ID: nht88-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Allan J. Lameier -- Defense Electronics Supply Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/1/80 letter from Frank Berndt to E.C. Elliott

TEXT:

Mr. Allan J. Lameier Quality Assurance Specialist, Defense Logistics Agency Defense Contract Administration Services Management Area, Dayton C/O Defense Electronics Supply Center Dayton OH 45444

RE: A. Lameier 513-684-3915

This is in response to your letter requesting clarification concerning the classification of a Davey mobile compressor. You state that the manufacturer of the compressor indicates that the wheeled compressor need not comply with Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and related equipment, because the compressor is not a trailer. Based on the information provided with your letter, we believe that the compressor is not a motor vehicle and is therefore not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 108 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act: 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Nati onal Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its product s meet all applicable safety standards.

A "trailer" is defined at 49 CFR 5571.3 as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." The mobile compressor shown in the brochure enclosed with your letter appea rs to be designed for carrying property (the compressor) and for being drawn by a motor vehicle. The answer to your question of whether this compressor is a trailer, then depends on whether the compressor is a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Sa fety 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.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles such as forklifts and mobile construction equipment which are sold primarily for off-road use, but which incidentally use the public roads to travel from one job site to another, are not considered m otor vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles which regularly use the public roads and stay off-road for only limited periods of time are motor vehicles and are subject to our safety standards.

The agency has previously concluded in a July 1, 1980 letter to Mr. E.C. Elliott (copy enclosed) that his company's portable air compressors were not motor vehicles, based on statements that these devices spend the bulk of their useful lives on construct ion sites and are seldom drawn over public roads by mechanical power. If the Davey portable compressors are used in the same fashion as the compressors discussed in the July 1, 1980 letter, we believe that the Davey compressors were properly classified b y the manufacturer as something other than a "motor vehicle". This means that the Davey compressors are not subject to any of the federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope this information has been useful. My apologies for the delay in responding to your letter.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

IN REPLY REFER TO: A. LAMEIER 513-684-3915

SUBJ: APPLICABILITY OF FMVSS #108 TO PORTABLE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES

1. Enclosed is a photocopy of a brochure showing a compressor being bought on navy contract DLA-700-86-C-8263. This contract requires compliance with " All Applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in effect on the Date of manufacture." 2 . Davey Co. insists STD#108 (Lighting and Reflectors) is not applicable because a wheeled compressor is not a "Trailer."

3. Please send me copies of any rulings or opinions which would clarify this requirement.

Allan J. Lameier Quality Assurance Specialist

Attch 1 Photocopy omitted.

ID: 04-005462drn

Major R. E. Brooks
Commander
Ohio State Highway Patrol
1970 West Broad Street
P.O. Box 182074
Columbus, OH 43118-2074

Dear Major Brooks:

This responds to your letter to Ms. Lisa Sullivan of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) Vehicle Research and Test Center. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You have two questions. First, you ask whether there is a conflict between 49 U.S.C. §30122, Making safety devices and elements inoperative, and an Ohio Revised Code (ORC) provision requiring school buses no longer used for school transportation purposes to have their rear flashing lamps and stop arms removed. Second, you ask for our opinion on whether Ohio could consider school buses without the flashing rear lamps and school bus stop arms to be “multifunction school activity buses.”

Background

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, Lieutenant John Boster of your office stated that the Ohio School Bus Construction Standards Committee (the Committee) is considering recommending a state law that would reclassify school buses with their rear flashing lamps and stop arms removed to be “multifunction school activity buses.” Apparently, during the Committee’s discussion, a question arose as to an existing provision in the ORC regarding removing equipment from school buses. You provided a copy of the provision that states in part:

§ 4511.762. School bus no longer used for school purposes.

(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, no person who is the owner of a bus that previously was registered as a school bus that is used or is to be used exclusively for purposes other than the transportation of children, shall operate the bus or permit it to be operated within this state unless the bus has been painted a color different from that prescribed for school buses by section 4511.77 of the Revised Code and painted in such a way that the words “stop” and “school bus” are obliterated.

(B) Any church bus that previously was registered as a school bus and is registered under section 4503.07 of the Revised Code may retain the paint color prescribed for school buses by section 4511.77 of the Revised Code if the bus complies with all of the following: . . .

(2) The automatically extended stop warning sign required by section 4511.75 of the Revised Code is removed and the word “stop” required by section 4511.77 of the Revised Code is covered or obliterated;

(3) The flashing red and amber lights required by section 4511.771 of the Revised Code are covered or removed.

Is There a Conflict Between 49 U.S.C. §30122 and ORC 5411.762?

Your first question asks whether there is a conflict between the “make inoperative” provision of 49 U.S.C. §30122 and ORC 4511.762. Our answer is no.

49 USC §30122(b) states, in pertinent part: “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 prescribed under this chapter….”

Although the state law would contemplate the removal of school bus safety equipment, the equipment would be removed from vehicles that are no longer used as school buses. The buses will no longer have the school bus flashing lights required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, or the stop arm required by FMVSS No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices. The agency has stated in the past that modifications that change a vehicle from one type to another (e.g., from a hardtop to a convertible) do not violate the “make inoperative” prohibition, as long as the converted vehicle meets those safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new vehicle type. (See June 3, 1994, letter to Michael Marczynski, copy enclosed.) Similarly, we conclude that there would be no violation of §30122 if the bus’s function was changed from that of a school bus to that of a multifunction school activity bus, and the vehicle, as modified, met the FMVSSs applicable to multifunction school activity buses.

Note also that §30122 does not apply to owners making changes to their own vehicles. If the buses were being modified by their owners, §30122 would not be an issue.

Are TheyMultifunction School Activity Buses?

You also asked whether Ohio could consider school buses without the flashing rear lamps and school bus stop arms to be “multifunction school activity buses.” It is my understanding that the Ohio statute’s provisions would apply only to used school buses. NHTSA’s vehicle classification system (See definitions at 49 CFR §571.3) pertains to our certification requirements (at 49 CFR Part 567 Certification), which apply to the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Manufacturers of new vehicles must certify their vehicles as meeting all FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle type, and persons selling new vehicles must sell properly certified vehicles. The agency’s certification regulation and vehicle classification system do not apply to used vehicles. Thus, Ohio may characterize these used vehicles as “multifunction school activity buses” under State law, as long as State law does not conflict with Federal law. Based on the information you provided, it appears that Ohio’s definition of a multifunction school activity bus would be virtually the same as NHTSA’s definition, and we see no conflict between the two regulatory schemes.

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,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA: 222

ID: 8261

Mr. Joseph B. Gordon
Manager of Engineering
EIS Brake Parts
P.O. Box 1315
Berlin, CT 06037

Dear Mr. Gordon:

This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1993, to Rich Van Iderstine of this agency. It has been forwarded to this office because you have, in essence, requested a legal opinion as to the acceptability of a product that your company is considering manufacturing. As you describe it, the product provides an intermittently blinking stop lamp function when the brake pedal is applied. You are concerned that such a device "might be confused with hazard warning lights", and that there may be "other problems/restrictions connected with its manufacture." You have asked for our advice.

Motor vehicle lighting in the United States is subject to both Federal and State requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment are the Federal requirements to which I refer.

Standard No. 108, which was issued under the authority of the Safety Act, prescribes requirements for stop lamps and other lamps that must be followed by the manufacturer of the vehicle, and met at the time the vehicle is sold by the dealer to its first owner. One of these requirements, set forth in S5.5.10(d) of the standard, requires stop lamps to be steady- burning. Because your product would create a flashing light, it could not be used as original equipment on a motor vehicle, whether installed by the manufacturer, or by the distributor or dealer after the vehicle has left the factory and before its first sale to a purchaser for purposes other than resale.

The Safety Act includes a provision which governs modifications to vehicles after their initial sale. This Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from making modifications that affect compliance with Standard No. 108 (or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). Thus, a vehicle owner may install your product without violation of Federal requirements. However, we interpret the Safety Act as prohibiting the installation of such a product by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), these persons shall not "render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In our view, this forbids the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the Act does not forbid the sale of componentry such as your product which creates a noncompliance once it is installed. In summary, under Federal law, any person may sell your device, but only a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may install it.

We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State prohibit the use of flashing stop lamps, and recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#108 d:2/18/93

ID: 21771.rbm

Stephen E. Van Gaasbeck, Esq.
1227 S.W. Military Drive
San Antonio, TX 78221





Dear Mr. Van Gaasbeck:

This responds to your letter asking whether you may replace the air bag in your 1997 vehicle with a depowered 1998 air bag. You specifically wanted to know whether replacing the air bag would violate any standards or regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

As discussed below, there is no legal impediment to modifying older vehicles so that they have the same kinds of redesigned air bags being offered on most new vehicles. However, depending on the vehicle, such modifications may be very complicated and potentially expensive. Additionally, since the replacement air bag is different from the one for the original occupant protection system was designed, such a modification may have a negative effect on the integrity of the entire occupant protection system. You may wish to ask your vehicle manufacturer whether it your vehicle can be modified in this manner without a degradation in overall safety and at what cost.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars as part of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122).

A manufacturer, dealer or other business which modified the air bags on your 1997 Ford F150 would not violate the "make inoperative" provision if, after the modification, the vehicle continued to meet the relevant requirements in effect either on the date of manufacture or as later amended. In 1997, NHTSA amended Standard No. 208 to make it easier for manufacturers to quickly redesign their air bags, e.g., by reducing the power as compared to previous years. Modifications that assured that the vehicle complied with the amended requirements would thus not violate the "make inoperative" provision, even if the vehicle might no longer comply with the requirements in effect at the time it was built. As noted earlier, however, the modifications that would need to be made to an existing vehicle so that it would have redesigned air bags could be very complicated and potentially expensive.

I have enclosed a copy of the NHTSA publication "Air Bags and On-Off Switches, Information for an Informed Decision." While this publication does not address your concerns directly, it does provide useful information on how one can reduce the risk of air bag injury.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202)366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.4/19/01

ID: nht93-1.40

DATE: 02/18/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH B. GORDON -- MANAGER OF ENGINEERING, EIS BRAKE PARTS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-6-92 FROM JOSEPH B. GORDON TO RICH VAN IDERSTINE (OCC 8261)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1993, to Rich Van Iderstine of this agency. It has been forwarded to this office because you have, in essence, requested a legal opinion as to the acceptability of a product that your company is considering manufacturing. As you describe it, the product provides an intermittently blinking stop lamp function when the brake pedal is applied. You are concerned that such a device "might be confused with hazard warning lights", and that there may be "other problems/restrictions connected with its manufacture. You have asked for our advice.

Motor vehicle lighting in the United States is subject to both Federal and State requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment are the Federal requirements to which I refer.

Standard No. 108, which was issued under the authority of the Safety Act, prescribes requirements for stop lamps and other lamps that must be followed by the manufacturer of the vehicle, and met at the time the vehicle is sold by the dealer to its first owner. One of these requirements, set forth in S5.5.10 (d) of the standard, requires stop lamps to be steady-burning. Because your product would create a flashing light, it could not be used as original equipment on a motor vehicle, whether installed by the manufacturer, or by the distributor or dealer after the vehicle has left the factory and before its first sale to a purchaser for purposes other than resale.

The Safety Act includes a provision which governs modifications to vehicles after their initial sale. This Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from making modifications that affect compliance with Standard No. 108 (or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). Thus, a vehicle owner may install your product without violation of Federal requirements. However, we interpret the Safety Act as prohibiting the installation of such a product by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Under section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)), these persons shall not "render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In our view, this forbids the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the Act does not forbid the sale of componentry such as your product which creates a noncompliance once it is installed. In summary, under Federal law, any person may sell your device, but only a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may install it.

We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State prohibit the use of flashing stop lamps, and recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: 1985-02.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/85

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ARMOND CARDARELLI -- DIRECTOR, SAFETY EQUIPMENT SERVICES AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MABEL Y. BULLOCK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205, VSA 103(D), VSA SECTION 108 (A)(2)(A); LETTER FROM MABEL Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINTING, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATING WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THORNBURG AND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DATED 05/06/88 FROM DAIRL BRAGG TO WILLIAM S. HIATT; LETTER DATED 10/28/82 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA, N0A-30; REGULATIONS DATED 07/01/85 EST, FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cardarelli:

Thank you for your letter of February 1, 1985, concerning the application of Standard No. 205,Glazing Materials, to sun-screening materials used on vehicle glazing. I hope that the following discussion will answer your questions.

You first asked if Standard No. 205 regulates the use of sun-screening materials. Standard No. 205 affects the use of sun-screening materials in the following ways. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements that all glazing used in new motor vehicles and all glazing sold as aftermarket equipment for use in motor vehicles must meet. One of the requirements of the standard is that, as explained in more detail in response to your second question, all windows requisite for driving visibility must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Another is that glazing for use in those areas must meet specified requirements for resistance to abrasion.

Manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility, whether clear or tinted, conforms with the light transmittance of other requirements of the standard. Likewise, if a dealer or other person places sun-screening material on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.

Purchasers of new vehicles may alter the vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. There are no requirements under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which would limit such alterations. However, certain commercial establishments must not install alterations. However, certain commercial establishments must not install tinted film or other sun-screening material on windows if the combination of the sun-screening material and glazing cannot meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business

P2

shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of these persons may knowingly install a film or other sun-screening material on a used vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violators of this prohibition are subject to Federal civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

State laws which are inconsistent with these Federal requirements are preempted. Any State law or regulation which would permit any person to install sun-screening material on a new vehicle in violation of Standard No. 205 is preempted under section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act. For example, a State law which specifies a transmittance level less than 70 percent for windows requisite for driving visibility would be preempted. The adoption or retention of such a law would have no effect on the illegality of that installation under Federal law. Further, any State law or regulation that would permit manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses to install sun-screening material on a vehicle after its first sale in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act is also preempted.

Your second question asked which windows in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles must meet the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. In particular, you asked if the luminous transmittance requirements apply to opera windows and sun roofs. The specification for light transmittance applies to all windows, including opera windows, in a passenger car. It does not, however, apply to car sun roofs. As to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, it only applies to the windshield and the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver. Thus, none of these windows may be darkly tinted. However, the windows to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles are not required to meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement and thus may be darkly tinted.

Your third question asked if the luminous transmittance requirements apply to the windows behind the driver in passenger cars or station wagons if those vehicles are equipped with an exterior mirror on the right side of the vehicle. The answer is that those windows must still meet the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205.

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

Sincerely,

ID: 21490importtiresneb

Mr. Reginald Williams
A.N. Deringer, Inc.
48 Customs Loop
Houlton, ME 04730

Dear Mr. Williams:

This responds to your March 31, 2000, letter requesting information regarding the requirements for "DOT safety compliance labeling required on the tires." You state in your letter that you are a United States customs broker located in Houlton, Maine and that you have three clients interested in importing new and retreaded tires into the United States from Canada.

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

It is not clear from your letter whether your clients are interested in importing passenger car tires or tires for use on other motor vehicles. To ensure that you receive the information that is of concern to you, I will discuss requirements for new and retreaded tires for use on both passenger cars and on other motor vehicles.

Generally speaking, all tires which are subject to a FMVSS must have the symbol "DOT" molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard.

With regard to new tires, FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires (copy enclosed), and FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims (copy enclosed), specify performance standards and labeling requirements for new passenger car tires and rims. FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed), and FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed), specify performance standards and labeling requirements applicable to tires and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part 574, Tire identification and recordkeeping (copy enclosed), requires new tire manufacturers to permanently mold into or onto one tire sidewall a tire identification number (TIN) and specifies methods by which new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners shall maintain records of tire purchasers. 49 CFR 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS) (copy enclosed), requires new motor vehicle and new tire manufacturers and brand name owners to provide information to consumers concerning the relative performance of passenger car tires in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The UTQGS grades are also required to be molded into or onto the tire sidewall.

The labeling requirements specified in the regulations referred to above apply to the actual tire manufacturers and/or brand name owners, and the required information, including the DOT symbol and the TIN, must appear on all new tires before they can be sold to their first retail purchasers. A "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) as one who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles or equipment or one who imports motor vehicles or equipment for resale.

Concerning retreaded tires, FMVSS No. 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires (copy enclosed), specifies performance, labeling, and certification requirements for retreaded pneumatic passenger car tires. No FMVSS is applicable to retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. These tires may be imported without certification of compliance by the retreader and a DOT symbol must not appear on these tires as indicated in 49 CFR 574.5. However, these tires must have a tire identification number marked on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 Part CFR 574, if they are to be legally sold in the United States.

In sum, all new or retreaded tires sold or imported into the United States for sale must comply with all applicable FMVSSs and regulations as discussed above. For you and your clients' information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

If the tires in question are intended for or capable of being used on a commercial vehicle, you may want to check with the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration at (202) 366-1790, for information about any applicable requirements.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:109#110#117#119#120
d.5/10/00

ID: nht91-5.31

DATE: September 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas R. Steinhagen -- Custom Accessories, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-91 from Thomas R. Steinhagen to Dee Fujita (OCC 6298)

TEXT:

This responds to your August 1, 1991 letter to Ms. Fujita of my off asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, applies to a replacement windshield wiper arm and blade sold at retail, the end consumer.

As Ms. Fujita informed you in a July 31, 1991 telephone conversation, generally speaking, the answer is no. Standard 107 applies to new motor vehicles--passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses (paragraph S2 of Standard 107)--and not to items of motor vehicle equipment, such as replacement wiper arms and blades. Thus, replacement wiper arms and blades may be sold to consumers without violating Federal law, even if the component does not meet Standard 107.

However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. This prohibition applies to both new and used vehicles. If a person in the aforementioned categories installed on a vehicle a wiper arm and blade that did not meet the specular gloss requirements of Standard 107, it would be rendering inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Standard 107. Violations of S108 of the Safety Act are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. The prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

In addition to the above, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

ID: 11682.MLS

Mr. Dave Brass
Dana Weatherhead Publications Supervisor
P.O. Box 455
Toledo, OH 43697-0455

Dear Mr. Brass:

This responds to your letter asking about labeling requirements in Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, for air brake hose assemblies. You state that you supply brake hose and brake hose end fittings that are marked pursuant to Standard No. 106. You then ask whether under '7.2.3, a distributor such as NAPA Auto Parts Stores, has to attach a band to an air brake hose assembly that it crimps within its stores.

Section 7.2 of Standard No. 106 sets forth requirements related to the labeling of air brake hoses ('7.2.1), air brake hose end fittings ('7.2.2), and air brake hose assemblies ('7.2.3). Section 7.2.3 specifies that AEach air brake hose assembly made with end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging, except those sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall be labeled@ by either (1) a band around the brake hose assembly marked with certain information, or (2) at the manufacturer=s option, by etching, stamping or embossing at least one end fitting with the manufacturer=s designation. An exception to this requirement is that a brake hose assembly sold as part of a new motor vehicle need not be so labeled.

Under your example, NAPA would be the manufacturer of the assembly. As an assembler, NAPA is required to either label the brake hose assembly with either a band around it or by etching, stamping or embossing at least one end fitting. In other words, your customers would need to label air brake hose assemblies that they crimp or swage.

In response to your question about paragraph S4, our response is that the purpose of this paragraph is to define relevant terms in the Standard, such as Abrake hose,@ Abrake hose assembly,@ Abrake hose end fittings,@ and Apermanently attached end fitting.@ These definitions would not eliminate or otherwise affect the need for a distributor to comply with the labeling requirements set forth in S7.2.3.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:106 ref:5/10/96 d:5/10/96

ID: nht75-4.26

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Hickman Hampel Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 10, 1975, petitioning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to authorize the use of tempered glass for motorcycle windscreens.

As you know, Standard No. 205 and USAS Z26.1 prohibits the use of tempered glass in motorcycle windscreens. The rationale for this requirement is that tempered glass when impacted either shatters, showering the operator with glass pellets, or crazes, thereby obscuring the operator's vision. Consequently, while there are definite safety advantages to the use of windshield wipers, it is our view that they do not offset the dangers cited above. Your petition, therefore, is denied.

We trust you will be able to find a laminated glass or acrylic which meets both your requirements and our standard, and wish you success in this endeavor.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

March 10, 1975

Guy Hunter -- Safety Standard Engineer, National Highway Safety Traffic Administration

Re: Petition for Approval of Tempered Glass for Motorcycle Windscreens

Dear Mr. Hunter:

Thank you for your offer of prompt evaluation and assistance. I do hope, based on the overall improvement in safety for the motorcycle rider, you will permit the use of tempered glass in a motorcycle windscreen. My conversations with suppliers of laminated and tempered glass have convinced me tempered glass is probably the best product available for our needs. It apparently will take a great deal of physical abuse, has good transparency, and will tolerate the action of a windshield washer and wiper without undue scratching.

During our phone conversation, you mentioned the energy absorbing characteristic of laminated glass is the main reason it is exclusively specified for the windshields of closed vehicles. On a motorcycle, a windscreen made of acrylic, polycarbonate, or tempered glass can be fastened to the supporting fairing with breakable nylon bolts. The largest fairing manufacturer, Vetter, emphasises this safety feature. All their acrylic windscreens are fastened with nylon bolts which will break if a rider is thrown forward and impacts heavily against the windscreen. My windscreens will all be fastened with identical or comparable nylon bolts.

Please send me a letter giving me approval, at least on an interim experimental basis, to use tempered glass. Also, please initiate action which will hopefully result in formal approval of tempered glass under Code 205 and ANS Z 26.

Very truly yours,

John S. Hickman, President -- HICKMAN HAMPEL CORP.