Bob Snyder, Vice President
Longacre and Associates, Inc.
424 Fourth Street
Suite C
Annapolis, MD 21403

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This responds to your August 24, 2000, letter asking whether vehicles are allowed to have any size side windows in the front seat occupant compartment. Specifically, you ask about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205) and FMVSS No. 214, Side door strength (49 CFR 571.214), as applied to a flatbed-type truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of 18,000 pounds. Our answer is that our standards do not directly limit the size of vehicle side windows.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, nor endorses products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing new vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

Our FMVSSs set forth requirements for safety performance, in terms that minimize design restrictions. Ejection of occupants through glazing (through windshields or the side windows) is a safety concern addressed by several standards, including FMVSS No. 205. FMVSS No. 205 sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of replacement equipment. FMVSS No. 212, Windshield mounting (49 CFR 571.212), establishes windshield retention requirements to reduce the likelihood of ejection of occupants in a crash. FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release (49 CFR 571.217), establishes requirements for the retention of windows in buses, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the bus.

You also inquire about the requirements of FMVSS No. 214. FMVSS No. 214 specifies vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes and specified strength requirements for side doors. FMVSS No. 214 does not apply to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 18,000 pounds.

At this time, the above-discussed standards do not directly restrict the size of side windows. NHTSA, however, in response to the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 and ongoing research into rollover and ejection mitigation, is currently evaluating the potential of advanced glazing systems to reduce occupant ejection. The agency has recently published a report entitled "Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing: Status Report II" which evaluates the progress of that advanced glazing research. This report is available online at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/include/nrd10/nrd11/glazing.html or may be ordered through NHTSA's Technical Information Services at 1-800-445-0197.

I note that the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. FMCSA was established on January 1, 2000, and was formerly a part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). You may wish to contact the FMCSA at (202) 366-4012 for information concerning the issues discussed in your correspondence.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:205
d.1/3/01

The Honorable Patsy Mink
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-1102

Dear Congresswoman Mink:

Thank you for your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Administrator Dr. Sue Bailey. Your constituent, Ms. Grace Fox works for the Lutheran High School in Honolulu. Ms. Fox's school was notified by their insurance company that the school's coverage would not be continued because the vans used by the school to transport students do not meet Federal safety standards. You wish to know what the Federal standards for school buses are and whether the standards apply to both public school and private school buses. Because you seek information about NHTSA's laws, Dr. Bailey has asked me to respond to you.

NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. ⁽¹⁾ 49 U.S.C. 30125. This definition was enacted in 1974, as part of a comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

The great majority of vehicles used to transport students fall within the definition of "school bus." More specifically, any new "bus" sold to a school district, or to a private school, is considered to be a "school bus" when sold for pupil transportation, and as such must comply with the school bus safety standards. A dealer or distributor who sells a new bus to a school district or private school that does not meet school bus standards is subject to penalties under the statute.

Some of the FMVSSs have additional requirements that apply to school buses, but do not apply to buses that are not school buses. In addition, some FMVSSs apply only to school buses. As an example of the former, additional exterior lighting and reflective tape are required that make these vehicles more visible and alert other motorists that school children may be in the roadway when a school bus is stopped. For the latter, school buses must be equipped with stop arm devices to reduce the instances where other motorists pass stopped school buses. Furthermore, school buses must provide crash protection in areas where pupils are seated.

Because our laws generally apply only to manufacturers and dealers of new motor vehicles, we do not regulate a school's use of a bus to transport school children, even when the bus does not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each state has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.

A school district or private school can be sold a used bus, even when the bus could not be sold when new. This is because our requirement to sell vehicles that meet applicable safety standards does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle ... in good faith other than for resale," i.e., to sales of used vehicles. Nonetheless, because school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, we strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses.

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the enclosed abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Womack, Esq., NHTSA's Senior Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.10/17/00

1. NHTSA has consistently interpreted "related events" to include school-sponsored field trips and athletic events.

Mr. Mitsuhide Kikkawa
Mazda North American Operations
1500 Enterprise Drive
Allen Park, MI 48101-2053

Dear Mr. Kikkawa:

This in response to your September 12, 2000, letter regarding the provisions of Standard No. 201, "Occupant protection in interior impact," as they relate to convertible roof frames and roof linkages. In your letter, you observe that S6.3(a) of Standard No. 201 exempts certain convertible roof frame and roof linkage components from the requirements of Standard No. 201 and ask several questions about these exemptions in relation to both the soft-top and removable hard top versions of the Mazda Miata.

You ask a number of questions relating to the application of Standard No. 201 to the soft-top version of the Miata. Your letter describes the Miata as having a movable convertible roof linkage with a locking system on the roof frame that engages fixed anchorages located at the junction of the A-pillar and the front header. You ask if the fixed anchorages located at the junction of the A-pillar and the front header are exempt from the impact requirements of Standard No. 201 by operation of the exemption contained in S6.3(a). You then ask, in the event these fixed anchorages are exempt, if the A-pillar reference point (APR) were located on the anchorage, if the target area known as A-pillar 1 (AP1) would have to be relocated. Based on Mazda's review of Standard No. 201 and its history, it is your company's belief that the fixed anchorages are exempt from the requirements of Standard No. 201 and that AP1, which is located on the anchorage, would not have to be relocated.

The agency agrees. S6.3(a) of Standard No. 201 provides that a vehicle need not meet the requirements of S6.1 through S6.2 for any target located on a convertible roof frame or a convertible roof linkage mechanism. "Convertible roof frame" is defined in S3 as the frame of a convertible roof. "Convertible roof linkage mechanism" is defined in S3 as any anchorage, fastener, or device necessary to deploy a convertible roof frame. The definition of anchorage does not distinguish between fixed and movable anchorages.

The issue of what constitutes a convertible roof frame and a convertible roof linkage was addressed several times during the development of Standard No. 201. In a response to petitions for reconsideration published in the Federal Register on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) discussed the issue of whether anchorages should be considered to be part of a convertible roof linkage for the purposes of S6.3(a). At that time, the agency indicated that the definition of convertible roof linkage mechanism should not be limited to components on the roof itself and includes anchor points on the front header and/or A-pillar for the convertible roof. The agency's position in regard to anchorages reflects its view at the time when the head impact protection requirements were established. The preamble to the final rule establishing the upper interior head impact provisions - published in the Federal Register on August 18, 1995 (60 FR 43031) - indicated the agency's view that countermeasures would not be feasible on convertible roof frames and linkage mechanisms because the presence of a countermeasure such as padding would interfere with their movement. Therefore, NHTSA decided to exclude from the new requirements any target that would be located on those components. While fixed anchorages were not mentioned at that time, the agency believed then, as it does now, that it would not be practicable to require these anchorages to meet the performance requirements of Standard No. 201. As anchorages are exempt from the Standard's performance requirements, any target point located on such an anchorage is also exempt and would not have to be relocated.

In addition to your concerns regarding anchorages in soft-top convertibles, you also ask if a test conducted against a valid target point in soft-top convertible would be rendered invalid if the free motion headform (FMH) struck a portion of a convertible roof frame after striking a valid target point. In the case where such a secondary impact occurs, and the resulting HIC values from that secondary impact exceed those allowed by Standard No. 201, Mazda believes that the test should be deemed to be invalid. In support of this view, you refer to a February 19, 1999, letter to Mr. George Parker of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers in which NHTSA indicated that secondary impacts with fixed glazing would render a test invalid. In that case, the agency indicated that where a secondary impact with glazing resulted in a noncompliant HIC score, NHTSA would disregard the test results on the basis that impacts with glazing are not within the scope of Standard No. 201.

NHTSA agrees with your interpretation. As noted above, convertible roof frames are exempt from the requirements of Standard No. 201 as it is not practicable to install padding or other countermeasures on a convertible roof frame. As these frames are exempt from the requirements of the Standard, NHTSA will consider a test to be invalid in those instances where a secondary impact with a convertible roof frame results in a HIC score above that which is allowed by Standard No. 201.

Your letter also asks a number of questions about the requirements of Standard No. 201 as they apply to detachable hard tops. According to your letter, the Mazda Miata is also available with a detachable hard top, and this top is secured to the front header through the use of the same anchorage and a similar latching system as are employed in the soft-top version of the Miata. You ask the agency to confirm your interpretation that

the same considerations applicable to the latch and anchorages employed in a soft-top convertible would apply to the latches and anchorages used to secure a detachable hard top to the front header and A-pillar.

As you indicate in your letter, NHTSA addressed the issue of detachable hard tops in the context of Standard No. 201 in response to a Petition for Reconsideration filed by ASC, Inc. in response to the agency's April 8, 1997, final rule (62 FR 16718). The ASC petition requested that the agency modify the definition of convertible roof frame to include hardtop convertibles - i.e., convertible tops that may be raised or lowered but are constructed of rigid folding sections rather than a cloth skin on a rigid frame. In rejecting that request, the agency noted that there did not appear to be any reason to exempt hardtop convertible roofs from the requirements of Standard No. 201 (see 63 FR 19839, April 22, 1998). In making this determination, NHTSA did not squarely address the issue of non-folding detachable hard tops or the linkages and hardware used to attach them to a vehicle. It is NHTSA's view that the considerations applicable to hardtop convertibles also apply to detachable hard tops. It is both reasonable and practicable to expect a detachable hard top to meet the requirements of Standard No. 201. However, NHTSA has not yet addressed the question of the latches and anchorages used to attach a detachable hard top to the front header of a vehicle. In the case of latches and anchorages, NHTSA believes that the installation of effective countermeasures to these components would be difficult at best and at worst would result in designs having little or no practical utility. Accordingly, NHTSA agrees with your view that latch and anchorage mechanisms for detachable hard tops are exempt under S6.3(a) of the standard.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.6/1/01

Edward A. Chapleau, Esq.
Chapleau & Kuehl
419 W. Jefferson Blvd.
P.O. Box 928
South Bend, IN 46624

Dear Mr. Chapleau:

This responds to your letter regarding the automatic seat belt system installed in a model year 1989 passenger car. I regret the delay in our response.

You note that under one of the options specified in S4.1.2.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, certain requirements must be met by means that "require no action by vehicle occupants." You cite a situation where an 8 1/2 month pregnant female owned a 1989 passenger car with a three-point automatic seat belt system. You state that the person advises that:

when she would open the door to get into the vehicle, she had a difficult time because the lower portion of the belt would catch on her legs thereby causing the door to pull shut before her entire body was inside the vehicle and in the seat. Therefore, she unlatched the belt system during her pregnancy so she could more easily enter the vehicle and then would latch the buckle once she was in the driver's seat.

You also state that there were other instances when:

the driver entered the vehicle with the belt latched and the seat belt would end up around the driver's knees when the door was closed. It would be necessary to move the belt from the knees to the pelvis.

You ask: "Under the above circumstances, would this constitute action required by the driver?"

In a notice published in the Federal Register on November 6, 1985 (50 FR 46056, 46063-64), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provided an interpretation of the phrase "no action by vehicle occupants" for automatic seat belt systems. NHTSA explained:

The concept of an occupant protection system which requires "no action by vehicle occupants," as that term is used in Standard No. 208, is intended to designate a system which will perform its protective restraining function after a normal process of ingress or egress without separate deliberate actions by the vehicle occupant to deploy the restraint system. Thus, the agency considers an occupant protection system to be automatic if an occupant has to take no action to deploy the system but would normally slightly push the safety belt webbing aside when entering or exiting the vehicle or would normally make a slight adjustment in the webbing for comfort.

I am enclosing a copy of that notice for your convenience. This interpretation was included in Standard No. 208 in the form of a note at the end of the standard.

In evaluating whether a vehicle's automatic seat belt system requires no action by vehicle occupants, we would consider generally whether "an occupant has to take no action to deploy the system but would normally slightly push the safety belt webbing aside when entering or exiting the vehicle or would normally make a slight adjustment in the webbing for comfort," and not the actions of specific individuals.

I hope this letter answers your questions. Should you have any more questions, please feel free to call Otto Matheke of my office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.5/11/01

Mr. Jeffrey William Clawson
Cooper-Standard Automotive Fluid Systems
Corporate Fuel and Brake Applications Laboratory
3955 Pinnacle Court
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Clawson:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. In your letter, you state that you will be supplying "brake jumpers" to General Motors for production year 2002 vehicles. Based on a telephone conversation with you, we understand that "brake jumpers" are hydraulic brake hose assemblies. You state that it is your opinion "that as a Tier I supplier of brake lines a band on the part is not necessary." You note, however, that paragraph S5.2.4.1 of FMVSS No. 106 states that at least one end fitting must be stamped or otherwise designated with an identifying code or logo, and state that you are not sure whether this requirement applies to Tier I suppliers. You ask us to "advise if registration is necessary," and if so, how you should approach the matter. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, which applies to new motor vehicles and to hydraulic, air, and vacuum brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings.

Your questions concern the labeling requirements set forth in S5.2.4 of FMVSS No. 106. That paragraph states in relevant part:

S5.2.4 Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, except those sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly as specified in this paragraph or, at the option of the manufacturer, by means of labeling as specified in S5.2.4.1. . . . (Emphasis added.)

Your letter raises two issues:

(1) Whether, because you are a tier I supplier, your brake hose assemblies are excluded from the labeling requirements of S5.2.4, and

(2) Whether, even if your brake hose assemblies are excluded from the labeling requirements of S5.2.4, they are subject to S5.2.4.1.

Under paragraph S5.2.4, hydraulic brake hose assemblies that are sold as part of a motor vehicle are expressly excluded from that paragraph's labeling requirements. Moreover, S5.2.4 specifies that the labeling requirements of S5.2.4.1 are an option to those specified in S5.2.4. Therefore, hydraulic brake hose assemblies that are sold as part of a motor vehicle are excluded from the labeling requirements of both S5.2.4 and S5.2.4.1.

I note, as historical background, that the S5.2.4 exclusion initially applied only to assemblies "assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him." In expanding this exclusion by removing the requirement that the assembly must be assembled by the vehicle manufacturer, NHTSA explained:

Assemblies installed in new vehicles need not bear a label because the vehicle certification and identification information serves to certify and identify the hose assembly. NHTSA believes it would make no difference whether the vehicle manufacturer itself produced the assembly.

See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 56 FR 7640-41, February 25, 1991; Final Rule, 56 FR 50520-21, October 7, 1991.

Thus, if all the brake hose assemblies you supply to General Motors are installed in and sold as part of new vehicles, they are excluded from the labeling requirements of both S5.2.4 and S5.2.4.1. However, if General Motors were to sell some of the brake hose assemblies you supply to it as replacement equipment, those assemblies would not be excluded from these requirements. If this is a possibility, it might be easier for you to simply label all of the assemblies in accordance with S5.2.4 or S5.2.4.1. Since General Motors will know how it will use the assemblies, we suggest that you consult with it about this matter.

Paragraphs S5.2.4 and S5.2.4.1 specify, among other things, that the assembly be labeled with:

A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Vehicle Dynamics Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol.

I note that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance now has the responsibility within NHTSA for handling and maintaining these designations. We plan to change the address in Standard No. 106 to reflect this change. You may contact James Gilkey of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at (202) 366-5295, concerning how to file such a designation.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information .

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:106
d.4/23/01

Mr. Thomas V. Wolcott
Test Engineering Manager
Nevada Automotive Test Center
P.O. Box 234
Carson City, NV 89702-0234

Dear Mr. Wolcott:

This is in reply to your letter of September 26, 2000, requesting an interpretation concerning a motorcycle braking configuration.

You state that the master cylinder in the system "would be actuated hydraulically using the standard handlebar mounted lever." You further describe the system in some detail and inform us that your vehicle will comply with "all regulations regarding volume and wording on the cap." The intent of the design is "to be able to remote mount the master cylinder unit to a more protected and less visible area of the motorcycle." You have not been able to find a regulation or standard that would not allow this configuration.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are intended to establish performance requirements, leaving the design of systems to the manufacturer. There is nothing in the Federal motorcycle braking standard (FMVSS No. 122), controls and displays standard (FMVSS No. 123) or any other FMVSS or regulation that would prohibit the motorcycle brake system configuration described in your letter.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:122
d.11/1/00

M. Guy Dorleans
International and Regulatory Affairs Manager
VALEO
34, rue Saint-Andre
93012 Bobigny
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 2000, asking for interpretations of 49 CFR Part 564 and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your company is presently developing "a headlamp which incorporates a replaceable gas-discharge light source with a ballast as a dedicated power supply." The light source is one for which information has been filed pursuant to 49 CFR Part 564 in Docket No. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 98-3397. The ballast, which is "completely encased in the headlamp, is not removable from the headlamp, and is not sold as a spare part," is not part of the list. You believe that the requirements of Part 564 do not apply to this headlamp and that you are not required to submit the information specified in Sec. 564.5(d)(1), (2), and (3).

Under the provisions of Sec. 564.5(d), a manufacturer may request modification of a light source for which information has previously been submitted. Because the ballast is a listed part necessary for interchangeability (Sec. 564, Appendix B, paragraph V, subsection A), you must submit the ballast part number. Even though the ballast is incorporated in the headlamp, and its part number is the same as the headlamp, its part number must be submitted because it is a modification of the basic information regarding light sources whose information is already listed in the Part 564 docket.

You have a question relating to Standard No. 108 as well. Paragraph S7.7(e)(1) through (e)(7) specifies marking requirements for ballasts necessary for operation of replaceable light sources. One face of the ballast in Valeo's headlamp is visible from outside the headlamp. You have asked whether the ballast in the Valeo headlamp must be marked in accordance with S7.7(e).

Paragraph S7.7(e) is the only NHTSA regulation that imposes specific requirements on ballasts. The paragraph does not distinguish between ballasts that are integrated into a headlamp and those that are exterior to it. The intent of the marking requirement is to inform the reader primarily of product identification, rated laboratory life of the light source/ballast combination, warning of potential shock hazard, and a DOT certification to these requirements. In our opinion, these markings are required under the headlamp design you posit, one in which a ballast is incorporated into the headlamp housing and is not replaceable alone.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/14/00

Mr. Bernard Geenen
The Trade Commissioner for Wallonia
Consulate General of Belgium
333 North Michigan Avenue
Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Mr. Geenen:

This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 2000, to Taylor Vinson, which was received in this office on October 11, 2000.

With reference to a vehicle "to be used on private roads (amusement parks, resort, airports)," you have asked for a copy of "the official D.O.T. text(s) stating that such 'off road or non-road' vehicles are not subject to D.O. T. requirements." The vehicle is a "mini train," i.e., a tractor equipped with a Volkswagen engine pulling a trailer that carries 20 or more passengers.

We are pleased to provide you with the information you seek. Under our basic vehicle safety statute, we regulate "motor vehicles." A "motor vehicle" is defined, in pertinent part, as a vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power and "manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways" (Title 49, United States Code, Section 30102(a)(6)). Thus, it follows that we do not regulate a vehicle if it is not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads.

The determination of whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" is initially that of its manufacturer. We accept the manufacturer's determination unless that decision is clearly erroneous. We do not regard roadways in resorts, airports, and amusement parks as public roads. Therefore, if the manufacturer of the mini train you describe manufactures and sells it primarily for use in amusement parks, resorts, or airports, we would not regard it as a "motor vehicle" subject to D.O.T.'s jurisdiction and requirements. Of course, we might have to reconsider that decision if we became aware that mini trains were in fact being operated often on the public roads.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.11/14/00

Mr. Andrew P. Doornaert
Arthur Andersen LLP
Suite 2700
500 Woodward Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226-3424

Dear Mr. Doornaert:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. You asked for clarification concerning how the value of certain "minor items" is treated in making various content calculations. Your questions are addressed below.

You first asked about 583.6, Procedure for determining U.S./Canadian parts content. Paragraph 583.6(c)(4)(iv) of this section provides that "(f)or the minor items listed in the 583.4 definition of 'passenger motor vehicle equipment' as being excluded from that term, outside and allied suppliers may, to the extent that they incorporate such items into their equipment, treat the cost of the minor items as value added in the country of assembly." You noted that, as a result of a recent amendment to Part 583, the list of minor items once included in 583.4 is no longer there. However, the same list now appears in 583.6(a). The list is comprised of the following items: nuts, bolts, clips, screws, pins, braces, gasoline, oil, blackout, phosphate rinse, windshield washer fluid, fasteners, tire assembly fluid, rivets, adhesives, grommets, and wheel weights.

You are correct that we did not intend to change the provision permitting outside and allied suppliers to treat the cost of these minor items as value added in the country of assembly. We plan in the future to issue a technical amendment to correct this now-obsolete cross-reference.

You also asked whether the minor items provision of 583.6 can be considered in determining the country of origin for components of engines and transmissions in 583.8(c). While the minor items provision of 583.6 does not technically apply to the determinations made in

583.8, we nonetheless conclude that suppliers of engines and transmissions may treat the cost of these minor items as value added in the country of assembly for purposes of 583.8 determinations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adopted the minor items provision of 583.6 to avoid imposing on suppliers the unnecessary burden of having to obtain content information about minor items whose value was so small as to be unlikely to have any effect on overall content calculations. This rationale is equally applicable to 583.8 determinations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:583
NCC-20:EGlancy:mar:3/21/01:62992:OCC 22222
cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron, Redbook (2), interp 583
W:\nhtsaweb\cars\rules\interps\newhtml\22222.jeg.wpd

Trooper Dene Kay
Utah Highway Patrol
P.O. Box 1112
St. George, UT 84771

Dear Trooper Kay:

This responds to your letter to this agency regarding Federal standards on "altering" motor vehicles, specifically with regard to taillights, door handles, and windshield wipers. I will begin with some background information on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards and then address each of your questions in turn.

Background

Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code (the Act), authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S. must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Also enclosed is a brochure entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which includes a listing of FMVSS that apply to different vehicle type classifications.

Persons altering a new motor vehicle prior to its first retail sale to a consumer are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles. A person who alters a previously certified motor vehicle must affix an additional certification label to the vehicle which states that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable FMVSS.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a motor vehicle after its first retail sale are prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. However, the "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit consumers from modifying their own vehicles, even if such modifications adversely affect the compliance of the vehicle with the FMVSS. Such modifications may, nevertheless, be regulated by State law.

I will now address each of your specific questions.

Taillights

You state that individuals are installing clear taillight lenses with no red reflectors. The Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment are established by FMVSS No. 108 (49 C.F.R. 571.108), Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which applies to lighting equipment on new vehicles and replacement equipment for that original lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.8, Replacement Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 requires lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment to be designed to conform to FMVSS No. 108.

Table I and Table III of FMVSS No. 108 require reflex reflectors (on the rear and the sides of the vehicle at the rear), tail lamps, and stop lamps to be red in color. The color red is defined by Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J578c, Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices, February 1977, which S5.1.5 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference. Thus, the manufacture of clear lenses or lamps intended to replace lenses or lamps whose original color of light emitted was red is a violation of S5.8 of FMVSS No. 108, and the manufacture, importation, and sale of clear lenses or lamps for these purposes is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112. You also state that these taillight lenses do not have red reflectors; this too would be a violation.

If a noncompliant lamp or lens is installed as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer is in violation of FMVSS No. 108. If a noncompliant lamp or lens is installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as a replacement item, that entity is in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122. Note, however, that no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the clear lenses, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with an applicable safety standard.

You should note that many lamps such as you describe have been recalled. Many were also missing side markers and side reflectors in red.

Whether it is legal to drive a vehicle with clear lenses installed by the vehicle's owner is a question to be answered under the laws in effect where the vehicle is driven. While we cannot provide an opinion about Utah law, we note that our search of the Utah administrative code showed Rule R714-200-3, "Standards for Vehicle Lights and Illuminating Devices," incorporates FMVSS No. 108 as the standard governing motor vehicle lighting equipment. Thus, it appears that motor vehicle lighting equipment that does not comply with FMVSS No. 108 may also be illegal for use in your state.

Door Handles

You state that individuals are removing vehicles' outside door handles and replacing them with hidden switches to open the doors. FMVSS No. 206 (49 C.F.R. 571.206), Door Locks and Door Retention Components, applies to new motor vehicles and includes requirements that may affect this type of modification. The standard does not require that motor vehicle doors have outside door handles. However, the standard does require each motor vehicle door to "be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle." (49 C.F.R. 571.206, S4.1.3). When the locking mechanism on the side front door is engaged, "the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative." (S4.1.3.1, emphasis added). When the locking mechanism on the side rear door is engaged, "both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative." (S4.1.3.2, emphasis added).

We consider the hidden switches you described in your letter to be "other latch release controls." Thus, these hidden switches must be inoperative when the locking mechanism on the doors is engaged.

If these hidden switches are installed by an alterer prior to first sale, then the alterer must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the switches are installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business after first sale, the installation must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including FMVSS No. 206. However, no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the switches, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Such a modification could, however, be regulated by State law.

Windshield Wipers

You also state that individuals are removing vehicles' windshield wipers and replacing them with "just one large wiper." FMVSS No. 104 (49 C.F.R. 571.104), Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, specifies windshield wiper requirements for new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.

The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS No. 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared.

All of the aforementioned vehicles must have a power-driven windshield wiping system that meets specific frequency or speed requirements, e.g., cycles per minute, as identified in the standard. FMVSS No. 104 requires that passenger car windshield wiping systems wipe that specified percentages of the critical windshield areas defined in that standard and SAE Recommended Practice 903a, May 1966. As you will see in copies of the enclosed documents, defining these critical windshield areas is a complex process.

Additionally, FMVSS No. 104 requires that passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses have windshield washing systems. A passenger car's windshield washing system in conjunction with its associated wiping system shall clear the critical windshield areas identified above. For multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, the standard states that the critical windshield areas may be specified by the vehicle manufacturer.

The number of windshield wipers required is not specified by this standard.

If the single wiper described in your letter is installed by an alterer prior to first sale, then the alterer must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the wiper is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business after first sale, the installation must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including FMVSS No. 104. However, no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the wiper, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Such a modification could, however, be regulated by State law.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:104
d.3/8/01