ID: 2401y

Mr. George B. Maday
President
Network USA Inc.
136 Walker St., SW
Atlanta, GA . 30313-1326

Dear Mr. Maday:

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-determined (but adjustable) level of darkness. There is a manual override for the operator. I regret the delay in responding.

You have asked two questions:

"l. 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. l08 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. l08. 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.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:4/8/90

ID: nht79-1.35

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 22 1979 NOA-30

Mr. C. J. Newman Vice President, Engineering The Grote Manufacturing Company State Route 7, P.O. Box 766 Madison, Indiana 47250

Dear Mr. Newman:

This is in reply to your letter of February 15, 1979, asking for an interpretation of S4.3.1.1.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have informed us that dimensional changes in refrigeration units on the front of commercial trailers mean that clearance lamps are no longer visible at 45 degrees inboard if they are mounted as they have been in the past. You have proposed three alternate solutions to the problem.

S4.3.1.1.1 provides in pertinent part that "clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of the vehicle...and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." Your first proposed solution is that "The lamps could be mounted on the front of the vehicle as normal and the 45 degree inboard visibility requirements waived in accordance with S4.3.1.1.1."

We believe that this is preferable to your other suggested solutions that utilize angle-mounted combination lamps. Standard No. 108 appears to prescribe alternate requirements for location and visibility of clearance lamps--preferably on the front and visible throughout 45 degree angles, but if not, elsewhere than the front and where they need not be visible through the 45 degree angles. Your first proposed solution comprises elements of each of Standard No. 108's alternatives, and while it is not expressly permitted by Standard No. 108, it does not appear to violate it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

February 15, 1979

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, DC 20590

Attn: Mr. J. J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

Recently there have been dimensional changes in the refrigeration units used on the front of commercial trailers and these new dimensions restrict the visibility of the front clearance lamps. These new refrigeration units are up to 80 inches wide, 83 inches high and extend out from the front of the trailer up to 23 inches. These larger units restrict the mounting location of the clearance lamps on the front of the vehicle.

With this obstruction the in-board 45o visibility angle cannot be met if the clearance lamps are mounted as they normally have been.

Section S4.3.1.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard states, "Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45o in-board".

Our interpretation of Section S4.3.1.1.1 would allow for three possible solutions to the problem described earlier.

The methods are as follows:

1. The lamps could be mounted on the front of the vehicle as normal and the 45o in-board visibility requirements waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #1.

2. A combination lamp meeting the requirements of both a side marker lamp and a clearance lamp mounted at 45o could be installed on the corner of the trailer and again the 45o in-board visibility requirements waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #2.

3. The front clearance lamps could be omitted completely from the front of the trailer and a lamp meeting the combination requirements for a side marker and clearance lamp could be mounted on the side of the trailer at the front. This lamp would then meet the requirements for a side marker lamp having 45o visibility each side of the center line and having light directly to the front of the vehicle. The 45o in-board visibility requirements would again be waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #3.

Before making any recommendations to our customers regarding the possible solution to this problem, we would like to have your comments.

Yours very truly,

THE GROTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

C. J. Newman Vice President, Engineering

CJN/aj

Encl.

ID: 18795.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager, Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan

Re: Motorcycle Headlamp

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of September 10, 1998, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a motorcycle headlamp design that your company is considering.

You have asked whether the design depicted in your letter is permitted by the amendment to motorcycle headlamp specifications published in the Federal Register on August 10, 1998 (63 FR 42582). As you have explained it:

"This headlamp system consists of two headlamps disposed symmetrically about the vertical centerline of the motor-cycle. Each headlamp has two single filament bulbs. The lower beam is provided by the inner light sources, on the other hand the upper beam is provided by both of the light sources. In other words, the vehicle provides the lower beam by two light sources, and provides the upper beam by four light sources. The distance of the effective projected luminous lens area of the two headlamps is not greater than 200mm."

You believe that this design complies with new paragraph S7.9.6.2(b) which states:

"If the system consists of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted either at the same height and symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline or mounted on the vertical centerline. If the headlamps are horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline, the distance between the closest edges of their effective projected luminous lens areas shall not be greater than 200mm (8 in.)."

We confirm that your headlamp system complies with the requirements of S7.9.6.2(b).

We would like to take this opportunity to clarify this new paragraph. S7.9.6.2 covers three types of headlighting systems. Subparagraph (a) applies to a single-headlamp system. Subparagraph (b) applies to a system of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam. Subparagraph (c) applies to a system of two headlamps, one of which provides an upper beam and one of which provides a lower beam. In the systems covered by subparagraphs (a) and (c), the upper beam is not permitted to be higher than the lower beam. But subparagraph (b) is silent as to beam location. The preamble to the August 10 amendment makes clear our intent to prohibit the upper beam from being higher than the lower beam on all motor vehicle headlighting systems, because the higher mounting height gives longer seeing distance to the lower beam, providing a safety advantage to drivers. However, when both beams are provided within a single motorcycle headlamp, there is no discernable safety benefit in requiring that the lower beam be uppermost. Thus, Stanley's design in which the upper beam is provided by both higher and lower light sources is permitted by subparagraph(b).

We also want to clarify that each of the three types of headlamp systems are intended to provide the same safety performance, namely a single complying beam pattern. Regardless of whether a two-headlamp or a one-headlamp system is used, and regardless of whether the upper and lower beam functions of a two-headlamp system are segregated or distributed, the light output and distribution of the system must conform to the requirements of S7.9.1. A system of the type described in subparagraph (b) of S7.9.6.2 is not intended to have twice the light output of systems described in S7.9.6.2(a) or S7.9.6.2(c).

You have also asked for confirmation of your interpretation that "when a headlamp has a single lens, it should be regarded [as] a single headlamp irrespective of the number of the light sources and reflectors within the lamp body." The example you depict shows two light sources and their respective reflectors in a single housing consisting of a single chamber, covered by a single lens. We confirm your interpretation that this is a single headlamp, but not because it has a single lens. The fact that the lamp has a single lens is not the determinant. It is possible to design a headlamp with a single lens but with separate housings and chambers; this type of design would effectively create two headlamps.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/22/99

ID: nht67-1.17

DATE: 08/07/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Kar Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dr. Haddon asked me to thank you for your letter of June 19 concerning certification procedures for your product.

Apparently our reply of June 14 did not reach you prior to your sending your second letter. I have enclosed a copy of this answer for your reference. This reply was based on the assumption that your KAR Safety Mirror was not original equipment but rather would be sold in the aftermarket.

Your second letter asks three questions. The first question states that the KAR Safety Mirror will be original equipment on a new Camper being introduced in 1968 and asks what steps, if any, must be taken to certify said mirror for this specific purpose. The answer to this question is that the certification obligation contained in Standard No. 111 applies to the vehicle and it is therefore the vehicle manufacturer who will have to certify that the vehicle needs all applicable standards including Standard No. 111. Question No. 2 concerns the transfer of mirrors from cars now equipped with the KAR Safety Mirror, and question No. 3 concerns the certification requirements on 1963 models where the owner installs the KAR Safety Mirror as an after purchase add on piece of equipment. The answer to both of these questions, of course, is that there is no certification requirement at this time for the mirror, as such, as an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Thank you again for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

June 19, 1967

William Haddon, Jr., M.D., Administrator National Traffic Safety Agency

Under date of May 19, 1967, I wrote to you asking for guidance in submitting the KAR Safety Mirror to the proper local authority for certification under the provisions of the National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Act of 1966. The absence of a reply, to this date, would indicate you have not had sufficient time to implement this prodigious and important program. However, at the risk of being importunate, I earnestly inquire for answers to the conditions presented herein; namely,

1. The KAR Safety Mirror will be original equipment on a new Camper being introduced in 1968. What steps, if any, must be taken to certify said mirror for this specific purpose?

2. A number of owners now having cars equipped with the KAR Safety Mirror will trade for 1968 models and will transfer said KAR Safety Mirror to the new car immediately 'after purchase'. Is prior certification required under these circumstances? If so, how do we proceed?

3. Will prior certification be required for the KAR Safety Mirror when owners of 1968 models buy outright and install said KAR Safety Mirror directly 'after purchase' of the new car?

We would appreciate your comment and reply to these questions at the earliest practical moment.

Alan Axtell, President

cc Honorable George Murphy

cc Honorable Warren G. Magnuson

Will Scott Ford Motor Company

I see no objection to your request of June 28, 1967, to ship the outside mirrors loose in your Econoline models until reaching dealer destination. Since the mirror is shipped and the mounting holes are drilled at the factory, the installation of the mirror by the dealer is purely a routine dealer service.

Sincerely,

William Haddon, Jr., N.B.

DR. WILLIAM HADDON JR DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON D C 20591

PARAGRAPH S3.2.1.1 OF STANDARD NUMBER 111 SPECIFIES THAT AN OUTSIDE REAR-VIEW MIRROR QUOTE SHOULD BE INSTALLED UNQUOTE ON APPLICABLE VEHICLES. IT HAS JUST BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT FORD ECONOLINE MODELS ARE SHIPPED WITH OUTSIDE MIRROR LOOSE IN VEHICLE. THIS PRACTICE IS FOLLOWED BECAUSE OF RESULTING INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE FOR LOADING ON LOWER LEVEL OF HAULAWAY VEHICLES IF MIRROR IS INSTALLED AT FACTORY. ECONOLINES EQUIPPED WITH MIRRORS COULD, OF COURSE, BE SHIPPED ON UPPER HAULAWAY LEVEL ONLY BUT SHIPPING DELAYS AND FREIGHT PENALTIES THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UNDERUTILIZATION OF EQUIPMENT MAKE SUCH A PLAN UNREASONABLE.

WE DRILL MIRROR MOUNTING HOLES AT FACTOR TO INSURE THAT MIRROR IS IN FACT, INSTALLED BY DEALER PRIOR TO CUSTOMER DELIVERY. WOULD THIS BE ACCEPTABLE TO BUREAU OR WILL IT BE NECESSARY TO CLASSIFY THESE UNITS AS IMCOMPLETE VEHICLES SORRY TO BOTHER YOU WITH THIS DETAIL WHEN BUREAU HAS FAR MORE IMPORTAND SUBJECTS UNDER CONSIDERATION REGARDS

WILL SCOTT FORD MOTOR AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY DIRECTOR CENTRAL OFFICE BLDG DEARBORN MICH

ID: cavallo.ztv

Mr. Jason J. Cavallo
Halcore Group, Inc.
3800 McDowell Road
Grove City, Ohio 43123

Dear Mr. Cavallo:

This is in reply to your e-mail of June 18, 2003, and your letter of June 20, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of certain provisions of the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulation, found in 49 CFR Part 579.

You reported in your e-mail that Horton Emergency Vehicles (Horton) is a subsidiary of Halcore Group which also "owns two other emergency vehicle manufacturers," and that you have been told that "we need to combine our overall production between all three companies and report as a Group 1 manufacturer." This statement formed the basis of the first question in your letter of June 20:

"1. When making the determination between group 1 and group 2 reporting levels what is NHTSAs policy on production totals when a parent company owns multiple subsidiaries? Does the parent have to report as one on behalf of its subsidiaries? Or, can each subsidiary report individually?"

Halcore was formed in 1998 through the combination of Horton Emergency Vehicle Company (Horton), American Emergency Vehicles (AEV) and Leader Industries (Leader), each of which makes ambulances. Halcore is regarded as the largest ambulance manufacturing corporation in North America. (see, www.aev.com). Halcores website (www. Halcore.com) refers to Horton, AEV and Leader. AEV refers to itself as a division of the Halcore Group, Inc. In legal proceedings, Leader has referred to itself as Leader Industries, a Division of Halcore Group, Inc. Leader is the California distributor for Horton and AEV. (www.Leader.com). Under the EWR regulation, the definition of "manufacturer" at 49 CFR 579.4(c) includes parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates. For purposes of determining whether the production of vehicles meets or exceeds the 500 vehicles per year threshold in Section 579.21 et seq., the production of the divisions, parent, subsidiaries and affiliates must be aggregated. However, under section 579.3(b), the parent may report collectively or the incorporated entities may report separately, provided that all vehicles are covered by the reporting.

You related that Horton is a final stage manufacturer that does "not warrant the chassis," and that "if a user has a chassis problem we dont usually hear about it."Typically, if there is a problem with the chassis, the vehicles are taken to their "local chassis dealers for warranty and repair issues." You asked about Hortons EWR reporting responsibilities on chassis-related warranty matters, commenting that you believed "the chassis manufacturer would have to report the warranty claim" because Horton is not paying the claim. This issue formed the basis of the first part of your second question. Our reply is that, as to the narrow question posed, you are correct. Hortons responsibility is to report warranty claims that are submitted to it and that it pays.

As the second part of your second question, you also asked (as phrased in the e-mail) that "if an end user contacted us with a chassis issue and we advised them to contact their local chassis dealer does that constitute a reportable complaint?" The answer is yes; Horton would have to include this incident in its numerical count of consumer complaints if the substance was within the scope of matters covered by the definition of "consumer complaint" in Section 579.4. The term "consumer complaint" is a broad one; it covers "a communication of any kind made by a consumer (or other person) to or with a manufacturer . . . expressing dissatisfaction with a product, or relating the unsatisfactory performance of a product . . . ."

Your third question concerned reportable components on emergency vehicles. You related in your e-mail that you have been informed that "certain items on an emergency vehicle, specifically emergency lighting, interior lighting, and interior cabinetry, are not reportable items for TREAD purposes." However, it is your understanding that all items are reportable; i.e., "an exterior light was reportable as an exterior light regardless of whether it was an emergency light or headlamp." Your understanding is correct. The term for reporting that covers emergency lights and headlamps is "exterior lighting," defined in the EWR to mean "all the exterior lamps."

You have also asked in your e-mail "how would one categorize interior lighting and interior cabinetry? Would that be electrical and structure respectively?"You are correct in surmising that interior lighting is covered under the EWRs term "electrical system." That term is defined to mean "any electrical or electronic component of a motor vehicle that is not included in any one of the other reporting categories enumerated" in the EWR regulation. This includes interior lighting.Without having a description of the interior cabinetry that is the subject of your question, it would be considered "structure" only to the extent that it "serves to maintain the shape and size of the vehicle, including the frame, the floorpan, the body, bumpers doors, tailgate, hatchback, trunk lid, hood, and roof." Ordinarily, interior cabinetry does not serve that function. Interior cabinetry does not fall within any of the other defined components and system. Accordingly, it would be a component of a motor vehicle that is not covered by the EWR regulation. However, if an incident involving a death or injury results in Hortons receiving a claim, or a notice alleging or proving that the death or injury was caused by a possible defect in the interior cabinetry, or any other reportable information involving interior cabinetry, Horton would have to report that claim or notice and utilize Code 98 as the system or component involved.

Your letter asked, in its third question, "Is there a set of criteria that an item must meet in order to be reportable?" The EWR specifies certain defined components and systems for which information is required, and assigns them code numbers for reporting purposes. As indicated above, in compiling reportable information under the EWR regulation, a manufacturer must report under Code 98 for items of equipment not covered by the other Codes. Thus, all items of motor vehicle equipment are covered by a reporting Code, either under those pertaining to specified components or systems, or under Code 98 for those that are not covered by one of the other Codes.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.7/21/03

ID: 18773.ztv

Mr. Paul Grundy
General Manager
Safelite
12027 Hesperia Road
Suite D
Herperia, CA 92345

Dear Mr. Grundy:

This is in reply to your letter of August 31, 1998, asking for our opinion on your planned modification to the center high-mounted stop lamp which is Federally-required equipment on passenger cars, light trucks, and vans.

You write that you are familiar with the requirement that the center high-mounted stop lamp must be steady burning in use, but you believe that you have designed your device to comply with this requirement. You inform us that when the brake is applied, your device "will not diminish the Center High-Mounted Stop Lamp (CHMSL) and pulse off and on, but instead will pulse brighter from the continuous burning nature of the CHMSL, twice a second for approximately six seconds, then return to the solid light output of the CHMSL." In our opinion, a pulse that results in either an on/off operation or that varies or modulates the intensity of the light, results in a lamp that is not steady burning in use within the prohibition imposed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have also informed us that you believe you are "adhering to the spirits of the requirements of Standard 108," referencing a July 1989 letter to Robert Knauff which you interpret as opining "that an enhancement feature combining a pulse lamp with a stop lamp is not forbidden under the standard 'as an after-market device . . . if it does not violate the rendering inoperative provision."

The Knauff letter of July 24, 1989, clearly stated that aftermarket equipment intended to replace original equipment must comply with the requirements for original equipment including the specification that stop lamps be steady burning in use. The statement you quote is correct only insofar as it is restricted to aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamps manufactured for use on vehicles that Federal law never required to have them (e.g., passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and light trucks and vans manufactured before September 1, 1993).

We also would like to confirm that the opinions in the Knauff letter regarding "rendering inoperative" and the applicability of state laws remain in effect today.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.11/12/98

ID: 2169y

Mr. William E. Alkire
CEO, Brakelight Enhancer, Inc.
1010 Rancheros Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069

Dear Mr. Alkire:

This is in response to your letter of August 24, l989, in care of Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for our comments on your "Brake Light Enhancer". This device flashes the stop lamps of a vehicle three times within the first two seconds after actuation of the stop lamp system, the lamps remaining illuminated thereafter.

Our comments on your device are restricted to its acceptability under the Federal regulatory scheme as either original or aftermarket equipment.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to lighting equipment on new vehicles is Standard No. l08. This standard must be met when the vehicle is manufactured, and when it is sold to its first purchaser (i.e., dealer-installed equipment must not affect compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards). Section S5.5.10(e) of Standard No. l08 requires stop lamps to be wired to be steady burning in use, and your device's initial cycle of three flashes in two seconds would create a noncompliance with this requirement. Accordingly, your device is not permissible as an item of original equipment.

There is no aftermarket Federal standard applicable to your device. Equipment intended for vehicles in use are subject to the restriction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that they may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, if they are installed by a person other than the vehicle owner. In our view, if a modification creates a noncompliance with a standard that applies to a new motor vehicle, it is the equivalent of creating a partial inoperability of orignial safety equipment when that modification is performed on a motor vehicle in use. Installation of the Brake Light Enhancer by a person other than the vehicle owner would have this effect, and thus would be subject to the prohibition of the Act. Use of the device is also subject to the laws of the various States in which the device will be sold and operated. Although California may permit its use, per Calif. Senate Bill 1317 that you enclosed, other States may not. We are unable to advise on State laws, and recommend that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:#l08 d:ll/28/89

ID: nht88-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: GARY EVANS -- PRESIDENT, WESTEX AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-26-88, TO NHTSA, FROM GARY EVANS-WESTEX

TEXT: This is a response to your letter of February 26, 1988, where you asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) whether a product you wish to import and sell in the United States "complies with any standards which may affect it.". You describe the product as a warning triangle that is designed to be attached to the side window of a car. You tell us that this side-mounted triangle is about 20% smaller than the warning device specified in this agency's regulations in Standard 125, War ning Devices. The answer to your question is that the device you described would not comply with Standard 125.

Standard 125 sets uniform specifications for warning devices. Paragraph S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approachi ng traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." By its own terms, then, Standard 125 applies to all warning devices that are not designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. Y ou are mistaken in suggesting that because the device attaches to the vehicle, Standard 125 is inapplicable. As I understand your description, the device is not "permanently affixed" to the vehicle. Rather, it is carried in the vehicle, and the vehicle operator may attach or remove the device as necessary. Therefore, this device is subject to the requirements of Standard 125.

According to your letter, this device fails to comply with the minimum size requirements set forth in paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 125. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, " No person shall . . . import into the United States any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Standar d 125 took effect on January 1, 1974. Thus, Federal law prohibits you from importing any of the devices described in your letter that were manufactured on or after January 1, 1974.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 2883o

Gary Evans, President
Westex Automotive Corporation
40880 Encyclopedia Circle
Fremont, CA 94538

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is a response to your letter of February 26, 1988, where you asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) whether a product you wish to import and sell in the United States "complies with any standards which may affect it.". You describe the product as a warning triangle that is designed to be attached to the side window of a car. You tell us that this side-mounted triangle is about 20% smaller than the warning device specified in this agency's regulations in Standard 125, Warning Devices. The answer to your question is that the device you described would not comply with Standard 125.

Standard 125 sets uniform specifications for warning devices. Paragraph S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." By its own terms, then, Standard 125 applies to all warning devices that are not designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. You are mistaken in suggesting that because the device attaches to the vehicle, Standard 125 is inapplicable. As I understand your description, the device is not "permanently affixed" to the vehicle. Rather, it is carried in the vehicle, and the vehicle operator may attach or remove the device as necessary. Therefore, this device is subject to the requirements of Standard 125.

According to your letter, this device fails to comply with the minimum size requirements set forth in paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 125. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall ... import into the United States any ... item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard..." Standard 125 took effect on January 1, 1974. Thus, Federal law prohibits you from importing any of the devices described in your letter that were manufactured on or after January 1, 1974. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:125 d:7/18/88

ID: 77-2.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Sullair Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 1, 1977, question whether your company's wheel mounted portable air compressors qualify as motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, (15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et. seq.).

The answer to your question is yes. Section 102(3) of the Act defines 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.

Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use the public highways as part of its intended function. Vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. Since your portable air compressors are used in this manner they qualify as motor vehicles. For purposes of regulating motor vehicles, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established vehicle catagories within that class. Your portable air compressors meet the definition of one of those catagories, trailers.

The following safety standards are applicable to the manufacture of trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment; Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses (in the case of trailers equipped with air brakes); and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

You will have to certify the compliance of your trailers to these safety standards. Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR Part 566), specifies identification information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of vehicles and equipment that are regulated by our safety standards. Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567, specifies the content and location of the certification label or tag that must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards.

SINCERELY,

SULLAIR CORPORATION

April 1, 1977

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration James B. Gregory, Administrator

Sullair Corporation requests a formal determination as to whether or not wheel mounted portable air compressors manufactured by our company fall under the jurisdiction of 15USC1391-1431 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, or any of the Federal Regulations listed in Appendix 1, or any other Federal Regulations administered by the United States Department of Transportation.

Briefly, our wheel mounted portable air compressors can be categorized as shown in Fig. 1 through 4, attached. Obviously, all of these categories may be considered trailers. They all have pneumatic tires, some with rims. They all contain an engine with fuel system, but none are self propelled, nor are they intended to carry passengers or any operator, and some are lined with acoustical materials.

15USC1391-1431 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Title 1, Part A, Sec. 102, (3), states -" 'Motor Vehicle' means 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".

Our interpretation of this statement has been that our wheel mounted portable air compressors do not come under the jurisdiction of these Federal Regulations due to the fact that they are manufactured primarily to provide compressed air at construction sites and the like, and the fact that they are drawn over public street roads, and hghways for the purpose of transporting them from one construction site to another, or to the site of road repair, for example, was only incidental to their use, and not the primary function they are manufactured to perform.

Occasionally, we factory install customer specified optional equipment on these wheel mounted portable air compressors, such as electric, hydraulic, pneumatic, or vacuum operated service brakes, mechanical, hydralic, or pneumatic, operated parking brakes, electric or hydralic operated brakeaway brakes, safety chains stop lights, turn indicator lights, tail lights, running and/or clearance lights, hazard warning lights, and/or reflective devices, for example.

It has been our thinking that installing this sort of optional equipment only enhances the safety with which these wheel mounted portable air compressors may be drawn from one work site to another, and in no way alters the primary function that they are manufactured to perform, and as a result, does not automatically bring these products under the jurisdiction of the Federal Regulations mentioned elsewhere.

Please let us have your determination as to whether or not our interpretation and thinking are correct.

E. C. Elliott Engineer, Product Safety and Environment

[ENC. OMITTED]