ID: 05-002791drn

Cesar H. Cozzi Gainza, Esq.
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores
Comercio Internatcional y Culto
Direccion General de Asuntos Jurisdicos
Esmeralda 1212. 4 piso (1007)
Buenos Aires, Argentina

RE: "Miranda Guillermo Jorge y otros c/Centro Naval y otros s/daos y perjuicios" (expte. No. 13.445/02)

Dear Seor Gainza:

This responds to your request for our legal opinion concerning any United States "safety standard or legal, ruling or administrative provisions in force to compel the manufacturers and/or importers of automobiles with manual transmission to include a mechanism to block the ignition and thus avoid accidents".It is our understanding that that there is civil lawsuit before your court resulting from a car crash which is described as follows:

In Olivos, Province of Buenos Aires, on January first, two thousand, when the automobile of the Plaintiff, occupied by a minor child and a dog fell into the River Plate.The Plaintiff states that the cause of the casualty was due to the fact that the vehicle has no ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear, because the automobile which was involved in the accident was activated when the minor child started the ignition while the vehicle was in gear.The Defendant states that it is not compulsory to provide vehicles with said systems, and the lack thereof implies no design error.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs), which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into, the United States of America.(See Title 49 of the United States Code Section 30112.)NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

There is nothing in the FMVSSs that require new motor vehicles with manual transmissions to have an "ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear".The FMVSS most relevant to your case is FMVSS No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, which specifies requirements for the transmission shift lever sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, starter engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 kilometers per hour. FMVSS No. 102 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. A copy of FMVSS No. 102 is enclosed for your information.

FMVSS No. 102 has only the following requirement for motor vehicles with manual transmissions:

S3.2 Manual transmissions.Identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, except three forward speed manual transmissions having the standard "H" pattern, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the drivers seating position.

As you can see, S3.2 does not require new motor vehicles with manual transmissions to have an "ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear."

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

Enclosure

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure

ref:102#VSA
d.6/23/05

ID: 05-005754drn

Scott Molinari, Service Coordinator
North and South America
Terex-Demag GmbH & Co. KG
Dinglerstr. 24
D-66482 Zweibrcken
GERMANY




Dear Mr. Molinari:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning whether Terex-Demag products that your company imports into the United States are "motor vehicles". You asked four questions, which are addressed below.

You specifically asked that we address whether the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane is a "motor vehicle". You have enclosed brochures (with photographs and diagrams) describing the AC 80-2, as well as brochures for a number of other products.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are promulgated.

You first question was whether the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane is considered a "motor vehicle". In response, we note that NHTSAs statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

We have issued a number of interpretations of "motor vehicle". We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. , airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles. If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle," it must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in order to be imported into the United States (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)).

Based on the brochure provided with your letter, we believe the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane is substantially similar to the mobile cranes that were the subject of our interpretation letters of March 11, 1999, to Mr. Chun Jo and of October 20, 2003, to Mr. Michael E. Ogle. As in the cases of the products at issue in these letters, for the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 All Terrain Mobile Crane, the use of the highway appears to be merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which it was manufactured. Therefore, we do not consider the Terex-Demag AC 80-2 to be a "motor vehicle".

I note that while you indicated in your letter that you were particularly concerned about the AC 80-2, you enclosed literature about other products. For the same reasons discussed in the previous paragraph, it is our opinion that the other cranes for which you provided individual brochures, specifically, the AC 500-2, AC 250-1, AC 140, AC 200-1, AC 55, AC 40 City, and AC 30 City are not considered to be "motor vehicles".

Your second question was whether, if the Terex-Demag products are not motor vehicles, they can legally operate on the highway or any other road without "DOT stamps". I note that you stated in your letter that you are having difficulty obtaining 20.5" tires that have the DOT stamp on them. I will therefore assume that you are asking whether your products may legally operate on the highway if they have tires that are not marked "DOT". The marking of "DOT" on a tire constitutes certification by the manufacturer that the tire meets applicable FMVSSs. If a vehicle is not a motor vehicle, our regulations would not apply to the vehicle, and it would not be required to have tires that met the FMVSSs. The vehicle could, however, be subject to state regulations.

Your third question concerned our October 20, 2003, letter to Mr. Ogle. You ask if there has been a change in the legal position taken in our interpretation letter to Mr. Ogle.

As you are aware, we noted to Mr. Ogle that our interpretations on mobile construction equipment are based on a court decision issued in 1978. We further stated:

Subsequent legal developments make the holding of that court decision open for reassessment. Moreover, some mobile construction equipment may be using the public roads with greater frequency than the equipment the court decided were not motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction. At some point in the future, we may revisit the issue of whether certain mobile construction equipment should be considered motor vehicles. However, if we were to take such action, we would announce it publicly, and address such issues as what standards should apply to the vehicles and what effective date is appropriate.

As of this writing, we have not revisited the issue of whether mobile construction equipment such as that manufactured by Terex-Demag should be considered motor vehicles. Thus, the October 20, 2003 interpretation letter to Mr. Ogle remains unchanged.

Your fourth question is whether there are State laws that "could also warrant the need for DOT stamps on tires of non-motor vehicles". I will assume that in this question, you ask whether there are State laws that require non-motor vehicles to have tires that are certified as meeting NHTSA FMVSSs for tires. You would need to consult the State laws of each of the fifty states to determine the answer to this question.

The enclosed letter of August 16, 2004, to Kelly A. Freeman, Esq. provides additional guidance in determining when products used in construction may be "motor vehicles".

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.9/23/05

ID: 05-005888drn

Bryce Pfister, P.E.
Director of Operations
Collins Bus Corporation
P.O. Box 2946
Hutchinson, KS 67504-2946




Dear Mr. Pfister:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. You ask whether you may equip school bus seats with Type 2 seat belt assemblies if the upper torso restraint is attached to the same structure required to meet FMVSS No. 222 forward displacement energy-absorbing performance criteria and if the application of force on that upper torso restraint causes the seat back to no longer meet FMVSS No. 222.

The answer is no. The issue you raise was addressed in our letters dated July 12, 2000, to Mr. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company, and October 28, 1999, to Mr. Perea (copies enclosed). Please take particular note of our response to the first question in the letter to Blue Bird. We stated that Vehicle Safety Act provisions would prohibit Blue Bird from installing Type 2 belts if such a modification would cause a seating system not to comply with FMVSS No. 222, or any other applicable FMVSS.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Assistant Chief Counsel
for Vehicle Safety Standards and Harmonization

Enclosures
ref:222
d.9/19/05

ID: 05-006004_Dec-12-2005drn

Thomas D. Turner, Manager
Engineering Services
Blue Bird
402 Blue Bird Boulevard
Fort Valley, GA 31030




Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the head impact zone requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, applying to small school buses (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg or less). You ask how we position the drivers seat back when the school bus passenger head protection zone specified in the standard might include some areas in the drivers seating position. You suggest that the drivers seat back should be adjusted to its most upright position. It is our opinion that the school bus must meet impact zone requirements when the drivers seat back is in any position, not just the most upright position.

The test conditions for the head impact protection and other requirements of FMVSS No. 222 are specified in S6 of the standard. For a school bus with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less, the test conditions apply when testing "all seating positions other than the drivers seat". Although S6.4 specifies that "If adjustable, a seat back is adjustable to its most upright position," that provision applies only to the adjustment of passenger seat backs.

S5. (b) of FMVSS No. 222 specifies that small school buses (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg or less) must meet certain requirements of the standard "at all seating positions other than the drivers seat," including the requirements of S5.3, "Impact zone requirements".As you note in your letter, NHTSAs longstanding position has been that the head protection zone requirements extend to all contactable surfaces in the zone, including the drivers seat. (March 27, 1979, letter to Blue Bird Body Company; May 11, 1977, letter to Wayne Corporation.) To ensure that head protection is provided to passengers seated behind the driver regardless of how the driver positions his or her seat, in conducting the head impact protection test we will not limit the adjustment of the drivers seat back only to the most upright position. The agency will test the school bus to the head protection zone requirements with the drivers seat back adjusted to any upright or reclined position to which the seat can be adjusted.

In your letter, you state that the drivers seat for FMVSS No. 222 testing should be positioned as in other crashworthiness FMVSSs that specify that the drivers seat is tested in its nominal design driving position. Unlike the other crashworthiness standards you mention, FMVSS No. 222s protections extend to passengers rearward of the driver. FMVSS No. 222 has to ensure that reclining the drivers seat back does not negate or reduce the protection provided to those passengers.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:222
d.1/24/06

ID: 05-006195drn

Ms. Sherra C. Jarrells
191 Montrose Drive
Mooresville, NC 28115




Dear Ms. Jarrells:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether your proposed product, a "large Kayak with retractable gear legs for the purposes of not needing a trailer to transport the boat" is a "motor vehicle." We have also received via e-mail, photographs of the product in production. This letter confirms that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers your product to be a "motor vehicle," specifically a trailer. You also asked several questions relating to requirements for trailer manufacturers, which are answered below.

By way of background information, NHTSA administers the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) at 49 CFR Part 571 are promulgated.

You wish to know whether your product is a "trailer", and thus, a "motor vehicle".NHTSAs statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Whether the agency considers your kayak with axles to be a "motor vehicle" depends on its use. It is the agencys 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. (Such equipment is the subject of the October 20, 2003, letter to Mr. Michael E. Ogle of Schiller International Corp. that you provided to us.) 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 our statute, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental".

Based on the information you have provided, it is our opinion that your product is a motor vehicle, specifically a trailer. You indicated that the purpose of the retractable gear legs/wheel assemblies is so that a trailer is not needed to transport the boat, and that the product is intended for highway use. Given the nature of the product, we believe that owners would routinely tow it behind their vehicles to take it to various recreational areas. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your product on the public roads to be a primary purpose, and not incidental. Since your product is a motor vehicle, it would be subject to the FMVSSs. Your product would be considered a trailer, defined in NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR Part 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.

I am enclosing an information package, "Requirements for Trailer Manufacturers" issued by NHTSAs Enforcement Office, which explains in some detail NHTSA regulations that apply to the manufacture of trailers. Since the agency has determined that your product is a motor vehicle, the product must comply with applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, and FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor 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 would need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, and FMVSS No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. Please note that trailers equipped with air brakes are required to comply with FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

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 FMVSSs. The certification procedure is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

You also ask how to ensure that your trailer complies with the laws of each of the fifty States. We regret that we cannot provide this type of information. You may wish to contact the various States and/or a private attorney concerning this question.

Finally, because NHTSA has no statutory authority to regulate "boats," I am unable to provide an opinion whether your product is also a "boat".

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.9/15/05

ID: 05-006303drn

Mr. Jim Pike
Business Development Manager
DSM Engineering Plastics
645 Waverly Circle
Copley, OH 44321




Dear Mr. Pike:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). You asked whether your brake hose products may be certified as meeting the December 20, 2004 final rule on brake hoses. The answer is yes.

In responding to your letter, I note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

You inform us that your company "has developed thermoplastic copolyester materials" that have resulted in products that meet all requirements applicable to plastic airbrake tubes as specified at S11. and S12. in the December 20, 2004, (69 FR 76298) final rule updating FMVSS No. 106. The final rule takes effect on December 20, 2006, but manufacturers were provided the option of early compliance with the new rule beginning on February 18, 2005. Thus, until December 20, 2006, your company has the option of manufacturing products to meet either the requirements in the December 20, 2004 final rule or the present FMVSS No. 106.

When certified as meeting FMVSS No. 106, the products can be sold in the U.S. , and placed on vehicles to be sold in the U.S. and used on U.S. roads. No changes were made in the way the products must be labeled. However, if there was a change in how the manufacturer of the tubing is designated (i.e. , change in company name or change of company logo), the December 20, 2004, final rule specifies the information is to be provided to a different NHTSA office than that presently specified. The December 20, 2004 final rule does not have the effect of requiring any manufacturer to re-register. If a brake hose or tubing manufacturer has already registered with NHTSA, there is no need to re-register.

In the December 20, 2004, final rule (at page 76,298), we noted that the rulemaking began from a joint petition that was submitted in light of a 1997 proposal to revise Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) provisions for brake tubing and hose adequacy (at 49 CFR 393.45) and for brake tubing and hose connections (at 49 CFR 393.46). You ask about the status of this rulemaking to remove the FMCSR provisions. Sections 393.45 and 393.46 are administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). FMCSA published the Final Rule on August 15, 2005 (70 FR 48008).

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:106
d.9/19/05

ID: 05-007521drn-2

Mr. Eric J. Zerphy
Executive Vice President & COO
Solar Technology, Inc.
7620 Cetronia Road,
Allentown, PA 18106




Dear Mr. Zerphy:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning whether your companys "Agile Displays" products are "motor vehicles" making you subject to the requirements of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act to provide certain specified "early warning reporting" (EWR) information to NHTSA. You have enclosed literature describing the products, which are all portable, solar-powered LED displays that are intended to convey messages. Our response is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are promulgated.

The information you provided, along with your website, indicate that your products fall into a number of categories, such as portable trailer mounted displays, vehicle mounted displays, and wall mounted displays.

You asked whether any of the Agile Displays products are considered "motor vehicles". 49 CFR Part 579, "Reporting of Information and Communications About Potential Defects" at Section 579.4(a) states that for purposes of EWR, "motor vehicle" is used as defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 30102. This statutory provision is also used to determine applicability of the FMVSSs. 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

We have issued a number of interpretations of "motor vehicle". Whether the agency considers your products with axles to be "motor vehicles" depends on their use. It is the agencys 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 our statute, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental".

We have carefully reviewed the product literature included with your letter. We note that among the descriptions of the products are the following:"with trailer-mounted options, Agile Displays answers your needs for both permanent and temporary, easy-to-move signage;" "easy portability, Agile Displays mobile LED signage goes anywhere you need your message to go;" and "Easily relocated to any location where information is needed immediately". These descriptions indicate that the Agile Displays products on wheels are intended to regularly use the public roads.

Thus, it is our opinion that the following products are motor vehicles, specifically trailers: all Silent Messenger models; the Silent Messenger II; the Silent Messenger III; and the Silent Sentinel. The agency would consider the use of these products on the public roads to be a primary purpose, and not incidental. Since these products are motor vehicles, they would be subject to the FMVSSs. Each of these products would be considered a trailer, defined in NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR Part 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.

I am enclosing an information package, "Requirements for Trailer Manufacturers" issued by NHTSAs Enforcement Office, which explains in some detail NHTSA regulations that apply to the manufacture of trailers.

In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identifying information on your company and its products to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification and vehicle identification number (VIN) deciphering information in accordance with 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable FMVSSs. The certification procedure is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

I also note that the Vehicle Mount Arrow Boards and Message Signs appear to be items of motor vehicle equipment. The two-pronged test for whether a product is "motor vehicle equipment" is first, whether a substantial portion of its expected use is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles and second, whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Based on the product literature, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Vehicle Mount Arrow Boards and Message Signs is related to being placed on a motor vehicle. The product description includes: "Dimensions at base are designed to fit a wide variety of truck beds" and "Skid takes minimal space in truck bed, leaving room for cargo and tools". Photographs of the stand depict them as being exactly wide enough to fit into the beds of Ford F150 pick-up trucks.

Further, the advertising of the product focuses on ease of use - "quick programming" and "rapid, simple, one-person deployment and transportation". These statements lead us to conclude that the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. For these reasons, we conclude that the Vehicle Mount Arrow Boards and Message Signs are motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has not issued any Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly regulates the performance of products such as the Vehicle Mount Arrow Boards and Message Signs. Nevertheless, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your company is subject to the requirements in Title 49 U.S.C. Sections 30118 30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In a telephone conversation, you advised Dorothy Nakama of my staff that SolarTech manufactures more than 500 trailers per year. Early warning reporting requirements for your company as a manufacturer of trailers are specified at 49 CFR Section 579.24. You may review NHTSAs early warning information on-line at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ewr. Under the heading "March 19, 2004" is listed the "Compendium for Early Warning Reporting for Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles Having an Annual Production of 500 or More Vehicles" and a compendium for motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

I hope this information is helpful. In addition to "Requirements for Trailer Manufacturers," I am enclosing a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment". If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA
d.1/4/06

ID: 05-007567drn

Mr. Stuart McKenzie
McKenzie Auto Consulting Limited.
254 Dereham Road
New Costessey
Norwich
NR5 0SN, England




Dear Mr. McKenzie:

This responds to your request for our legal opinion concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems. You have a client that is manufacturing an electric vehicle for sale in the United States. This vehicle "will be fitted with an electrically heated front windshield that will solely provide the defrosting and defogging functions required by FMVSS 103". You ask about test procedures under S4.3(a) and (b) of the standard, as they apply to electric vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs, which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into, the United States of America. (See Title 49 of the United States Code Section 30112.) NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

In a final rule of March 9, 1994 (59 FR 11004, copy enclosed), we amended FMVSS No. 103 to make the standard more appropriate for electric powered motor vehicles. As amended, S4.3(a)(1) and (b)(1) provide that for a passenger car equipped with a heating system other than a heat exchanger type that uses the engines coolant as a means to supply the heat to the heat exchanger, the warm-up procedure is that specified by the manufacturer for cold weather starting, except that connection to a power or heat source external to the vehicle is not permitted.

You suggested the following procedure: switch the ignition switch to "run" and set the defrosting and defogging control to maximum. If this procedure is "the warm up procedure that is specified by the manufacturer for cold weather starting", it would be the one used pursuant to S4.3(a) and (b).

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:103
d.11/3/05

ID: 05-008127drn

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




Dear Herr Horneffer:

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

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs, which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into, the United States of America. (See Title 49 of the United States Code Section 30112.)NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

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

ID: 05-008512drn