ID: 2908yy

Mr. David E. McAllister
Manufacturers Representative
442 Robin Hill Road
Wayne, PA . 19087

Dear Mr. McAllister:

This responds to your letter of March 14, l99l, "as a supplier to the U.S. Postal Service for lights", asking whether it is "legal" for the center high mounted stop lamp to flash.

We understand that the new postal service vehicles are trucks. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the center highmounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars. When installed as original equipment on a passenger car, it is required to be steady-burning when the brake pedal is applied. However, since Standard No. 108 does not require center highmounted stop lamps on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, any such lamps would not be required to be steady-burning. Thus, the current requirements of Standard No. 108 would permit a center lamp on a postal truck to flash.

Supplementary lighting equipment, i.e., lighting equipment that is not required by Standard No. 108, is subject to Standard No. 108's general prohibition that such not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The determination of impairment is to be made by the manufacturer of the vehicle before it certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If it appears to be clearly erroneous, NHTSA will review the determination. With respect to the present case, it is theoretically possible that a flashing center stop lamp could "impair the effectiveness" of the truck's two steady-burning primary stop lamps by sending a confusing signal. However, given the lamp's location on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, and the public recognition of the function of the center lamp on passenger cars, we do not believe it is likely that the public would be confused.

We would like to advise you that the agency has proposed that trucks be equipped with steady-burning center lamps, and that it has announced that a final rule will be issued during the first half of 1991. If the final rule applies to postal trucks, then a flashing center lamp could not be installed on postal trucks manufactured on and after the rule's effective date.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref. l08 d:4/3/9l

ID: 2909o

Mr. Gerald Peterson
Taraco Enterprises Inc.
Empire Plaza
23 Empire Drive
St. Paul, MN 55103

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This responds to your May 17, 1988 letter to me asking for "information on petitions filed, concerning the safety problems on trucks." You also enclosed for the agency's information materials on the product you manufacture called a "Truk-Hedrest." According to the brochures you sent, the Truk-Hedrest attaches to the rear window of a vehicle by means of velcro and "is designed to help protect the head of the driver and passenger of a truck or van in an accident when their head is snapped back against the rear window or bulkhead of a vehicle." You also enclosed a copy of an August 28, 1987 letter which Mr. Carl Clark of this agency sent you regarding your product. The latter part of this letter addresses statements in your brochures relating to our regulations and the Truk-Hedrest.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shares your concern for light truck safety and is currently reviewing a number of actions intended to improve the protection for occupants of such vehicles. This review has been described in detail in the enclosed reports to Congress issued by NHTSA in May 1987 ("Light Truck and Van Safety") and April 1988 ("Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles"). Among the rulemaking activities considered by NHTSA for light trucks is a possible extension of Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, to those vehicles. The agency is presently reviewing petitions for rulemaking on this subject from Mr.Dale T. Fanzo of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania and Mr.Mark E. Goodson of Lewisville, Texas. I have enclosed copies of these petitions for your information.

With regard to the brochures and materials you sent on your product, I would like to first to make it clear that Mr. Clark's letter on the Truk-Hedrest only expressed his personal opinions and interests concerning your product. His letter does not represent any official agency position regarding light truck safety in general or regarding your product in particular. Mr. Clark's letter was neither an approval nor endorsement of your product by this agency. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. In addition, the agency cannot as a matter of law and will not as a matter of policy determine the extent, if any, of the occupant protection provided by any commercial product apart from the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Thus, the agency does not concur in any manner with Mr.Clark's assessement that the Truk-Hedrest "does indeed provide excellent head protection" or with any other statement as to the effectiveness of your product.

Second, your brochures imply that the Truk-Hedrest has been shown to help protect against possible neck and head injuries when tested to "NHTSA guidelines." NHTSA has neither adopted or even developed guidelines for testing the Truk-Hedrest. Again, in his letter to you Mr. Clark provided only his personal opinion on certain aspects of your product testing program. He expressed no agency recommendations or "guidelines" for testing a product such as yours "for rear end collisions up to 50 MPH," or with bowling balls, since no such guidelines exist.

My final clarification concerns the statements in your brochures that the Truk-Hedrest "Passes MVSS-302 Test for fire and toxic fumes." Please note that Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, addresses only the flammability resistance of vehicle components and not the toxicity of gases from burning materials.

With respect to your statement about meeting the FMVSS 302 requirements regarding fire, please note that if the Truk-Hedrest did not in fact meet those requirements and were installed in a vehicle by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, there could be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits those persons from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS 302.

To repeat, in his letter to you Mr. Clark was only expressing his personal opinions and interests concerning your product and made no statements that should be construed as official agency positions. NHTSA does not endorse the Truk-Hedrest nor do we make any determination on the extent, if any, of the occupant protection provided by your product. I regret any confusion that may have resulted from Mr. Clark's letter to you on the Truk-Hedrest.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:302 d:9/2/88

ID: 2909yy

Mr. Rueben K. Brown
Product Engineer
Crane Carrier Company
P.O. Box 582891
1925 North Sheridan
Tulsa, OK 74158

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter of March 12, 1991 requesting an interpretation of the applicability of the spike stop requirement in Standard No. 105 to school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs. While school buses are required by S5.1 to be capable of meeting the requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.6, the spike stop requirement in S5.1.6 is only applicable to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less. Therefore, school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs are not required to be capable of meeting the spike stop requirement.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref: 105 d:3/29/9l

ID: 2910yy

Mr. Ian A. Munro
Tubex Pty., Ltd.
96 Station St.
Nunawading VIC 3131
AUSTRALIA

Dear Mr. Munro:

This responds to your February 8, 1991 letter to Mr. John Messera of NHTSA's Enforcement Office about the air brake hose (tubing) you manufacture. Your questions have been referred to my office for reply.

By way of background, NHTSA administers Federal regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake hoses) sold in or imported into this country. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Standard 106 applies to new motor vehicles and to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties of $1000 per violation, and the notification and remedy provisions of the Safety Act. I have enclosed a copy of the Safety Act for your information.

Your first question asks how you would "register" your hose and "air coil connectors" with NHTSA. By "register," we believe you mean the process by which a manufacturer files a designation with NHTSA that identifies the manufacturer. The manufacturer's designation is marked on its hose, end fittings and assemblies, and assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturer of noncomplying or defective brake hoses.

The filing and labeling requirements for the manufacturer designation are in S7.2.1 for air brake hose, S7.2.2 for end fittings, and S7.2.3 or S7.2.3.1 for assemblies. To "register" your designation (which may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol), you would simply file the designation in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division at the following address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. You may telephone Mr. Vernon Bloom of the Crash Avoidance Division at (202) 366-5277 if you have questions about filing your designation.

Your second question asks whether compliance with SAE Standard J844, "Nonmetallic Air Brake System Tubing" is sufficient to be assured of compliance with FMVSS 106. The answer is no. Your hoses must be certified as meeting FMVSS 106 to be sold in or imported into this country. To determine the answer to your question, you would have to examine SAE J844 and FMVSS 106, and compare their requirements. Where the requirements differ, FMVSS 106 is the standard that must be met.

Your third question asks for information on all Federal requirements for the sale of nylon air brake tubing in the United States. I have enclosed a copy of FMVSS 106 for your reference. I also note that our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration, has operational and equipment requirements for trucks used in interstate commerce. If you are interested in that agency's requirements for brake tubing, you can write to them at the address provided in the enclosed information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

In addition, I have enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hose) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States.

The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent 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 United States corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

7. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

A final question raised in your letter is whether Table III of Standard 106 applies to rubber hose only. The answer is yes. NHTSA issued a final rule on February 25, 1991 (56 FR 7589) that amended Standard 106 so that Table III expressly applies to rubber brake hoses only, and not hoses made from plastic tubing. A copy of the rule is enclosed.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:106 d:3/29/9l

ID: 2911yy

Mr. Gregory J. Vonderheide
Vice President Sales
Markets Unlimited Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 289
Conestoga, PA 17516

Dear Mr. Vonderheide:

This responds to your letter of March 6, l99l, asking for the "application(s) necessary for the Department of Transportation approval of a new product." The product is described only as a "Safety Light."

The Department has no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment, and which must be met by the manufacturers of any vehicles or equipment to which the standards apply.

Unless your product is intended to replace an existing light found on motor vehicles, it would not appear to be directly covered by Standard No. l08, which establishes Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting. If indeed it is intended as an additional light, under Standard No. 108 supplementary lighting equipment is permissible as original equipment on motor vehicles provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Supplementary lighting equipment is also permissible under the Act for vehicles in use, provided its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business does not render wholly or partially inoperative any element of design or device installed in accordance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Without knowing more of your device, we can provide you only this general guidance.

The use of equipment on bicycles is under the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Md. and we are unable to advise you of their requirements.

The use of supplementary lighting equipment is also regulated by the individual States. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:3.29/9l

ID: 2912yy

Mr. B. Wendling-Malusev
Manager, Government Relations
Yugo America, Inc.
120 Pleasant Avenue
P.O. Box 730
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-0730

Dear Mr. Wendling-Malusev:

This responds to your letter of March 5, 1991, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems. Specifically, you requested an interpretation of the phrase "without manual assist" as used in section S4.3 of that standard.

You stated in your letter that Transport Canada interpreted the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103 in a way that is not used by U.S. testing facilities. Let me preface my discussion by stating that although the two standards may have identical wording, they remain different standards. Our interpretation relates only to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103 and has no bearing whatsoever on Transport Canada's interpretation of their own standard.

Section S4.3 of the standard, Demonstration procedure, incorporates the testing procedure of paragraphs 4.1 through 4.4.7 of SAE Recommended Practice J902 or J902(a) (J902). Paragraph 4.2.6 of J902 requires that the windshield wiper not operate during the test. Section S4.3(d) of Standard No. 103 is one of the listed exceptions to the J902 test procedure. S4.3(d) allows the use of windshield wipers during the test "if they are operated without manual assist."

Section S4.3(d) does not define "manual assist." When terms used by a regulation are not defined by the regulation, the terms are defined by their common, everyday use. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines "manual" as "involving or using human power, energy, etc." That same dictionary defines "assist" as "to give support, aid, or help to."

Given this definition, human power used to assist the functioning of the wipers, beyond turning the wipers on or off, is precluded by the standard. As your letter correctly states, prohibited "manual assist" would include such things as manually freeing the wipers of ice.

This interpretation is supported by a consideration of windshield wiper system designs in use in 1968, the year in which the standard was promulgated. At that time, some vacuum and air-assisted windshield wiper systems were still in use. Having less power than electric windshield wiper systems, vacuum and air-assisted wipers were more susceptible to drag caused by ice on the windshield. Ice-induced drag severely limited the frost-clearing effectiveness of these wipers. The "manual assist" provision was intended to prohibit the use of human energy to overcome this disadvantage. The "manual assist" provision was not intended to prohibit those wipers being turned on or off by use of human power, as the wipers were designed to be used. Even today, except for the very few windshield wiper systems that operate automatically when they sense water or frost on the windshield, the vast majority of windshield wiper systems require manual switching to initiate operation.

I hope that this information has been helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:103 d:3/29/9l

ID: 2913yy

DS America, Inc.
5110 Tollview Drive
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Attn: Messrs. Riani and Mitchell

Gentlemen:

This responds to your letter of March 6, "l990" with respect to your interest in importing for resale Volkswagen Beetles manufactured in Mexico. You've asked for information on "all relevant requirements for cars being imported to the United States."

A motor vehicle must conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported permanently into the United States. The authority for this requirement is The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966, as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, which became effective January 31, l990. I enclose a copy of the l966 Act for your information; the amendments effectuated by the l988 Act are found at section l08 [1397], subsections (c) through (j).

In brief, a nonconforming motor vehicle may not be imported into the United States unless the Admininstrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the vehicle complies or is capable of conformance to the FMVSS. Determinations are made pursuant to petitions received from manufacturers or registered importers. A "registered importer" is one that NHTSA has officially recognized as capable of performing the conformance work. After an affirmative determination, the vehicle may be imported by the registered importer, or by any other person who has a contract with the registered importer to perform the conversion work. Certain performance bonds and fees payable to the government have been established. I enclose a copy of the most current list of registered importers. For the text of the FMVSS and other agency regulations, you may contact the outlet of the Government Printing Office closest to you, and obtain "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999 Effective October 1, l990". NHTSA regulations are parts 501-594 inclusive. You will be particularly interested in Parts 571 (the FMVSS), 591 (import regulation), 592 (registered importer requirements), 593 (vehicle eligibility determinations), and 594 (fees). The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the conformance capability of Mexican Beetles with the FMVSS. If you wish to petition for such a determination, you must either become a registered importer or contract with one to act in your behalf. NHTSA would be especially concerned about the capability of Beetles manufactured on and after September 1, l989, to be conformed to meet the automatic restraint requirements of FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), Occupant Restraint Systems.

You have asked for any information the Department may have about conformance problems. During the mid-l980s, Mexican Beetles were imported for resale by commercial enterprises in Texas and California. The Texas enterprise was able to satisfy the importation requirements that were effective before the stringent amendments of the l988 Act. The California enterprise was unable to meet our requirements. We do not view the Texas experience in conversion of vehicles as particularly relevant today in light of the extensive changes made by the l988 Act.

Finally, you have asked whether "documentation by Volkswagon of Mexico certifying these crash requirements can replace a crash tested vehicle or vehicles." Under our regulations, the registered importer must certify that the converted vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS, and, with the initial vehicle, provide NHTSA with documents in substantation. Certainly, if Volkswagen de Mexico had conducted successful barrier impact tests exactly in the manner set forth in the FMVSS, the test results would appear to afford a basis upon which the registered importer could certify compliance. But because conformance modifications could alter vehicle structure or weight, and hence potentially affect the test results previously obtained, your question cannot be answered simply yes or no. However, a registered importer is not legally obliged to conduct a crash test to demonstrate conformance, but could verify that the converted Mexican Beetles continue to conform with the Mexican test results through the use of computer simulations, engineering studies, or mathematical calculations.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/Ref. 59l d:4/l/9l

ID: 2914yy

Mr. Rick Weisbrod
Vice President Marketing
Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.
4100 West Piedras Street
Farmington, New Mexico 87401

Dear Mr. Weisbrod:

This responds to your letter of March 5, 1991 concerning the requirements of Standard No. 301. According to your letter and information provided in a telephone conversation with John Rigby of this office on March 7, 1991, your company uses the Chrysler mini-van as a base vehicle for modification for use by drivers or passengers in wheelchairs. This modification is normally performed before the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer. However, the modification is sometimes performed after sale of the vehicle to a consumer. During the modification, the position of the fuel tank is altered by moving it behind the rear axle, the fuel filler tube is modified to reach the new location, and new structure is added to the rear of the vehicle. To ensure compliance with Standard No. 301, your company had front, rear, and side impact tests performed on a modified vehicle. You believe that this crash testing is appropriate, but have been told by "various entities" that no such testing is required. Below I will explain the requirements applicable (1) when your company modifies a vehicle before the first sale to a consumer and (2) when your company modifies a vehicle after its sale to a consumer.

As you know, a manufacturer of new motor vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Under the NHTSA regulation on certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered an "alterer," if the modifications involve more than the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable" components. An alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). When your company modifies a vehicle by relocating the fuel tank and making the other changes listed above before first sale to a consumer, it would be considered an alterer. Your company, therefore, would have to certify that every vehicle it alters complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration, including Standard No. 301.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not expressly require alterers and manufacturers to conduct testing in accordance with the procedures set forth in the safety standards. Instead, the Safety Act requires alterers and manufacturers to exercise "due care" in certifying that a vehicle complies with all safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). It is up to the alterer or manufacturer, in the first instance, to determine how he or she will establish that due care was exercised in making the certification. NHTSA itself must precisely follow the crash test procedures in Standard No. 301 when the agency conducts its compliance testing. Manufacturers or alterers may establish due care by conducting crash testing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Standard No. 301. Alternatively, manufacturers or alterers may use other procedures for assuring themselves that their vehicle complies with Standard No. 301, such as computer simulations or engineering analyses. Of course, the agency recognizes that conducting crash tests in accordance with the procedures in Standard No. 301 may be the simplest and most reliable way for an alterer to assure itself that the altered vehicles comply with the standard.

When your company modifies a vehicle after that vehicle has been sold to a consumer, it would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides, in part, that:

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

Thus, your company (or any other manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) making the modifications you described in your letter must ensure that those modifications do not "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. Again, the crash testing described in your letter would be a very effective way of ensuring that the modifications do not "render inoperative" compliance with Standard No. 301.

While your letter only concerned compliance with Standard No. 301, I would note that the modifications you discussed may affect compliance with other safety standards. Other safety standards that could be affected by the modifications include (1) Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, (2) Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (3) Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, and (4) Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

I hope this information is useful to you. I also would like to express my appreciation for your company's interest in and commitment to motor vehicle safety. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref:301 d:4/l/9l

ID: 2915yy

Mr. Mark A. Pacheco
Vice President
Innovative Industries
of Tampa, Inc.
5126 Le Tourneau Circle
Tampa, FL 33610

Dear Mr. Pacheco:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the application of Federal regulations to your client's product. This product, called a "Walk Machine," looks like a two-wheeled scooter, with a small 37cc engine attached to it. You stated that this product is designed for off-road use.

NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

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

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Your letter did not indicate whether the "Walk Machine" would be designed and sold solely for off-road use, or whether it would be used on-road for a substantial amount of time. However, based on your letter, this vehicle would not be a "motor vehicle" even if it is regularly used on the public roads. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. The information provided for the "Walk Machine" indicates that it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that would readily distinguish it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles.

Because this vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," none of this agency's standards apply to it. You may wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply to this vehicle. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20207. You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your client's product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:4/l/9l

ID: 2945o

Mr. Steve Zlotkin
Overland Parts, Inc.
48368 Milmont Dr.
Fremont, CA 94538

Dear Mr. Zlotkin:

This is in response to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, your letter stated that your company would like to import some non-laminated windshields into the United States. I apologize for the delay in our response. As explained below, your company is prohibited by Federal law from importing or selling this type of windshield because it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

Standard No. 205 establishes performance and marking requirements for all glazing installed in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference the requirements of Standard ANS Z-26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," of the American National Standard Institute. Standard ANS Z-26 requires that glazing materials for windshields must pass a specified group of test requirements. ANS Z-26 specifies that glazing materials that comply with these test requirements for windshields must be marked AS-1. To date, the only glazing materials that have been marked AS-1 have been laminated safety glass. Unless your non-laminated windshields can meet the requirements for AS-1 glazing and are marked AS-1, they do not comply with the requirements for windshields specified in Standard ANS Z-26 or Standard No. 205. You also should be aware that Standard No. 205 permits glass-plastic glazing.

The importation and sale of noncomplying glazing would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), the statute under which Standard No. 205 was issued. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard... Your letter set forth two interpretations of the law under which you suggested that your company might be able to import noncomplying windshields. Your first interpretation relied on the fact that these windshields can only be installed in vehicles that were manufactured between 1953 and 1967. Since Standard No. 205's requirements for windshields did not become effective until January 1, 1968, you suggested that the provisions of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act might not apply, because no safety standards were applicable to these vehicles. This suggestion is incorrect.

All windshields manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205, regardless of the year of manufacture of the vehicle on which the windshield is designed to be installed. In fact, safety standards relating to components such as brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, glazing materials, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers are applicable to components manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, even if those components are manufactured for motor vehicles manufactured before that date. In a January 16, 1987 interpretation letter to Mr. Peter Cameron-Nott (copy enclosed), the agency stated that the above listed component parts including glazing materials that were manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, would have to comply to the relevant safety standards (in the case of glazing, Standard No. 205) even though the underlying motor vehicle was a 1965 Jaguar.

Assuming that the non-laminated windshields that were the subject of your letter were in fact manufactured after January 1, 1968, Standard No. 205 applies to those windshields. As already noted, Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits your company from importing any windshields that are subject to Standard No. 205 that do not comply with that standard.

Your second suggestion is that your company would be willing to place a sticker on these windshields to warn purchasers that the windshields do not comply with Standard No. 205. The Safety Act contains no exception to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition for noncomplying equipment, even if it were to be labeled as noncomplying. Hence, section 108(a)(1)(A) prohibits the importation of noncomplying windshields without regard to any warning labels on the windshields.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:205 d:9/l2/88