehicle" thereby providing the driver with a warning that they are in the tractor trailer's blind spot." The color of the light would be yellow, blue, or red.

Under Standard No. 108, non-standard lighting devices are permitted as original equipment if they do not impair the effectiveness of lighting devices required by Standard No. 108. Although this device would not appear to impair the effectiveness of standard lighting equipment, we are concerned that it might impair driver performance. Our principal reservation about new lighting concepts such as this is that they are unfamiliar to drivers and will cause confusion, diverting attention from critical driving tasks. In this case, a driver finding a red, amber, or blue light suddenly shining on the vehicle hood may instinctively turn to see where it is originating, or brake when there is no need to do so. When a vehicle is traveling faster than a trailer on which the device is mounted, the light beam could proceed from the hood into the passenger compartment, at least on open cars, possibly temporarily blinding the driver. Thus, the device you describe could create actual hazards.

You must remember, too, that a state may apply its own laws to auxiliary lighting devices and require specific approval to use them. Virtually all states reserve the color blue for emergency signals. Standard No. 108 does not permit side marker lamps and reflectors to be red except when they are mounted as far to the rear as practicable, and we apply this requirement to auxiliary side lighting devices as well.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/19/00

ID: 8223

Mr. Donald L. Anglin
706 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22903

Dear Mr. Anglin:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether removing the self-adjusters on a motor vehicle's drum brakes constitutes a violation of the "anti-tampering" provisions of several Federal laws, including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this agency's regulations. You will need to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for an interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") requires this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the standards issued by NHTSA are Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

NHTSA recently amended these standards to require vehicles to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. (57 FR 47793, October 20, 1992) This rule takes effect on October 20, 1993 for vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes and on October 20, 1994 for vehicles equipped with air brakes. Until these effective dates, a vehicle is not required to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters.

You specifically asked about the agency's "anti-tampering" provisions. While the agency has no provision called this, the Safety Act does include a provision known as the "rendering inoperative" provision which is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

For vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the new requirements for automatic adjusters, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses will be prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) from rendering the devices inoperative. For vehicles manufactured before that time, such an entity should ensure that removal of the adjusters does not otherwise render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with a safety standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:105#121 d:4/19/93

ID: 8513

Mr. Carl W. Ruegg
President
Carlo International, Inc.
P.O. Box 250
Selma, CA 93662

Dear Mr. Ruegg:

This responds to your letter of March 27, 1993, to Mr. Eisner of the General Counsel's Office of the Department of Transportation (DOT). You intend to import "car parts" into the United States, and would like to know "the legal definition of a vehicle that comes within the scope of D.O.T. regulations". You assume that "a part such as fender or other body parts do not." You have asked this question because some individual parts may arrive as part of assemblies, such as "chassis and body assembly or perhaps chassis and body plus front & rear axle transmissions."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that regulates the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, principally through the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued under its authority such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Each part or component of a motor vehicle is motor vehicle equipment subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction.

The Act requires that motor vehicle equipment, whether new or used, meet all applicable FMVSS in order to be imported into the U.S. Some of the FMVSS apply to items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, whether shipped separately or as part of an assembly, equipment such as brake hoses, tires, brake fluid, rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers must comply in order to be admitted into this country.

As your question implies, there is a point at which an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment becomes a "motor vehicle". An assemblage becomes an "incomplete motor vehicle" subject to regulation as a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) when it consists, at a minimum, of "frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle (Sec. 568.3)." As the intention is to import the vehicle without the electric power train, the assemblage you contemplate is not a "motor vehicle" and remains an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment whose individual components, as noted in the preceding paragraph, are required to comply with the applicable FMVSS.

Your letter informs us that "[t]hese parts and partial assembly's (sic) would be sold as kits for conversion to electric vehicle." When the power train is added, the person completing the manufacture of the vehicle is considered to be its manufacturer, required to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

If you have any further questions, we would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591#568#VSA d:5/18/93