ID: nht88-3.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: HIROSHI KATO -- MMC SERVICES INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/19/88 FROM HIROSHI KATO TO ERIKA Z JONES; OCC - 1916

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kato:

This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1988, concerning whether a Mitsubishi Motors Corporation SH27 lightweight industrial truck that you intend to offer for sale in the United States should be classified as a motor vehicle under Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"). You stated that this vehicle is intended for "general or carrier work for off-road applications," and that it is capable of a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph. You further expla ined that your company planned to advertise, promote, and market this vehicle as an off-road vehicle. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the SH27 would not be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

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

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicl es and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a max imum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with

special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle". Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which th e vehicle is to be operated.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, your vehicle has a body configuration nearly identical to standard trucks, can be registered for use on the highways of several foreign countries, and can obtain a a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph. These factors suggest that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, you stated that this vehicle is intended to be used only for off-road applications and that this vehicle will be advertised and promoted for off-road purposes only and will contain four warning labels stating "Warning: Off Road Use Only." These factors suggest that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

You noted that several foreign countries including Japan and Taiwan register for on-road use the general export configuration of this vehicle. This suggests that your vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle. You attempted to distinguish this fa ct by stating that the vehicle to be sold in the United States has different specifications than the general export vehicles. The differences are that the United States version has a maximum speed of 25 mph while the general export version can achieve s peeds of greater than 55 mph, the engine displacement in the United States version has an engine of 548 cc rather than the 796 and 783 cc for the general export version, and the United States version has an hourmeter (similar to agriculture vehicles) rat her than a speedometer. You stated that these differences mean that there is little basis for assuming that the experience in other countries would correlate to the likelihood of States permitting the vehicle to be registered for highway use in the Unit ed States. Since the vehicle closely resembles a small truck for highway use, we believe it is likely that States would permit it to be registered for highway use, just as other countries have. Therefore, this factor suggests that your vehicle should b e considered a motor vehicle.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

You stated that your advertising and promotional materials will state that your vehicle should be used only for off-road purposes and will not depict or suggest that the vehicle can be used on-road. This factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

You stated that your dealers will be instructed that this vehicle is to be used solely for off-road purposes and that no assistance should be given to obtain a title for the vehicle or to register the vehicle in this country. Your company also will s tate on any ownership document that this vehicle is not intended for on-road use. Therefore, this factor would indicate that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

You stated that this vehicle will only be sold by dealerships that sell vehicles other than motor vehicles, such as material handling equipment like lifts and agricultural equipment. This factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a mo tor vehicle.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

You stated that four warning labels will be affixed to the interior and exterior of the vehicle body. Labels stating "Off Road Use Only" will be applied to the exterior front panel of the cab, the rear gate, and the instrument panel. Additionally, a label stating "Warning: Off Road Use Only" will be affixed to the exterior rear panel of the cab. This factor would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

Based on the representations in your letter, the agency believes that the Mitsubishi SH27 lightweight truck does not appear to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht88-3.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BEVERLY B. BYRON -- CONGRESS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/24/88 letter from Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr. to Beverly B. Byron; 8/14/85 memo from C. Richard Fravel to Whom it May Concern; 8/4/88 memo from Arthur J. Lomart to Whom it May Concern; 8/1/88 letter from C.E. Shue to Joseph Ciampa, Jr.; 9/12/88 letter from Nancy F. Miller to Beverly B. Byron; 8/25/88 letter from Bevery B. Byron to Nancy Miller; 11/29/89 (est) letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to John D. Dingell (A34; Std. 205); 9/22/89 letter from John D. Dingell to Jeffrey R. Miller; 8/25/89 letter from Constance A. Morella to Norman Y. Mineta; 7/31/89 letter from W. Marshall Rickert to Constance A. Morella; 7/8/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Norman D. Shunway (Std. 205)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Byron:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr., who received a citation from the Maryland State Police, Automotive Safety Enforcement Division, for noncomplying window tinting. You asked us to review Mr. Ciampa 's letter and provide you with our comments and appropriate information. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Ciampa suffers from diabetes, which makes his eyes extremely sensitive to sunlight. Because of this, the side windows on his passenger automobile apparently were tinted such that the tinted glazing no longer complied with State of Maryland requireme nts. There is no indication whether Mr. Ciampa did the tinting on his own or had an aftermarket business do it. According to Mr. Ciampa's letter, he was previously given a medical exemption by the State of Maryland that permitted him to drive with wind ows tinted differently than Maryland law permits. However, Mr. Ciampa stated that Maryland officials have now told him that the Federal government will not allow Maryland to grant any more medical exemptions. This information is inaccurate.

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). These require ments include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

2

Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the safety standards. Thus, we assume that Mr. Ciampa's car as delivered to him complied with Standard No. 205's requirement for at least 70 percent light tra nsmittance in all of its windows, including the side windows that are now the subject of dispute.

The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including the tinting performed on th e side windows of Mr. Ciampa's car, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehi cle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittanc e of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufac turer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Again, Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition in Federal law. Thus, the State of Maryland does not have any authority to permit manufacturers, distributors, deal ers, or repair businesses to install tinting on the side windows of passenger cars if such tinting causes those windows to have less than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed s uch tinting on Mr. Ciampa's side windows would be liable for the civil penalty discussed above.

Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, n o provision of Federal law or this agency's regulations prevents Mr. Ciampa himself from tinting his side windows.

However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. It would seem that the State of Ma ryland has exercised its authority to prohibit windows being tinted in the way that Mr. Ciampa's are. The wisdom and fairness of applying that prohibition to individuals with Mr. Ciampa's condition is something to be decided by the State of Maryland, no t the Federal government. Contrary to the statement in Mr. Ciampa's letter, we have never told Maryland or any other State how to administer their laws and regulations with respect to the operational use of vehicles in the State.

3

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ref:VSA#205

SECTION 1. Section 25251.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

25251.5 (a) Any motor vehicle may also be equipped with a system in which an amber light is center mounted on the rear of a vehicle to communicate a component of deceleration of the vehicle, and which light pulses in a controlled fashion at a rate whi ch varies exponentially with a component of deceleration

(b) Any motor vehicle may be equipped with two amber lamps on the rear of the vehicle which operate simultaneously with not more than four flashes within four seconds after the accelerator pedal is in the deceleration position and which are not lighte d at any

ID: 002661cmc

Ms. Cassie V. Mason-Gibbs
Installation Management Agency
North East Region Office, Logistics Division
Transportation Branch
SFIM-NE-LD-T, Bldg 5A, Rm 204
Fort Monroe, VA 23651-1048

Dear Ms. Mason-Gibbs:

This is in response to your e-mail dated April 17, 2003, and several phone calls with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff concerning the modification of a seven-passenger van currently being leased by the U.S. Army. As explained below, a conversion company may modify the van so long as the modifications do not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs).

In your letter, you stated that you are considering modifying a model year 2001 Dodge Caravan by either "removing the middle bench seat and replacing it with chairs that swivel (Captains seat) and lock in the 180 degree position (to travel backwards)" or reversing the orientation of the middle bench seat so that it faces rearward. You further stated that several conversion companies refused to perform the work because it was their contention that such modifications would be illegal. In a phone conversation with Mr. Ernest Mitchell from your branch, he stated that the modifications are intended to allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" and conduct meetings in the vehicle.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Because NHTSA recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, we established a limited exemption for military vehicles. [1] Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles or items of equipment "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications" are exempted from our Federal safety standards. However, the exception would not apply in this instance because the desired modifications would not further a purpose that is specific or unique to military operations. The described modifications would simply allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" in the vehicle. Therefore, the "Armed Forces" exception would not apply.

While our regulations generally apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard[.]

Therefore, none of the above-listed businesses, including a conversion company, could modify the leased van if the resulting modification removed the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS. This "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

Of the FMVSSs established by NHTSA, five are directly relevant to the modification of a seat in a model year 2001 vehicle: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection; FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies; FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; and FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Each standard is discussed below.

FMVSS No. 207

FMVSS No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, seat attachment assemblies, and installation to minimize the possibility of their failure during vehicle impact. A conversion company modifying the vehicles seats would have to ensure that the new seating configuration complied with this standard.

FMVSS No. 208

Under FMVSS No. 208, if any of the above-mentioned businesses were to install captain-style swivel chairs, one of two seat belt systems would be required. The first option would require a Type 2 [2] seat belt assembly that would meet the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements while in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion (S4.2.4.2(i)). The second option would require that when the seat is in the forward-facing position, it would have a conforming Type 2 seat belt, in which the upper torso restraint would be detachable at the buckle. In any other seating position, the seat would be required to have a conforming Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly (S4.2.4.2(ii)). Also, any seat belt assembly anchorage installed for the modification would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210.

If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the bench seat so it were rear-facing, then it would be subject to seat belt requirements of S4.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 210. S4.1.5.1(a)(2) requires that the rear-facing bench seat be equipped with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies at each seating position.

FMVSS No. 209

FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as motor vehicle equipment. Any seat belt assembly installed as a result of the modification would have to be certified by the assemblys manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 209 in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance with this standard.

FMVSS No. 210

FMVSS No. 210 establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to insure their proper location for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the vehicle, the business would have to ensure that the seat belt assembly anchorages would meet the location and strength requirements in the standard.

FMVSS No. 225

If a conversion company (or any of the businesses listed in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)) were to modify the vehicle, the vehicle would have to maintain compliance with FMVSS No. 225. Under S4.2, a conforming tether anchorage would be required at no fewer than three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. Further, the modified vehicle would be required to maintain the same number of lower anchorage systems at forward-facing rear seats as are currently in the unmodified vehicle.

I hope that you find this information of use. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:207
d.6/20/03





---

[1] See, letter to Mr. Raymond M. Momboisse, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services; October 18, 1988; and letter to Donald C.J. Gray, Federal Supply Service; August 23, 1990.

[2] Under FMVSS No. 209 a Type 1 seat belt assembly is a lap belt for pelvic restraint and a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.

ID: 002661cmc_new

Ms. Cassie V. Mason-Gibbs
Installation Management Agency
North East Region Office, Logistics Division
Transportation Branch
SFIM-NE-LD-T, Bldg 5A, Rm 204
Fort Monroe, VA 23651-1048

Dear Ms. Mason-Gibbs:

This is in response to your e-mail dated April 17, 2003, and several phone calls with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff concerning the modification of a seven-passenger van currently being leased by the U.S. Army. As explained below, a conversion company may modify the van so long as the modifications do not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs).

In your letter, you stated that you are considering modifying a model year 2001 Dodge Caravan by either "removing the middle bench seat and replacing it with chairs that swivel (Captains seat) and lock in the 180 degree position (to travel backwards)" or reversing the orientation of the middle bench seat so that it faces rearward. You further stated that several conversion companies refused to perform the work because it was their contention that such modifications would be illegal. In a phone conversation with Mr. Ernest Mitchell from your branch, he stated that the modifications are intended to allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" and conduct meetings in the vehicle.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Because NHTSA recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, we established a limited exemption for military vehicles. [1] Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles or items of equipment "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications" are exempted from our Federal safety standards. However, the exception would not apply in this instance because the desired modifications would not further a purpose that is specific or unique to military operations. The described modifications would simply allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" in the vehicle. Therefore, the "Armed Forces" exception would not apply.

While our regulations generally apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard[.]

Therefore, none of the above-listed businesses, including a conversion company, could modify the leased van if the resulting modification removed the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS. This "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

Of the FMVSSs established by NHTSA, five are directly relevant to the modification of a seat in a model year 2001 vehicle: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection; FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies; FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; and FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Each standard is discussed below.

FMVSS No. 207

FMVSS No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, seat attachment assemblies, and installation to minimize the possibility of their failure during vehicle impact. A conversion company modifying the vehicles seats would have to ensure that the new seating configuration complied with this standard.

FMVSS No. 208

Under FMVSS No. 208, if any of the above-mentioned businesses were to install captain-style swivel chairs, one of two seat belt systems would be required. The first option would require a Type 2 [2] seat belt assembly that would meet the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements while in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion (S4.2.4.2(i)). The second option would require that when the seat is in the forward-facing position, it would have a conforming Type 2 seat belt, in which the upper torso restraint would be detachable at the buckle. In any other seating position, the seat would be required to have a conforming Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly (S4.2.4.2(ii)). Also, any seat belt assembly anchorage installed for the modification would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210.

If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the bench seat so it were rear-facing, then it would be subject to seat belt requirements of S4.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 210. S4.1.5.1(a)(2) requires that the rear-facing bench seat be equipped with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies at each seating position.

FMVSS No. 209

FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as motor vehicle equipment. Any seat belt assembly installed as a result of the modification would have to be certified by the assemblys manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 209 in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance with this standard.

FMVSS No. 210

FMVSS No. 210 establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to insure their proper location for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the vehicle, the business would have to ensure that the seat belt assembly anchorages would meet the location and strength requirements in the standard.

FMVSS No. 225

If a conversion company (or any of the businesses listed in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)) were to modify the vehicle, the vehicle would have to maintain compliance with FMVSS No. 225. Under S4.2, a conforming tether anchorage would be required at no fewer than three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. Further, the modified vehicle would be required to maintain the same number of lower anchorage systems at forward-facing rear seats as are currently in the unmodified vehicle.

I hope that you find this information of use. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.6/20/03





---

[1] See, letter to Mr. Raymond M. Momboisse, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services; October 18, 1988; and letter to Donald C.J. Gray, Federal Supply Service; August 23, 1990.

[2] Under FMVSS No. 209 a Type 1 seat belt assembly is a lap belt for pelvic restraint and a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.

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: 11738BBY.BLT

Mr. Edward C. Chen
Pacific Quest International
9 Egret Lane
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656

Dear Mr. Chen:

This responds to your April 9, 1996, letter concerning a product that you are seeking to develop, called Athe BabyBelt.@ You ask whether the BabyBelt is subject to any Federal standards or safety guidelines, and also ask if we have any safety concerns about the product.

You describe the BabyBelt in a letter and sketch to the agency. I note that you had marked the word AProprietary@ on the letter. In an April 11, 1996, telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you stated that you had no objections to our placing a copy of your letter and sketch in the agency=s public docket, which is a routine part of the interpretation process.

According to your letter, the BabyBelt is a device designed for use with forward-facing child restraint systems, to Asafely secure a child safety seat to the front passenger bucket style auto seat.@ The BabyBelt consists of Aan automobile grade nylon web belt (approximately 52 inches long), a positive retention buckle system (two pieces, made out of stamped steel), and an adjustable velcro attachment sleeve.@ The BabyBelt is placed through the frame of a child seat, Aand then wrapped around the back rest of the passenger seat. The belt is then tightened down to prevent the baby seat [sic] from moving in the case of sudden deceleration.@ You state that the BabyBelt is to supplement, and not replace, the vehicle=s belt system as the means for attaching a child seat to the vehicle seat. The product will be permanently labeled with a warning that the BabyBelt is supplemental to the vehicle belt system.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal

motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the BabyBelt. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a supplemental belt that is used with a child safety seat. NHTSA also does not consider the BabyBelt to be a seat belt assembly subject to Standard 209, as it is a supplemental accessory to the existing seat belt assembly and not intended to be used alone.

While no standard applies to the BabyBelt, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You ask us to discuss any concerns we might have about the BabyBelt. One concern we have relates to the strength of the vehicle seat back to which the BabyBelt would be attached. Vehicle manufacturers must ensure that their vehicles comply with the requirements of Standard 207, Seating Systems. Among other requirements, Standard 207 specifies strength requirements for the vehicle seat back, to minimize the likelihood of seat failure in a crash. When the BabyBelt is attached to the vehicle seat back as shown in your sketch, in the event of a crash the seat back will be subjected to forces resulting from the loading of the child seat and child occupant. In the absence of the BabyBelt, these forces are not normally imposed on the vehicle seat back, but are instead transferred to the vehicle structure through the seat belt anchorages. We suggest that you evaluate the strength of vehicle seats to ensure that they are strong enough for the loads imposed by the child seat and child occupant through the BabyBelt.

Another concern relates to where in the vehicle a child seat would have to be located to use the BabyBelt. Because the BabyBelt secures a child seat by wrapping around the back of the seat back on which the child seat is attached, the product can only be used with bucket style seats (as indicated on your sketch) or with a split back seat (as you informed Ms. Fujita). Using the BabyBelt with a bucket style seat necessitates placing the child restraint in the front seat of most passenger cars, because bucket seats are provided in the front, and not in the rear. Children are safer riding in the rear seats of vehicles than in the front seat. We recommend your instructions avoid encouraging consumers to place a child seat in the front seat if the child restraint can be placed in the rear. You might also consider informing them that, according to accident statistics, children are safer when properly restrained in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions. Such a statement is required to be in the instructions for child restraints systems (49 CFR '571.213, S5.6.1.1).

Related to the concern discussed directly above, it appears the BabyBelt could possibly be used in the rear seat in a passenger car that has a split back seat, but even there it cannot be used in the center rear seating position. The rear center seating position is generally the safest.

Finally, you state in your letter that the BabyBelt will have a permanent warning label indicating that the belt is not to replace the vehicle=s belt system as a means of attaching a child seat to the vehicle seat. We agree that the warning is critical to reduce the likelihood that consumers may mistakenly use the BabyBelt as the primary means of attaching their child seats to the vehicle seat, and urge you to make the permanent warning clear and conspicuous. For your information, passenger vehicles manufactured since September 1, 1995, are required to have a locking mechanism for the lap belt or lap belt portion of lap and shoulder belts, to enable them Ato be capable of being used to tightly secure child safety seats without the necessity of the user=s attaching any device to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle . . . .@ Enclosed is an October 13, 1993 final rule on this Alockability@ requirement. It appears that the requirement will address some of the same securement problems that you hope to address with the BabyBelt.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:5/15/96

ID: nht80-3.4

DATE: 06/16/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association's May 27, 1980, "petition for extension of time in which to file a petition for reconsideration" and its petition for a stay of the effective date of this agency's rule on Information Gathering Powers, 49 CFR Part 510 (45 FR 29032; May 1, 1980). Both of the petitions are denied. If MVMA proceeds with its plans to file a petition requesting changes in Part 510, the petition will be treated as a petition for rulemaking and be given serious consideration.

Requirements regarding the timing of the submission of petitions for reconsideration and regarding the treatment of untimely reconsideration petitions are set forth in 49 CFR Part 553. Section 553.35(a) provides, in pertinent part:

The petition must be received not later than 30 days after publication of the rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER. Petitions filed after that time will be considered as petitions filed under Part 552 of this chapter.

Under this section, interested persons could have submitted a petition for reconsideration of Part 510 at any time between May 1, 1980, the date of publication, and June 2, 1980 (30 days plus an allowance for the weekend). The section does not provide for any extension of that period. Instead, it establishes the blanket rule that late petitions are to be treated as petitions for rulemaking.

The MVMA has not filed a timely petition for reconsideration. Your association had 32 days in which to file such a petition. It might have followed the almost unvarying practice of petitioners in this agency's rulemaking proceedings and submitted a petition setting forth its specific objections and arguments in full detail within the allotted time. Alternatively, it might have outlined each of its objections and the underlying arguments within the same period, leaving the details to be submitted subsequently in a supplementary submission. This alternative would have minimized MVMA's reported time difficulties. MVMA took neither course of action. Instead, it took the simple and unusual step of submitting a "petition" for the agency to set aside its regulations and accept a late petition for reconsideration. This approach is inconsistent with the purpose of Part 553 which is to ensure the administrative process moves forward in an orderly and timely fashion.

Although agencies can modify their procedural regulations in certain limited circumstances, the MVMA has not made an adequate showing to justify modification in this instance. In exceptional cases where the ends of justice are shown to so require, this agency can modify its procedural requirements. MVMA has not attempted to make any such showing. Your association has not adequately explained why it was unable to submit a petition within the available time. Similarly, it has not provided any basis for determining the likelihood of MVMA's success in having its petition granted.

With respect to your request for a stay of the effective date of Part 510, section 553.35(d) of 49 CFR provides that the filing of a petition for reconsideration does not stay the effective date of the final rule in question unless the agency provides otherwise. When a petitioner is able to make a clear and convincing showing under section 553.35(a) that compliance with the rule is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest, the agency could exercise its discretion to stay the effective date of the rule. Your petition for a stay of the effective date did not make any showing regarding any of these matters. Therefore, the agency will not take the unusual step of staying the effective date.

Again, as noted above, the denial of your petitions leaves open the opportunity to submit a petition for rulemaking detailing the desired changes in Part 510 and the arguments supporting those changes. NHTSA would fully consider such a petition under the procedures set forth in Part 552.

SINCERELY,

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION of the United States, Inc.

May 27, 1980

The Honorable Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Information Gathering Powers; 40 CFR Part 510, 45 Fed. Reg. 29032; Petition for Extension of Time in Which to File Petition for Reconsideration; Petition for Stay of Effective Date

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

By this letter the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. (MVMA) * petitions for an extension of 60 days -- to August 1, 1980 -- in which to petition for reconsideration of the above referenced rule and for a stay of its effective date from June 16, 1980 until 30 days following NHTSA's response to a petition for reconsideration.

* MVMA members are: American Motors Corporation, Checker Motors Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Freightliner Corporation, General Motors Corporation, International Harvester Company, PACCAR Inc, The Nolan Company, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Walter Motor Truck Company, and White Motor Corporation.

On May 1, 1980, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule governing the issuance and use of compulsory process, 49 CFR Part 510 (Docket No. 78-01; Notice 3; 45 Fed. Reg. 29032) ("Rule"). The Rule is quite extensive, covering the rights and duties of persons and entities from whom NHTSA seeks information by subpoena, general or special order, or written request in public or private hearings.

This rulemaking was initiated by a notice published December 27, 1977 (Notice 1, 42 Fed. Reg. 64628) which announced Part 510 and designated it to be an interim rule purportedly effective on that date. The same notice invited comments and indicated NHTSA's intention to promulgate a final rule in due course. MVMA and others filed extensive comments in response to NHTSA's invitation.

Notice 3, setting forth the final rule, would impose new and burdensome obligations on recipients of process from NHTSA. In MVMA's view, those obligations are not in each instance supported by statutory authority in the Safety Act, the Cost Savings Act or the Administrative Procedures Act.

MVMA and its member companies are studying Notice 3 with great care. The Association intends to address several aspects of the Rule by Petition for Reconsideration. In this particular instance, the 30 day period provided by 49 CFR Section 553.35(a) is not adequate for careful preparation of a petition.

NHTSA expended more than two years in preparation of a final rule. An extension of only 60 days in which to allow careful and deliberate preparation of comment on the final rule by MVMA is therefore entirely reasonable.

To MVMA's knowledge there is nothing in the experience of government or industry personnel since the enactment in 1966 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to suggest that a delay of a few weeks of the effective date of Part 510 will disrupt or impair any function of NHTSA.

For the foregoing reasons, we therefore petition that the effective date of final rule, Part 510, be postponed until 30 days following NHTSA's response to a petition for reconsideration filed by MVMA, and that time for filing a petition for reconsideration be extended to August 1, 1980.

Finally, we respectfully request that NHTSA inform MVMA promptly of the disposition of this petition.

William H. Crabtree Vice President and General Counsel

ID: nht95-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 17, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Connie Mack -- United States Senate

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 12/12/94 letter from Connie Mack to DOT Intergovernmental and Consumer Affairs; Also related to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Bob Graham (A43; Std. 109); Also related to 12/15/94 letter from Bob Graham to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Senator Mack:

Thank you for your letter of December 12, 1994, addressed to the Intergovernmental & Consumer Affairs office of this Department. You forwarded to us a letter from your constituent, Mr. Howard J. Levy, Vice-President, Used Tire International, of Deerfiel d Beach, Florida.

Mr. Levy expressed concern in his letters to you and this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), about a proposed bill in the Puerto Rico Senate which would require that used tires imported into Puerto Rico have not less than 5/32 inch tread depth and which would impose a tax of $ 10 per tire on such imports. Mr. Levy is concerned that the proposed bill would mean the end of the used tire industry on the island. In his letter to this agency, he asked, "Does NHTSA have juri sdiction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested our help in this matter.

We have carefully evaluated Mr. Levy's concerns. As discussed in our enclosed response to Mr. Levy, however, we have concluded that the laws and regulations that we administer will not be of help to him. Since our opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have suggested to Mr. Levy that he may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to his concerns.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

Enclosure

JAN 17 1995

Mr. Howard J. Levy Used Tire International 837 S.E. 8th Avenue, Suite 202 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Dear Mr. Levy: This responds to your letter to Dr. Ricardo Martinez, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), referring to a bill before the Puerto Rico Senate. The bill would require all used tires imported into Puerto Rico to have a minimum of 5/32 inch tread depth and would impose a tax of $ 10 per tire.

You stated that the proposed requirement is 3/32 inch more than is "required by U.S. law," and that if the proposal became law it "would mean the end of the Used Tire industry on the island." You asked, "Does the NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws i n Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested this agency's help in this matter.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the laws and regulations that we administer. As discussed below, however, those laws and regulations will not be of help to you with respect to your concerns about the proposed Puerto Rico law.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by Federal law (Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act)) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle eq uipment. The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. It also prohibits commercial businesses from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment with a safety standard.

NHTSA's safety standards do not, however, apply to used vehicles or equipment. (I note that if a used tire is imported as motor vehicle equipment, the tire must have complied with the safety standards at the time of its manufacture.) Instead, the individ ual states have the authority to regulate used vehicles and equipment. Also, the Office of Motor Carriers within the Federal Highway Administration has the authority to regulate commercial vehicles and equipment operated in interstate commerce. (Your s tatement that the proposed Puerto Rico tread depth requirement is 3/32 inch more than is "required by U.S. law" appears to be referring to a requirement specified by the Office of Motor Carriers, Federal Highway Administration, for commercial vehicles. See 49 CFR @ 393.75(c)).

I will now turn to your question concerning whether NHTSA has jurisdiction over the laws being considered by the Puerto Rican Senate. The Safety Act includes one provision which addresses Federal preemption of state laws. That provision (49 U.S.C. @ 30 103(b)) specifies that when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state (including Puerto Rico) may maintain a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is i dentical to the Federal standard. (States may, however, specify higher standards for vehicles or equipment obtained for their own use.) Therefore, if a state specified a particular requirement for new tires that was different from one specified for the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the state law would be preempted. Moreover, a state law could be impliedly preempted if it frustrated the purposes of the Safety Act.

While we have not reviewed the specific text of the Puerto Rico bill, we do not believe the Safety Act is relevant to the particular concerns you raise in your letter. In order for a state law to be preempted under 49 U.S.C. @ 30103(b), it would have to apply to new vehicles or equipment. However, you are concerned about state requirements for used tires, not new tires. A state law which applied to used vehicles or equipment could be impliedly preempted if it had the same practical effect as a state law for new vehicles/equipment that would be preempted under 49 U.S.C. @ 30103(b), i.e., the law in question had the practical effect of requiring vehicles/equipment to be designed in a certain manner. However, neither a general tax on imported used tir es nor a tread depth requirement that applied only to imported used tires would have any practical effect on the design of new tires.

Based on consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have therefore concluded that the proposed bill that you describe would not raise any preemption issues relevant to the importation of used tires. Since this opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to your concerns.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ID: 8240a

Trooper Bob Dittert
Texas Department of Public Safety
10110 NW Freeway
Houston, TX 77092

Dear Mr. Dittert:

This responds to your inquiry about how the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affect State laws applicable to the same aspect of performance. You were particularly interested in our requirements for window tinting. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. After providing background information, I will answer the specific questions raised in your letter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Standard 205, "Glazing Materials," issued under the Safety Act, has requirements that limit the amount of tinting that can be placed on windows in new vehicles. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Under 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, no person shall manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not meet all applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces.

The prohibition in 108(a)(1)(A) against selling complying vehicles and items of equipment does not apply to a vehicle or item of equipment after its first sale to a consumer. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act applies to modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Please note that the "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

I would now like to apply this background to the particular questions raised in your letter.

Question One: "Are the CFRs law and enforceable only by federal agents?"

NHTSA's regulations and safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations and standards apply without State ratification to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces these regulations and safety standards.

Question Two: "Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?"

The FMVSS's apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, and not to used vehicles or equipment. NHTSA may bring enforcement actions against manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of equipment that do not comply with applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA also enforces the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act against commercial entitites that modify new or used vehicles in a manner that violates the "render inoperative" provision. We also note that NHTSA can investigate safety defects in new or used vehicles or items of equipment.

Question Three: "Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFRs?"

We understand you to ask this in the context of window tinting requirements, since elsewhere in your letter you ask whether a Texas law that allows light transmittance of 35 percent violates Federal law.

Your question relates to 103(d) of the Safety Act, which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Whether State law is preempted under 103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the manufacture of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture or sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard 205.

As stated above, Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses (108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act). The effect of 108(a)(2)(A) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting - that is illegal under Federal law.

Question 4: "Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp `black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?"

You are correct that 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act regulates the modifications of only the commercial entities listed in that section of the Act, and that the Safety Act does not prohibit an individual from modifying his or her vehicle such that it no longer complies with the FMVSS's. The States may have requirements governing the modification of a vehicle by individual owners.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205#VSA d:5/5/93

ID: nht79-1.22

DATE: 12/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 19, 1979

NOA-30

Mr. R. M. Premo Director, Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 3555 St. Johns Road Lima, Ohio 45804

Dear Mr. Premo:

This responds to your November 12, 1979, letter asking whether several joints in your school bus must comply with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. All of the joints concern what you have called maintenance access panels.

As you are aware, the agency has discovered through its compliance testing that most school bus manufacturers have taken advantage of the maintenance access panel exemption from the standard. The result is that many joints in school buses are not as secure as they should be and, during an accident, might result in injury to children being transported in those buses. The agency is very concerned about this practice and is considering methods of limiting the maintenance access panel exemption.

Your letter asks the agency to consider the fact that the panels whose joints you are questioning are plastic and not metal. Therefore, you conclude that the edges are not sharp, and even if the panels come unfastened in an accident, their edges will not be likely to injure the occupants of your buses.

The standard establishes joint strength tests that apply uniformly to all joints regardless of the material used in the panel. While it may be true that plastic panels are less likely to injure occupants of buses when a panel becomes disconnected during an accident, Standard No. 221 addresses other safety areas beyond preventing the sharp edges of panels from cutting occupants. Joint strength is necessary for the vehicle integrity during accidents. This is as important as preventing cutting edges from panels. Accordingly, the agency will continue to subject all joints falling within the parameters of the standard to the requirements of the standard without regard to the material used in a panel.

With respect to the questions posed in your letter, you first ask whether the right and left hand windshield pillar covers must comply with the standard. You indicate that a hose runs behind one pillar cover and a cable control runs behind the other. The agency has indicated that the installation of a wire, hose or cable behind a wall does not make that wall a maintenance access panel. Accordingly, the agency concludes that the joints connecting the pillar cover panel are subject to the standard.

Your questions 2, 4, and 5 refer to panels that cover motors which you indicate must be serviced. The motors include the windshield wiper and heater motors. The agency is unable to determine from your pictures and sketches whether all of the joints surrounding these motors are subject to the standard. The joints connecting panels that must be removed for routine servicing of a vehicle's motors would not be considered as joints subject to the standard. However, these joints must be the minimum necessary for routine servicing of the motors. In compliance testing your vehicles, the agency will only exempt those joints that are necessary for routine servicing. We will not exempt adjacent panel joints simply because wires run beneath them.

In your third question you describe a dash trim panel that covers a wiring harness, some chassis cowl mounting bolts, and an entrance door cable. The agency needs more information to make a formal determination with respect to this panel and its joints. Our inclination based upon the information that you have presented is that these would be joints subject to the standard, because the removal of this panel is not required for routine maintenance.

Your final question asks whether the entrance door control cover must comply with the standard. You state only that must be removed to remove the dash trim panel. As we stated in the last paragraph, we believe that the dash trim panel joints may be required to comply with the standard. If this is the case, it may also be necessary for the door control cover joints to comply with the standard. The key factor in determining whether this panel's joints must comply with the requirement is whether the panel must be removed for routine maintenance. You have not proven such a need in your letter, concerning the need for these joints to comply with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 12, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain rulings that the seven parts listed below will comply with the exclusions allowed under S.4 of FMVSS 221 as they relate to the need for maintenance.

The parts are made from a flexible plastic material called polypropolene. The purpose is to cover many unsightly conditons of components required to be installed, some due to assembly of the body to the chassis, and others required by either federal or state regulations. It is our opinion that a very important secondary purpose is accomplished in that due to the flexibility and rounded corners of the plastic parts, many edges and corners of steel parts will gain additional protection. Additionally if the parts were to come loose during an accident, which is unlikely unless of a violent type, they could do little, if any, physical injury due to the flexibility of the material.

(1) Right-hand & Left-hand Windshield Pillar Covers

(a) The left-hand pillar requires the running of an air or vacuum line to the top of the windshield to operate a mechanical wig wag signal that informs the driver of a drop in air pressure in the brake system and is required in some states.

(b) The right-hand pillar has a cable control anounced to the windshield pillar that connects the driver operated door control to the mechanism at the top of the doors to operate the entrance doors.

(2) Left-hand Dash Trim

This part must be removed to service the windshield wiper motor, mechanism and wiring.

(3) Dash Trim - Center.

Covers a wiring harness, some of the body to chassis cowl mounting bolts that need to be retightened occasionally and entrance door control cable.

(4) Right-hand Dash Trim

Requires removal to service the right-hand windshield wiper motor, mechanism, wiring for the windshield motor, right-hand heater and door control cable.

(5) Right-hand Heater Cover

Must be removed to service the motors, blower, and heater cores.

(6) Entrance Door Control Cover

This covers the body of the door control which houses the switches that operate a part of the roof light warning system and stepwell light. It also must be removed along with the door control assembly in order to remove the center dash trim.

Our planning is to use these parts in production January 1980, but final decision will be based upon your rulings.

We definitely are of the opinion this adds to the enterior safety as well as appearance, but requires decisions before the expense of tooling for these parts.

A photograph is enclosed showing a prototype with the subject parts installed.

Due to tooling lead time and present date, your prompt reply is requested.

Very truly yours,

R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

RMP:cr Enclosures (2)

Photographs Dwg. #LO-21782-D