ID: 1984-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ivie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section 1905 Lana Avenue, N.E. Salem, Oregon 97314

This responds to your letter of October 23, 1984 to Mr. Frank Turpin, which was forwarded ot this office for reply. You asked whether Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, applies to travel trailers. As explained below, trailers are not covered by Standard No. 205.

Each Federal motor vehicle safety standard has an applications section which specifies the vehicles to which it applies. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements for glazing used in a wide range of vehicles. It does not, however, apply to trailers, which our regulations define as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 23, 1984

NHTSA 400 7th Street S. W. Room 5320 Washington D. C. 20590 Att'n: Francis J. Turpin

Dear Frank:

Please advise if we are correct in assuming that FMVSS apply to non-motorized vehicles as well as motor vehicles.

Specifically, is safety glazing (per FMVSS 205 and ANSI Z26) required in Travel Trailers?

Is a travel trailer, regardless of whether it is equipped with a fifth-wheel type hitch or with a tongue type hitch considered to be within the definition of a "house trailer" or "property carrying trailer?'

These questions result from an inquiry we received from a person who had purchased a new 1984 fifth-wheel travel trailer, and found it equipped with "bronze double strength window glass." The dealership who sold the trailer advised the person that safety glazing is not required.

We thank you in advance for clarifying these questions for us.

Very truly yours,

Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section Telephone (503) 378-2057

ID: speedrestrictedtires

Stephen M. Padula
Michelin North America
One Parkway South
P.O. Box 19001
Greenville, SC 29602

Dear Mr. Padula:

This responds to your letter asking whether a manufacturer may make certain statements about using 315/80R22.5 LR L truck tires marked with a 55 miles per hour (mph ) speed restriction on the sidewall ("speed-restricted tires") at speeds above 55 mph. You note that a competitor has made these or similar statements in technical information about the tires, and you want to know whether the statements are permitted. Our answer is the statements are not permitted for speed-restricted tires.

You ask about two statements in the manufacturers technical information about the tire. The first concerns information stating that the tire bearing a maximum speed marking of 55 mph, rated at 10,000 pounds/tire at a cold pressure of 130 psi "may not be operated at a sustained speed in excess of 55 mph. Sustained speed is defined as continuous operation at that speed for over one hour. The absolute maximum speed for tires with 55 mph speed restrictions is 65 mph." The second relates to statements that the "tires are speed restricted as listed below [55 mph]. This is due to very high loads associated with these Load Range L tires. When these tires are operated at or below the Load Range "J" (18 PR) loads, they can be operated at 65 mph and the listed speed restriction does not apply."

Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicle Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119), permits speed-restricted tires, but only under certain conditions. Under S6.5(e) of the standard, the speed restriction must be marked on the tire sidewall. In describing the information that must be marked, S6.5(e) states: "The speed restriction of the tire, if 55 mi/h or less, shown as follows: Max speed ____ mph."^[1] In other words, the speed restriction must not exceed 55 mph. Speed-restricted tires are generally excluded from the high speed performance requirements of S6.3 of Standard No. 119. In addition, they are subject to a less stringent endurance test schedule (a lower test speed and fewer total revolutions of the test wheel), as shown in Table III of the standard. Since the requirements for speed-restricted tires reflect their anticipated speed-restricted use, it is important that there is an appropriate safeguard ensuring that the tires will not be used at higher speeds. Labeling the tires with a maximum 55 mph speed restriction helps to ensure that the tires will not be used under conditions exceeding the speed restriction marked on the tires.

The first group of statements you describe instruct that the tire may be operated at speeds up to 65 mph for periods not to exceed one hour. We believe that the statements about using the tires at speeds up to 65 mph conflicts with the 55 mph speed restriction labeled on the tire. If the statements are provided, we will not consider the tire to be speed-restricted since it is recommended for use above 55 mph. Thus, the tire would have to meet the requirements that apply to a non-speed-restricted tire.

The second group of statements includes an instruction that, "When these tires are operated at or below the Load Range J (18 PR) loads, they can be operated at 65 mph and the listed speed restriction does not apply." We would not consider the tire to be speed-restricted when the manufacturer has provided that statement. The tire would be tested to the requirements for non-speed-restricted tires under the appropriate load.

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

ref:119

d.8/6/02

^[1] Effective May 27, 2003, this section will read: "The speed restriction of the tire, if 88 km/h (55 mph) or less, shown as follows: Max speed __ km/h (___mph)."

ID: 86-5.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Steven R. Taylor -- President and Owner, Team Visions, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Sep 22 1986

Mr. Steven R. Taylor President and Owner Team Visions, Inc. P.O. Box 85 Tujunga, CA 91042-0085

Dear Mr. Taylor:

This responds to your letter asking about regulations that apply to the manufacturer of reconditioned brake drums. According to your letter, you intend to put worn or damaged brake drums through a cleaning process and then fuse new material to the drums, enlarging them enough so that they can be re-machined to meet new drum specifications.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Vehicle Safety Act"), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and is limited to the regulations administered by this agency. You may wish to contact a local attorney concerning applicability of other Federal or state requirements to your business.

NHTSA has issued safety standards for both hydraulic-braked vehicles (Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems) and air-braked vehicles (Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems). In the case of a brake drum, whether sold new, used, or reconditioned, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if the item is installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the entire brake system satisfies the requirements of Standard No. 105 or Standard No. 121, as applicable. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the brake drum is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(a) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

In all of the instances discussed so far, the legal responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act would not be on you as the manufacturer of reconditioned brake drums but instead on your customer, i.e., the vehicle manufacturer, alterer, or repairer. However, your customers might provide particular specifications for brake drums or request information from you in order to fulfill their responsibilities under the Act.

You should also be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act places certain responsibilities on all manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to the equipment being produced. In particular, as discussed by an enclosed information sheet, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers of safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge.

We note that since you would be a manufacturer of reconditioned brake drums rather than a manufacturer of entirely new brake drums, there is an issue of whether you are a manufacturer for purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act or instead a person who repairs used motor vehicle equipment. While a manufacturer of brake drums is subject to the Act's defect provisions as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, a person who repairs used brake drums is not. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the nature of your planned operations would make you a manufacturer under the Act.

Section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that the term "manufacturer" means "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.. The dictionary defines "manufacture" as "the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery, esp. on a large scale . . ." Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition).

NHTSA has in the past considered the issue of what types of operations make a person a manufacturer with respect to retreaded tires and remanufactured wheels. A person who retreads tires is considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The retreading process involves significant manufacturing operations, which do not differ substantially from those of manufacturing new tires. By contrast, a person who remanufactures wheels is not considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The process of remanufacturing wheels consists of such things as straightening, re-welding parts, and repairing cracks by welding. These types of actions are not significant manufacturing operations, but instead are the type of operations commonly performed in repair shops.

It is our opinion that the combined operation of fusing new material to brake drums and then re-machining the drums to meet new drum specifications constitutes a significant manufacturing operation rather than the type of operation performed in repair shops. Accordingly, we have concluded that you would be considered a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

June 16,1986

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Chief Council 400 7th S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Attn : Officer Engineering Dwaine Perrin

Dear Mr. Perrin:

This letter is a follow-up to the telephone conversation that you had with my secretary, Anita Puckett, a few weeks ago concerning any regulations that may govern us as a reconditioned brake drum manufacturer.

Team Visions, Inc., i s a new corporation that has intentions of doing business as a brake drum reconditioning service, whereby, we put a worn or damaged brake drum through a cleaning process and then fuse new material to the drum enlarging it enough so that it can be re-machined to meet new drum specifications.

Our anticipated date of opening is September 1, 1986. In light of this, please send a letter stating your findings of any regulations that may govern us to the undersigned at the letterhead address.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Steven R. Taylor President and Owner SRT:Sz

ID: 125-006333drn

Mr. Alex Angry
Power Flare
PF Distribution Center
6489 Camden Avenue, Suite 108
San Jose, CA 95120

Dear Mr. Angry:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning whether your battery-operated warning device, the "PowerFlare Electronic Beacon," must comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices, or any other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirement. As explained below, because the PowerFlare Electronic Beacon has a self-contained energy source, Standard No. 125 does not apply to this product. However, since your product is "motor vehicle equipment," your company is subject to certain NHTSA requirements as the manufacturer of the equipment.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Effective October 31, 1994, NHTSA amended Standard No. l25 so that the standard applies only to warning devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds. (See 59 FR 49586; September 29, 1994, copy enclosed.) Moreover, Standard No. 125 specifically applies to "devices, without self-contained energy sources." (See S3. Application.)Since the PowerFlare Electronic Beacon is battery-powered, it has a "self-contained energy source."Therefore, Standard No. 125 does not apply to the PowerFlare Electronic Beacon.

Even though not covered by Standard No. 125, the PowerFlare Electronic Beacon is "motor vehicle equipment," and is subject to various provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, "Motor Vehicle Safety." "Motor vehicle equipment" is defined at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(7) as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured;

(B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or

(C) any device or an article or apparel (except medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner) that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury or death.

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory ... to the motor vehicle," NHTSA analyzes two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of a product is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. NHTSA determines expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Applying these two criteria to the PowerFlare Electronic Beacon, NHTSA concludes that although the device may have non-motor vehicle-related applications, a substantial portion of the expected use of the PowerFlare Electronic Beacon is related to motor vehicles. Your website, www.pfdistributioncenter.com, shows that the PowerFlare Electronic Beacon is marketed for use in conjunction with motor vehicles, to be deployed (in lieu of incendiary flares) on the side of the road in the event a vehicle is disabled. Product literature provided with your letter shows the PowerFlare Electronic Beacon marketed as an economical, "safe and environmentally-friendly" alternative to the incendiary flare. The literature notes that it can be used in situations where flares cannot be used, such as accident scenes where gasoline has spilled. Further, you are marketing the product to ordinary motor vehicle owners and drivers for their purchase. For these reasons, we conclude that your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If you or NHTSA should determine that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying NHTSA and purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (See 49 CFR Part 573, "Defect and Non-Compliance Responsibility and Reports.")

You write that you intend the PowerFlare Electronic Beacon to be used with commercialbuses. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You should contact the FMCSA for an opinion as to whether that agencys requirements apply to your product. You may contact:

Bob Proferes, Director
Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 8302
Washington, DC 20590
Telephone: (202) 366‑5307

In addition, the States regulate the use of vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Some States may regulate the warning devices that operators of vehicles may or must use when a vehicle is stopped. The States can provide information on whether they have any requirements for warning devices to be used with motor vehicles.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:125#VSA
d.10/1/04

ID: 10381

Mr. Ed Irvine
Midwest Conservation Systems
P.O. Box 397
Silver Lake, KS 66539

Dear Mr. Irvine:

This responds to your letter asking whether a newly manufactured commercial utility trailer must be equipped with an emergency breakaway system. You state that your customer wishes to purchase a trailer without the battery powered breakaway system that comes with the trailer. Instead, you would like to install your solar energized breakaway system. In a December 7, 1994 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that the trailers in question are typically small utility trailers that do not rely on the use of air pressure. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the applicable requirements issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). You may also wish to request an interpretation of 49 CFR 393.43 from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which is the agency that issued that regulation.

By way of background information, NHTSA and FHWA are both part of the United States Department of Transportation. Each agency has the authority to issue regulations related to your question. NHTSA, which regulates newly manufactured vehicles, has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. FHWA, which regulates the use of commercial motor vehicles, has the authority to issue Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), which are applicable to commercial motor vehicles and their operators. We have referred your letter to the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Office of Motor Carrier Standards, since that agency issued 49 CFR 393.43.

While NHTSA has the authority to issue FMVSSs, the agency has not issued any FMVSS that would directly affect the braking performance of a small utility trailer, unless the trailer relies on air pressure. Therefore, if the trailers in question are not air braked vehicles, then you would not need to certify that such a trailer's braking performance complies with an FMVSS, since no applicable FMVSS exists.

Please note that your solar energized trailer breakaway system would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the statute administered by NHTSA. If this system contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. If you wish to contact someone in the FHWA's Office of Chief Counsel concerning the motor carrier standards, please call Charles Medalen at (202) 366-1354.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:121 d:1/11/95

ID: 1985-04.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Rosario Costanzo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rosario Costanzo 28 Amelia Avenue Livingston, N.J. 07039

Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff requesting information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relevant to the importation of a wind deflector to be sold as an aftermarket accessory for specific motor vehicles. You also asked how such a deflector should be certified as meeting our standards. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which are applicable to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which applies to wind deflectors for use in motor vehicles, regardless of their size. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference Standard ANS Z-26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," of the American National Standard Institute. A copy of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z-26 are enclosed for your reference.

Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also regulates the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in the standard. Under the requirements of this standard, a wind deflector to be used on a passenger vehicle at locations requisite for driving visibility, such as the devices you wish to import, may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, Item 11, or Item 14 glazing materials. You said your deflectors are made of plexiglass. Generally, plexiglass would have to meet the requirements set for Item 4 glazing materials.

Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (i.e., those, such as Parimor, who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) that produce glazing designed as a component of a specific motor vehicle are set out in paragraph S6.2 of the standard. Please note that one of the certification requirements is that the manufacturer place its National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-assigned code mark on its products. Our records do not show any code mark assigned to Parimor. Parimor may request a number by writing to our Office of Vehicle Safety Standards at the address shown above.

Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, new motor vehicle equipment, such as wind deflectors, must comply with applicable safety standards prior to sale. The manufacture, sale, or installation of a deflector that does not conform to the standard, or the installation in a new vehicle in a location that is not provided for in Standard No. 205, would be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109(a), anyone who sells motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable safety standards is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Manufacturers and importers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under Sections 151 et seq., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. Again, Section 109(a) imposes a civil penalty upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in motor vehicle equipment. A copy of the Vehicle Safety Act and an information sheet outlining the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers is enclosed for your reference.

Section 110(e) of the Vehicle Safety Act also affects Parimor, the foreign company manufacturing the wind deflector. That section requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as its agent upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions and requirements may be made. In order for that designation to be valid the following information must be submitted to our office:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a U.S. corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be sighed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name ahd title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures 28 Amelia Avenue Livingston, N.J. 07039 June 27, 1985 Mr. Steve Oesch Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

My name is Rosario Costanzo of Cosbar, Inc. I'm sorry I didn't have the pleasure of meeting you at my stop in Washington, but I hope that in the future I'll be more fortunate and have the opportunity of doing so.

As you are probably aware from talking to Mr. Jettener, I'm in the process of importing wind deflectors, specifically those of a company called Parimor, from Bologna, Italy and I'm in need of certain information in order to proceed with a smooth importation of this particular accessory.

Briefly, the airfoil is designed to overcome the lack of front vents in an automobile. Made of plexiglass, the accessory is fitted to overlap the exterior window frame by means of self-locking nuts; once attached, it makes it possible to travel with the car windows open or half-open with less turbulence and noise. There are two different models: the Antiturbo and the Mixer, the latter being considerable small in size. The process that Parimor follows to manufacture the items is of this nature:

A. Molding the liquid material into the actual shape of the product. B. Cutting the molded sample into 95% completed product. C. Smoothing, cleaning and polishing the product. D. Packaging the finished product.

Enclosed please find copies illustrating the items. As a result, these questions arise for clarification: A. If any, what Federal Vehicle Safety Standards apply to the Antiturbo and Mixer? B. What is the responsibility of the manufacturer as to the certified marking on the accessory?

Furthermore, since the Mixer is considerably small in terms of area that it will occupy in the front window of the car, does it require to meet these regulations? Moreover, I would appreciate receiving any other information that is particularly helpful in this matter and most importantly any words of advice concerning this venture.

Thank you so much for your cooperation and I'm looking forward to meeting you personally in the near future, God bless. Sincerely, Rosario Costanzo

ID: 2647o

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

Dear Mr. Lameier:

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 National 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 products meet all applicable safety standards.

A "trailer" is defined at 49 CFR /571.3 as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." The mobile compressor shown in the brochure enclosed with your letter appears 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 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.

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 motor 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 construction 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 by 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 ref:57l#VSA d:2/19/88

ID: 1983-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. C. H. Percy, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 28 1982 NOA-30

The Honorable Charles H. Percy United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Percy:

This responds to your letter of April 11, 1983 (Ref. 3098500010) requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. D. Parutti. Mrs. Parutti is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. She believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Following is a discussion of the implications under Federal law of installing these tinting films.

A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances, precludes the practice referred to by Mrs. Parutti. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such as the type referred to in Mrs. Parutti's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business 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. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mrs. Parutti may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing solar film on their automobile windows.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure Constituent's Letter

April 11, 1983

TO: Ms. Carole Walls Liaison Officer National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

FROM: Charles H. Percy United States Senator

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Your findings and views, in duplicate form, will be greatly appreciated.

Please reference our file number, 3098500010 and respond to:

Office of United States Senator Charles H. Percy Washington, DC 20510

Our File 3098500010

ID: nht90-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: GEORGE B. MADAY -- PRES., NETWORK USA INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-19-89 TO ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA, FROM GEORGE B. MADAY ATTACHED. TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to the automatic light switching device whose potential for the U.S. market you are assessing. The device automatically activates the headlamps at a pre-detetmined (but adjustable) level of darkness. There is a manual override for the operator. I regret the delay in responding.

You have asked two questions:

1. What legislation is in force or pending regarding the mandatory utilization of such daytime running lights for vehicles?"

None. The agency once proposed that motor vehicles be equipped with daytime running lamps as an option, but it terminated rulemaking on this subject without taking action.

2. What regulations, standards, forms, etc. have to be submitted to you or the appropriate agency to ensure that the product meets any U.S. specifications or standards prior to importation.

None. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to this item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if you intend it to be installed as an item of original equipment, it must not create a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, or result in an impairment of the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. For example, the standard requires the taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. Therefore, when your device activates the headlamps, the taillamps must also be activated. Though expressed in somewhat different terms, the acceptability of your device in the aftermarket is governed by a similar consideration: it may not be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business if the installation would render inoperative any element of design or device installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. The device would remain subject to the laws of any State in which it is sold or operated. We are unable to advise you as to its acceptability under state laws, and recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: 1982-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1981, concerning differences between the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) Regulation on sun screening devices and applicable Federal standards. In addition, you asked about the requirements of several Federal motor vehicle safety standards and how they affect Pennsylvania vehicle inspection standards.

Your first question concerns any differences in light transmittance requirements between the Federal standard and the 70 percent light transmittance requirement set by VESC in its Regulation No. 20, Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Sun Screening Devices. We have issued a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The standard sets a minimum light transmittance level of 70 percent for glazing materials used in areas requisite for driving visibility, such as the windshield and front side windows.

As explained in the enclosed letter, the agency does not consider sun screening solar films to be glazing materials themselves and thus they would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, as the enclosed letter explains, use of such devices on motor vehicles would be prohibited in certain cases if the vehicle glazing no longer complies with the light transmittance or other requirements of the standard.

You also asked if bumper height is regulated by a Federal standard. The agency has issued, under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), a Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581, copy enclosed) that specifies performance requirements for bumper systems. One aspect of performance regulated by the standard is the impact protection provided by the bumper at certain heights.

Section 110 of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1920) provides, in applicable part, that:

No State or political subdivision thereof shall have any authority to establish or enforce with respect to any passenger motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment offered for sale any bumper standard which is not identical to a Federal bumper standard.

Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides, in applicable part, that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title 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.

Therefore, unless the Pennsylvania regulation is identical to the Part 581 Bumper Standard, it is preempted.

Finally, you asked about Federal safety standards regulating the height of the windshield. The agency has not issued any safety standard specifying requirements for the vertical height of the windshield. Therefore, Pennsylvania's inspection standard on vertical windshield height is not preempted.

ENCLS.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF TRAFFIC SAFETY OPERATIONS

November 16, 1981

Frank Berndt

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is presently in the process of reviewing its current inspection regulations to determine the validity of present equipment requirements or their present exclusion. If you could assist by responding to the two issues which follow, it would be greatly appreciated.

Our first concern is the validity of the VESC regulation regarding motor vehicle sun-screening (VESC Stand 20, approved July 1980), and any distinction from the National level between tinting by the original manufacturer and after market applications. Our specific concern is the 70 percent transmittance level set by VESC. Please refer to the enclosed copy of VESC 20.

The second issue in which we are interested and which, under certain circumstances is controlled by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, is bumper and windshield heights on newly manufactured reproductions of old cars. Our present regulations specify a bumper height of 16"-20", and a vertical windshield height of no less than 12". Please see the enclosed information concerning a 1950 Porsche reproduction.

Any information you could supply on these two matters would be very helpful to this Department in determining what standards to set, so as to insure minimum compliance with any Federal requirements. If you have any additional questions, please contact me.

Kathy G. Phillips, Manager Vehicle Safety Division