ID: nht72-1.39

DATE: 03/23/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of March 3, 1972, you asked for our interpretation of how a rigid bracket installed on the B-pillar to guide the shoulder belt would be treated under Standard 210.

Although the bracket in question does not perform all the functions of the anchorage, in that it would sustain only a fraction of the total force imposed on the anchorage in an accident, it performs a significant anchorage function by controlling the angle at which the shoulder belt crosses the occupant's chest. It is therefore considered a part of the anchorage and must fall within the acceptable range for upper torso anchorage locations specified in Standard 210.

If you have information to indicate that the acceptable zone could be extended forward of its present position without lessening the effectiveness of the shoulder belt, we would be most interested in obtaining it for review.

ID: nht74-5.51

DATE: 04/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Law Ofices of William and Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 29, 1974, requesting information and documentation concerning Fuel System Integrity Standards.

The GSA 515/26 Standard which you mentioned was published July 15, 1966, and was effective October 13, 1967. This standard was effectively supplanted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 which was effective January 1, 1968. A copy of this original Standard No. 301 is enclosed for your information along with a recent amendment (F.R. 39, 10586, March 21, 1974) that substantially upgrades the requirements of this standard.

We do not consider it appropriate to give advice concerning private incidents or controversies, beyond what is contained in our regulations and other public issuances. You may find it helpful to contact private-sector groups such as the Society of Automotive Engineers for further information.

ENC. (3)

Williams and Black

March 29, 1974

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration OFFICE OF CRASHWORTHINESS

Attention: Guy Hunter

Re: KLANN vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

I had a very lengthy conversation with Mr. Koschak in the Los Angeles Office of the General Services Administration. He very kindly referred me to you for help needed in this matter.

We presently have an action pending against the Ford Motor Company for the deaths of two adults following a collision while they were driving a 1965 Model P-250 pick-up truck. This pick-up truck had a camper installed on the bed.

The accident would be a barrier-type crash in which a vehicle went out of control on the opposite side of the road, came into the lane of the subject vehicle and the crash ensued.

The husband and wife occupying the pick-up truck were burned to death. We have had several experts examine this vehicle and have described the mechanism of their incineration as a shearing of the neck of the gas-tank filler pipe, along with some displacement of the cab of the vehicle itself. Between the shearing of the neck, as well as the displacement, the fuel in the tank was forced into the driving compartment, and a fire of great intensity developed.

This fire was of sufficient intensity to melt the interior fittings of the vehicle, as well as causing fatal injuries to the occupants.

During the process of our litigation with Ford Motor Company, we have had occasion to examine, but not photocopy certain of their crash tests. These crash tests make reference to a publication specifically referred to as "1968 GSA Standard 515/26-53.2." This reference was contained in test No. D-5192 performed on October 15, 1966. This was a sixteen mile per hour crash into a movable barrier. I further note that in one of the additional tests, more particularly, No. D S126 performed on August 5, 1966, which was a 29.5 m.p.h. crash into a barrier, the test results indicated that the fuel tank displaced; however, no photos of the crashed vehicle were attached to the Ford test.

We are interested in learning the specifications or directions from the Department of Transportation to auto manufactuers and, more particularly, as relates to the fuel systems and locations in 1965 and 1966 model vehicles -- i.e., pick-up trucks. We would also like to know whether or not the Department of Transportation directed any recall or modification campaigns, either by direction or by suggestion to the automobile manufacturers, especially Ford Motor Company.

We have been advised by our own automotive engineers that the location of the gasoline tank is a defect in design. We believe that our position would be further fortified by some communications or directions from the Department of Transportation directed to the various automobile manufacturers as relate to the location or stability of gasoline tank systems.

I am uncertain as to what we are looking for is adequately described within this letter; however, I believe the brief description I have given may be sufficient for you to determine specifically what we are looking for.

We would certainly appreciate any copies of correspondence or any other documents you may have as pertains to this problem and, more particularly, communications directed to the Ford Motor Company referring to their fuel system in their pick-up trucks.

Thanking you in advance for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation, I remain,

ROBERT S. PRIVER

cc: Mike Koschak c/o General Services Administration Motor Pool 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 3124 Los Angeles, California 90012

ID: 18859.ztv

Andre Hubert, President
Electro Design Stan Inc.
50 Daoust
St-Eustache, Qc J7R 5B5

Dear Mr. Hubert:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Mr. George Entwistle of this agency which was forwarded to this office for response. Your letter seeks to clarify the classification of the Electro-Radar which you intend to export to the United States in the near future. You enclosed a promotional brochure describing the unit and a tariff classification ruling from the U.S. Customs Service.

You described the Electro-Radar as a radar system mounted on a trailer that is used by municipalities and other transportation departments to determine the speed of passing motor vehicles, then display in large LED numbers both the applicable speed limit and the speed of the vehicle. You stated that the unit is mounted on a trailer for transport from one site to another. Once at a site the equipment is installed and remains at the same site for periods varying from one day to several weeks. You asked whether this unit may be excluded from the definition of a motor vehicle as long as it has the required lighting equipment and if so, which box on the NHTSA Form HS-7, DECLARATION - Importation of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards, corresponds to your situation.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) (hereinafter Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety 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).

Whether your Electro-Radar is considered to be a motor vehicle depends on its intended use. It is NHTSA's position that the statutory definition quoted above does not envision, for example, mobile construction equipment such as cranes and scrapers that use the public roadways only for transport between off-road job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at those off-road sites. In such cases, the on-road use of that equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the equipment was manufactured. This contrasts with vehicles such as dump trucks that frequently use the public roadways going to and from off-road job sites but remain at those sites for only a limited period of time. Those vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act since their on-road use is more than merely "incidental."

The descriptive brochure of the Electro-Radar shows that it is a small, very mobile unit that can be easily towed from site to site over the public roads. Not only is the unit towed on-road while being transported to its next site, the brochure shows that the unit is likely to be used on the public streets or roads as a means of traffic speed control. Your letter states that the units are utilized at those sites from one day to several weeks, which means that the units are frequently transported over the public roads. Such frequent transportation of the Electro-Radar over the public streets and roads is more than merely incidental to the use for which it was manufactured. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the unit meets the definition of a motor vehicle and as you stated, would be classified as a trailer.

A "trailer" is defined in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.3 as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

Thus, in order to be imported into the United States, the Electro-Radar must comply with all FMVSSs applicable to trailers. For your information, I am enclosing a fact sheet entitled Federal Requirements for Manufacturers of Trailers. Please note that, among other things, the trailer must be assigned a vehicle identification number (VIN) that complies with 49 CFR Part 565 and be certified as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 567.

You also asked which box should be marked on the Form HS-7 if the trailer is considered a motor vehicle. For the trailer in question, you should mark Box 2A.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers or Taylor Vinson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 or 366-5263 respectively, or either by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ref:108;#VSA
d.5/4/99

ID: nht74-5.53

DATE: 08/05/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Adams & Westlake Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hansing:

This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1974, regarding Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217. You requested that we reconsider our opinion of June 11, 1974, that a bus emergency release mechanism which you describe must meet the requirements for emergency exit release in S5.3.2 of the standard after as well as before the retention test required by S5.1, when the glass breaks during the retention test.

Paragraph S5.3.2 requires that the release requirements be met both before and after the retention test. We do not find sufficient justification to relax this requirement in the situation you described. First, it is not clear that it is as easy as you represent to eliminate by hand all of the glazing material left in the frame. More importantly, however, we still question whether most persons are sufficiently cognizant of the qualities of tempered glass to attempt to remove the remaining fragments in an emergency situation. Finally, glazing with completely different breakage characteristics may be used to replace the original tempered glass at some time during the life of the bus. For these reasons, our conclusion of June 11 remains the same.

Yours Truly,

July 3, 1974

Office of Chief Counsul

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention Mr. Richard Dyson

In regard to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217, "Bus Window Retention and Release S5.3.2 and our previous correspondence (here enclosed), please reconsider our request for exemption from having operable release mechanisms after the retention test when glazing with tempered glass.

In my letter to you of April 16, 1974 we noted that tempered glass once broken made the operation of any release mechanism unnecessary, as any glass remaining in the opening would be easily removed by touch. We therefore asked for exemption from the requirement that the release mechanism be operable after the retention portion of the test on the basis that the release mechanism would no longer be necessary in the event of glass breakage.

Our design, which is proposed for use on short and mid-range transit busses, uses an extruded aluminum frame which is screwed to the coach body. The glass is glazed directly into the frame; the stationary lite being returned by a rubber extrusion and bedding tape. The sliding glass is also retained directly in the frame and glides horizontally in a pocket weatherstrip. The release lock mechanism is bonded directly to the sliding lite and retains it in a closed position by engaging a groove in the extruded frame rail.

To meet the opening requirement of S5.2.2B of the spec, the release lock mechanism is disengaged and the sliding lite is moved foreward or rearward, depending on which half contains the sliding lite, until the minimum opening width of 20 inches is obtained. See drawing #DK-1553 and test pictures which show the type of window proposed.

This system meets the preliminary release test and the retention test without question, but if the tempered sliding glass shatters during the lotter test most of the glass, often including the release lock mechanism, falls out of the opening. This obviates any further practical need for the release

lock mechanism as the required opening, if not immediately obtained by the breakage of the sliding lite, can be obtained by touching any remaining glass cubes which will cause them to crumble and fall out. In the event that the tempered glass does not break during testing, or more importantly during crash impact, the mechanism would obviously be required to function.

We feel that our system fully meets the intent of the specification in providing unobstructed openings for emergency agress. We respectfully request that you reconsider our request for exemption from the portion of paragraph S5.3.2 which requires that the release lock mechanism remain operable after the retention test when tempered glass is used in this manner and has broken out during that test. Please give this request your earliest consideration as a reply is urgently needed by August 1, 1974.

Ronald J. Hansing Project Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1984-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/06/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheeskin; Hillman & Lazar; P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jacob Sheeskin Sheeskin, Hillman & Lazar, P.C. 6110 Executive Boulevard P.O. Box 2186 Rockville, MD 20852

RE: your file 3189/001:11

Dear Mr. Sheeskin:

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1984, concerning discussions between your client and the Maryland State Police about the application of tinting or sun screening materials to vehicle glazing materials. This office has sent two letters of interpretation concerning the application of glazing materials to the Maryland State Police. I am enclosing a copy of the agency's letters of December 20, 1983 and April 3, 1984 and the Maryland States Police's original request for an interpretation.

As stated in our letter of April 7, 1984, the application of tinting materials to glazing does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of the render inoperative provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. To violate section 108(a)(2)(A), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops that install tinting materials must knowingly install materials which render inoperative the glazing material's compliance with Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, a motor vehicle repair shop would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) if it knowingly installed on a passenger car's window a tinting material which would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance or luminous transmittance requirements of the standard.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 7, 1984

In reply refer to: Our File No. 3189/001:11 Gerald S. Lakas, t/a Custom Window Tinting Services

Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This will confirm my telephone conversations of March 5th and 6th with Steve Oesch, Esquire, of your office. I informed Mr. Oesch that I represent Gerald S. Lakas, t/a Custom Window Tinting Services. Mr. Lakas is in the business of tinting automobile windows in the state of Maryland. On March 2, 1984 he received a call from the Automotive Safety Enforcement Division of the Maryland State Police which in effect ordered him to cease and desist his business immediately. A statement by the Maryland State Police officer was that as a result of a recent court case in Hawaii and as a result of a recent ruling by your office that the addition of tinting film or sunscreen materials to vehicle glazing on passenger cars is not in conformance with abrasion resistance requirements and may also exceed allowable luminous transmittance requirements set forth in 49 CFR 571.205. It is also our understanding that the Maryland State Police issued a directive that Class A Maryland registered passenger vehicles would not be permitted to have window tinting that was not incorporated into the original glazing on any window by the manufacturer.

Mr. Oesch of your office was kind enough to furnish us with a copy of USA Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways and we, of course, reviewed 49 CFR 571.205 as well as 15 USCA 1391, et seq.

After reviewing the above material we came to the conclusion that the addition of tinting film or sunscreen materials in and of itself does not violate any federal regulation as long as the material complies with the luminescence and abrasive requirements. I asked Mr. Oesch if it is possible for us to obtain a statement to this effect from your office and he suggested that I write this letter to you. We have talked to the manufacturer of the tinting material that our client uses and we are assured by the manufacturer that the material complies with federal regulations. We have also suggested to our client that he have his material tested locally to make sure he is in compliance.

For your information we enclose a copy of a letter we have addressed to Captain W.R. Janey of the Maryland State Police Automotive Safety Enforcement Division which explains the position we have taken with said facility. We do not feel that the Maryland State Police had any authority to order Mr. Lakas to cease his operations. We have advised Mr. Lakas that we feel he should stay in business until such time it has been demonstrated that his materials do not comply with federal regulations and if they do not comply we suggested that he seek another supplier of material or that his materials be modified to comply with federal regulations. It is not our client's intention to violate any federal or state law or regulation.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend Mr. Oesch for his very prompt attention to my inquiry. He was most informative and very helpful in resolving my client's problem.

Very truly yours,

Jacob Sheeskin

JS/drw

ID: nht72-4.24

DATE: 07/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Standard-Triumph Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1972, in which you requested formal confirmation of the interpretation of S4.3(c) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 given you informally on June 22.

The requirements of S4.3(c) apply to bolts used to secure the pelvic restraint of a seat belt assembly. They do not apply to bolts used to secure the upper torso restraint. Bolts for the upper torso restraint are therefore regulated with respect to their strength only by the assembly performance requirements of S4.4(b).

The reference to "shoulder bolts" in S4.3(c) relates to the design of the bolt and not to the manner of its use. Pelvic restraints are often attached to the vehicle by such bolts, hence the reference to them.

ID: 19090.ztv

Ken Silverman, Manager of Marketing
Portable Products Division
Ingersoll-Rand Company
501 Sanford Avenue
P. O. Box 868
Mocksville, NC 27028

Dear Mr. Silverman:

We regret the delay in responding to your letter concerning the portable air compressors that your company manufactures. According to your letter, some of these units are trailered behind vehicles. You asked our interpretation as to whether the compressors are trailers as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 and, if so, which lighting requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, are applicable.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a "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).

Your letter enclosed pictures and a written description of the air compressors that indicated that the compressors are used for a variety of purposes and in a variety of locations. For example, they can be used at construction sites, agricultural locations, nuclear power plants, fairs and carnivals, movie sets, and the like.

Whether the agency considers your units to be motor vehicles depends on their intended use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

We do not have sufficient information about the use of your various air compressors to determine whether or not they are motor vehicles. I note, by way of guidance, that we concluded that mobile waterjet cutting and cleaning equipment was not a motor vehicle, based on the fact that it appeared to stay on job sites for extended periods of time ranging from a week to over a year.

If, however, your portable air compressors are used frequently on the highways, they would be considered motor vehicles and would be required to comply with all applicable FMVSSs, including Standard No. 108. For purposes of explaining how the standard would apply to your units, the following discussion assumes that they would be considered motor vehicles.

It appears from the pictures you sent us that the compressor is a trailer of less than 80 inches in overall width. The lighting requirements for a trailer of this size are set forth in Tables III and IV of Standard No. 108, copies of which I enclose. Table III lists the equipment required for trailers and the applicable SAE materials, and Table IV, the location of this equipment. The requirements of Table III are modified by certain exceptions in S5.1.1 and those of Table IV, by exceptions in S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108.

If the combination lamp on the rear of your trailer incorporates a turn signal function as well as tail and stop functions, the trailer appears to be equipped with the number and types of lamps and reflectors required by Table III of Standard No. 108. The location of this equipment also appears to accord with the requirements of Table IV. You still must determine, or assure yourself, that these devices meet the performance requirements of the standard before certifying that the trailer conforms to all applicable FMVSS. If, as we believe most likely, you are buying lighting equipment for the trailer in the aftermarket, the manufacturer of the equipment should already have certified its conformance with Standard No. 108, either by placing a DOT symbol on the item, or a certification on the container in which it is sold. This is your best assurance of compliance. If the lighting equipment is being manufactured to your specifications and is not being sold in the aftermarket, please call Taylor Vinson of this Office, who will explain to you manufacturer-supplier responsibilities in this situation.

We are also enclosing for your information a fact sheet listing the FMVSSs and other regulations applicable to trailers.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Mr. Vinson as well (phone:202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.2/9/99

ID: nht91-2.25

DATE: March 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.

COPYEE: Thomas Rabago -- Highway Safety Coordinator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letters of December 11, 1990, and January 22, 1991, to Clive Van Orden of this agency, enclosing copies of your letters to Representative Blaz, dated July 6 and October 11, 1990, and to our Office of Enforcement dated July 5, 1990. You have also enclosed a copy of a letter that Governor Guerrero of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) wrote on your behalf on October 11, 1990, to Representative Blaz.

Your letter to us of July 5, 1990, expresses your understanding that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply in the CNMI, and that you, as an importer, have imported only vehicles that are certified as conforming to the FMVSS; however, certain of your competitors have not. You asked "Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?" To similar effect is your letter of the next day to Representative Blaz. Governor Guerrero's letter to Mr. Blaz expresses his opinion that the FMVSS do not apply in the CNMI.

The Governor explains:

By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except (NHTSA believes he means "accept") federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since 1966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979 (sic).

It looks like we get the law. But that is not the end of the analysis.

We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for self-government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI.

These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI; it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands.

(I)t is our position that the FMVSS does (sic) apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration.

We cannot agree with the Governor's conclusion. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), does apply in the CNMI, as do all regulations such as the FMVSS that are issued under the authority of that law.

The Governor believes that "automobile safety is an internal affair". For the most part we agree, but not with respect to the primacy of the FMVSS. We agree that vehicle registration, taxation, and use of the roads in the CNMI are matters properly under the jurisdiction of the CNMI. Further, the Act permits local jurisdictions to enact or continue in effect their own vehicle safety standards provided that they do not differ from the FMVSS (except as may apply to their own official vehicles). The FMVSS are manufacturing standards that apply when the vehicles are built, imported, and sold.

We are sorry that your observance of the law may have put you at a competitive disadvantage. If you have specific information regarding possible violations of the importation provisions of the Act in the CNMI including the names and addresses of specific businesses or individuals, please communicate that information to Mr. Van Orden. Our sources of information are kept confidential.

Although the FMVSS apply in the CNMI, it is obvious that enforcement of them by this agency is made more difficult by the absence of agency staff in the CNMI. If local government would "move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law", then they may be enforced locally. I cannot think of a single one of the FMVSS that would not be of benefit. Although speeds may be low on the roads of the CNMI, many of the FMVSS are intended to provide crash protection at 30 m.p.h. Obviously, FMVSS that pertain to vehicle lighting, windshield wiping and washing, etc. provide protection at any speed.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

ID: 21324.ztv

Mr. Kenneth J. Sailor
2 Oaks Road
Shiplake
Henley on Thames
Oxfordshire RG9 3JH
England

Dear Mr. Sailor:

This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 2000, informing us of your plans to import "an assemblage of parts" intended to restore a 1979 Caterham Seven sports car.

The parts to be imported would not include the engine and transmission. We note also that the assemblage would not include the following parts that are themselves subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS): brake hoses, brake fluid, glazing, seat belts, headlamps, "taillight assemblies," turn signals, side marker lamps, and reflectors. You will also "fit DOT certified tires to the wheels." You have asked us for a letter stating that the "assemblage of parts being imported is not subject to DOT requirements."

You have not mentioned other motor vehicle lighting equipment such as stop lamps, parking lamps, backup lamps, and license plate lamps. If the Caterham Seven was equipped with these items of lighting equipment (you may have included stop lamps in the phrase "taillamp assemblies"), these items also must be removed from the assemblage if they have not been certified to comply with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Then, the individual equipment items remaining on the assemblage of parts as you have described it will not be subject to any of the FMVSS.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.3/27/00

ID: 1982-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sure-View, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mar 25, 1982

Mr. M. W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridan Street Wichita, KA 67203

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to your letter of February 8, 1982, concerning compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, in particular compliance with Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors.

You are correct that section 102(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(2)) defines; in part, a motor vehicle safety standard as "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance...." Thus, each of the agency's safety standards sets a minimum level of performance which must be met by every manufacturer. Manufacturers are free to utilize designs that exceeds the minimum level of performance set by a standard as long as their products still comply with the standard. Thus, in the case of schoolbus rearview mirrors, a manufacturer must at least comply with the requirements of section 9.1 of Standard No. 111 regarding mirror size, and may voluntarily provide a mirror of a larger size. As explained in the enclosed letter, the Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the agency to regulate aspect of design, such as mirror size.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 8, 1982

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to direct your attention to the enclosed copy of a letter from the State of Texas.

It is my opinion and belief standards established by the NHTSA are minimum and should not probibit the use of an item that is Superior in Safety Performance.

This Design Standard requires 50 square inches of flat glass mounted firmly on each side of a Van Type vehicle in such a manner that if any portion of each mirror is visible to the driver, it meets the requirement of the NHTSA.

In the interest of Safety, the mirror system should minimize the obstruction of the forward view to the driver--NO more than you need and NO less than you need. The driver and children riding scbool buses should not be subjected to the hazards involved with separately adjustable flat and convex mirrors and/or mirrors reflection rearward that may reflect false and/or mis-leading information to the driver.

I cannot agree this Design Standard is in accord with the intent of The Congress. I believe it was the intent of The Congress to make a contribution to the Prevention of Accidents as clearly defined in Section 102(2) of the Transportation Act.

Please advise the position of the NHTSA as to permitting the use of items Superior in Safety Performance when a Design Standard of this type has been issued.

Sincerely,

SURE VIEW, INC.

M. W. Urban

MWU/h1 Encl.

cc: Congressman Dan Glickman 1507 Longworth Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515

February 4, 1982

Reference: 070-36-1D

M. W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 North Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203

Gentlemen:

This is in response to your letter of February 1, 1982 about rearview mirrors and Your sample mirror model number 3004.

We are familiar with the revision of section 393.80 issued on April 13, 1979 and published in the Federal Register May 1, 1979. This revision amends the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and not FMVSS 111. In addition, this revision speaks to the number of rearview mirrors required and not their dimensions. The language in section 393.80 clearly requires conformance with FMVSS 111.

Section S9.1 of FMVSS 111 requires rearview mirrors on both sides of all school buses and these mirrors must contain 50 square inches of flat reflective surface.

He are therefore required to withdraw approval of your 3000 series mirrors for use on Texas buses.

Please advise what disposition you wish made of the sample mirror you sent.

Yours truly,

Don Miller, Specification Technician Specification Section (512)475-2231

DM/dh cc: Max Walton