ID: 22132oneW--BusinessModelOneOnly

Mark A. Rosenbaum, Esq.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038-4982





Dear Mr. Rosenbaum:

This responds to your August 17, 2000, letter about Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR 571.213), as it relates to the services that your client, OneWarranty.com, Inc., would like to offer concerning owner registration of child restraint systems and other products. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask three questions, which are addressed below.

Background

Standard No. 213

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," establishes an owner registration program for child restraint systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) implemented the program to improve the effectiveness of manufacturer campaigns to recall child restraints that contain a safety-related defect or that fail to conform to Standard No. 213. By increasing the number of identified child restraint purchasers, the program increases the manufacturers' ability to inform owners of restraints about defects or noncompliances in those restraints.

Under the program, child restraint manufacturers are required to provide a registration form attached to each child restraint (S5.8). The registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). Each form must include a detachable postage-paid postcard which provides a space for the consumer to record his or her name and address, and must be preprinted with the restraint's model name or number and its date of manufacture. Except for information that distinguishes a particular restraint from other systems, no other information is permitted to appear on the postcard. (S5.8(c)). Child restraints are also required to be labeled with a statement urging the owner to register with the manufacturer (S5.5.2(m)). The statement also must be in the printed instructions for each child restraint (S5.6.1.7).

OneWarranty.com

On September 13, 2000, you and your client, Douglas Suliman, Jr. of OneWarranty.com, met with several representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), including Jon White, Zack Fraser, Michael Huntley, and Deirdre Fujita of my staff. You explained that your client is an internet company that provides product registration services to consumers and manufacturers for a multitude of manufacturers and products. The company's services would be free to consumers.

Your client is considering entering into an arrangement with child restraint manufacturers to register owners of child restraint systems. Under the arrangement, the manufacturer's owner registration cards would be printed with information notifying purchasers that they may register the child restraint "through a mail-in card or via the internet" through OneWarranty.com's web-site. (Your first two questions relate to the permissibility of including this information on the card.) OneWarranty.com would be informed of a safety recall by the child restraint manufacturer. The owner's identity would be held by OneWarranty.com and withheld from the child restraint manufacturer, so that, as you state on page two of your letter, "the consumer can maintain its privacy from the manufacturer and from intrusive questionnaires traditionally associated with product registration...." The company would maintain the registration information for a minimum of six years. Under the model, OneWarranty.com contemplates notifying child restraint owners electronically of a recall, by e-mail. (Your third question relates to the permissibility of e-mail notifications of a recall.)

Your Questions

ID: 6952

Mr. Arthur J. Kuminski
Design Engineer
Eberhard Manufacturing Co.
21944 Drake Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44136-6697

Dear Mr. Kuminski:

This responds to your letter of February 3, 1992 concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. You asked about the standard's test requirements for sliding doors on cargo vans (sections S4.3 and S5.3). Your three questions and the response to each follow.

1. I will need specifications on how to perform this test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and the door latch only.

Standard No. 206 "specifies requirements for side door locks and side door retention components including latches, hinges, and other supporting means, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact." The standard's requirements for sliding doors are set forth in sections S4.3 and S5.3.

Section S4.3 specifies that the track and slide combination or other supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total transverse load of 4,000 pounds is applied, with the door in the closed position. Section S5.3 states, "(c)ompliance with S4.3 shall be demonstrated by applying an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The demonstration may be performed either in the vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture."

Under section S5.3, the same basic procedure is conducted whether the test is conducted in a vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture, i.e., an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds is applied to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The details of the procedure using a bench test fixture will necessarily vary for different designs of sliding doors, since the door retention components themselves vary. The test should be conducted in such a manner that the same loads are applied to the door retention components as would occur in a vehicle test.

You specifically asked about how to perform the test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and door latch only. I note that since the requirement in section S4.3 applies to the "track and slide combination or other supporting means" for a sliding door, the striker assembly and door latch of a sliding door are tested only if they are part of the supporting means for the door. I also note that the entire supporting means for a sliding door is tested under section S5.3 and not merely one part.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of a May 13, 1975 interpretation letter to Toyota (including the incoming letter) which discusses various demonstration test fixtures which might be used to test sliding doors under Standard No. 206.

2. What load must the system withstand in the primary locked position to pass the test?

3. Is there a load requirement that the system must withstand in the secondary locked position to pass the test?

Section S4.1.1 of Standard No. 206 requires hinged doors, other than cargo-type doors to have both a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. There is not a similar requirement for sliding doors. Section S4.3 requires only one test, with a total load of 4,000 pounds, for sliding doors. This test would be performed with the door latched.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:206 d:3/30/92

ID: nht92-6.47

DATE: May 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: B.J. Forney

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from B.J. Forney to Diane K. Steed (OCC 7235)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter, asking whether a vehicle equipped with a product you have invented could be operated legally on the public roads. Although your letter did not provide details of this invention, it appears it would supply wind energy to the engine in an effort to reduce the amount of gasoline burned to power the engine. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. While NHTSA has not issued any standards that apply directly to devices like your product, our safety standards do establish minimum performance requirements for a number of vehicle systems, including the braking system, the accelerator control system, and fuel system integrity. Accordingly, while you would not have to certify that your product complies with any safety standards, any person installing your product on a new vehicle prior to the first retail sale of the vehicle would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards with your product installed. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles for compliance with the Federal safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all of our applicable safety standards.

After the first retail sale of a vehicle, a person installing your product on the vehicle would no longer be required to certify that the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable safety standards. Instead, a different provision of Federal law would be relevant. This provision is 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), which specifies that, "no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." This statutory provision would be violated by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business if its installation of your product on a vehicle caused the vehicle to no longer comply with one of our safety standards.

Finally, NHTSA has authority to investigate allegations that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your product, contain defects related to motor vehicle safety. If either you, as the manufacturer of the product or this agency were to determine that your product contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to notify owners of your product and to remedy any such defect without charge to the owner, as provided in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420).

As you see, the laws and regulations of this agency do not directly relate to the use of any product. The individual States have authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles and motor vehicle equipment within their borders. For further information on the laws of the States, you may wish to contact: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.57

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 9, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: W.C. Glasscock -- Sun-Cool & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from W.C. Glasscock (OCC 5237)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows. According to your letter, you have been involved in the window tinting business for many years but only recently became aware of the fact that Fede ral law prohibits businesses from adding tinting film to motor vehicle windows if it reduces the level of light transmittance below that required by the Federal standard. You expressed concern that there appears to be a conflict between Federal and stat e law in this area and that there has been a lack of enforcement of the Federal requirement.

We are pleased that you have become aware of the Federal requirement in this area and that you are apparently now complying with it. As you may have heard, we have brought suit against six tint businesses in Florida. Those cases are pending in Federal c ourt. We also plan to take appropriate steps to enforce the Federal requirement in other parts of the nation.

I will now discuss the relationship between Federal and state law in this area. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish requirements for specific level s of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 per cent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not "render inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in complianc e with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows "inoperati ve, within the meaning of Standard 205.

You stated that state laws differ from the Federal law, citing as an example an Illinois law which, according to your letter, allows tinting on the rear and sides of vehicles as long as the vehicle's owner has a letter

from a physician licensed to practice in the state of Illinois that explains the medical basis for the need.

The "render inoperative" provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which after market tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

However, no state has the authority to grant any exemptions from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of state law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor ve hicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht91-2.49

DATE: March 26, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jessie M. Flautt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from Jessie M. Flautt to Steven Kratzske (OCC 5813)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle.

You explained that you are under five feet, two inches and legally blind in one eye. You further explained that, due to the increased size of headrests in recent years, you are unable to locate a 1991 automobile which does not have headrests which impede your field of vision. You wish to arrange to have the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile reduced. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulation will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, S108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of S108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute

enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the headrest on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the headrest to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle. Many manufacturers are currently installing headrests in vehicles which exceed the minimum dimensions required by FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. I urge you not to have your headrest reduced below these dimensions if it is not necessary for your field of view.

If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-3.5

DATE: April 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark A. Pacheco -- Vice President, Innovative Industries of Tampa, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-91 from Mark A. Pacheco to Department Of Transportation, NHDSA (OCC 5800)

TEXT:

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.

ID: nht92-8.7

DATE: April 2, 1992

FROM: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: M. Dunn; R. Rogers

TITLE: Re: R-BAR Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael F. Hecker (A39; Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 3/10/89 from Erika Z. Jones to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 1/8/90 from Jerry Ralph Curry (signed by Jeffrey R. Miller) to Robert J. Lagomarsino (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 1/31/91 from Paul J. Rice to Scott K. Hiler (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 11/3/88 from Erika Z. Jones (signed by Stephen P. Wood) to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222)

TEXT:

As you are aware Micho Industries is the licensed manufacturer of the R-BAR passenger restraint which was developed to further the safety of children who ride in school buses. This system was designed by Safety Research and Manufacturing (SRM) of Jessup, PA.. For the last three years we have worked with SRM in the continuing development of the product in order to assure that it does not violate any applicable federal and state motor vehicle safety requirements. In addition it is our joint goal that the R-BAR establish a new standard for passenger protection in school bus transportation.

I am writing you in regards to a particular specification in 49 CFR, 571.222. As stated, the "purpose" of the standard is to reduce the number of deaths and the severity of injuries that result from the impact of school bus occupants against structures within the vehicle. We are, however, concerned with possible interpretations of the 4" seat performance rule as stated in 49 CFR, 571.222, section S5.1.2(c). With this in mind, we feel that:

A. The standard is not applicable to the R-BAR passenger restraint.

B. The R-BAR complies with the intent of 571.222.

In support for this position we offer the following reasons:

1. The R-BAR is not a fixed position device, nor is it a rigid component of the seat structure.

2. In the event of a rear impact, the R-BAR incorporates a design that allows it to move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended.

(This was proven in tests conducted in May 1991 at Calspan on their HYGE sled -- see attached Report No. 7925-1).

3. The standard in question (571.222, section S5.1.2(c) was written without the authors having the benefit of knowledge of this type of device and thus allowances were not included for its possible use.

We recognize that any final interpretation will be in the hands of your department and respectfully request your advice on this matter. We would ask that you advise us, prior to issuing a final interpretation, of any additional

concerns you may have so that we can supply the necessary information to address those concerns. In order to further aid you, we have available a test data book that summarizes the testing that the R-Bar has been subjected to, over the last seven years, and would gladly send it to you if you so desire. In addition video clips of the various tests can be assembled for you review.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

Attachment

Calspan Advanced Technology Center SRM SLED TEST report no. 7925-1, May 20, 1991 prepared by David J. Travale, prepared for SRM, Inc. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht92-8.13

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Arthur J. Kuminski -- Design Engineer, Eberhard Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/3/92 from Arthur J. Kuminski to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6952)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 3, 1992 concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. You asked about the standard's test requirements for sliding doors on cargo vans (sections S4.3 and S5.3). Your three questions and the response to each follow.

1. I will need specifications on how to perform this test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and the door latch only.

Standard No. 206 "specifies requirements for side door locks and side door retention components including latches, hinges, and other supporting means, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact." The standard's requirements for sliding doors are set forth in sections S4.3 and S5.3.

Section S4.3 specifies that the track and slide combination or other supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total transverse load of 4,000 pounds is applied, with the door in the closed position. Section S5.3 states, "(c)ompliance with S4.3 shall be demonstrated by applying an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The demonstration may be performed either in the vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture."

Under section S5.3, the same basic procedure is conducted whether the test is conducted in a vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture, i.e., an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds is applied to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The details of the procedure using a bench test fixture will necessarily vary for different designs of sliding doors, since the door retention components themselves vary. The test should be conducted in such a manner that the same loads are applied to the door retention components as would occur in a vehicle test.

You specifically asked about how to perform the test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and door latch only. I note that since the requirement in section S4.3 applies to the "track and slide combination or other supporting means" for a sliding door, the striker assembly and door latch of a sliding door are tested only if they are part of the supporting means for the door. I also note that the entire supporting means for a sliding door is tested under section S5.3 and not merely one part.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of a May 13, 1975 interpretation letter to Toyota (including the incoming letter) which discusses various demonstration test fixtures which might be used to test sliding doors under Standard No. 206.

2. What load must the system withstand in the primary locked position to pass the test?

3. Is there a load requirement that the system must withstand in the secondary locked position to pass the test?

Section S4.1.1 of Standard No. 206 requires hinged doors, other than cargo-type doors to have both a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. There is not a similar requirement for sliding doors. Section S4.3 requires only one test, with a total load of 4,000 pounds, for sliding doors. This test would be performed with the door latched.

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

ID: 77-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Allen & Korkowski & Associates

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1977, to Mr. Oates of this office asking whether your client, a manufacturer of motorcycle accessories, is subject to requirements imposed by 49 CFR Parts 573, 576, and 577 and 15 U.S.C. 1402.

For your reference I am enclosing a copy of a new Part 577 which becomes effective June 28, 1977, that implements Part B of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) effective December 27, 1974. These new sections have superseded Section 1402, to which you referred. Since you apparently are unaware of these changes I am also enclosing a copy of the amended Act.

Because your client manufactures motor vehicle equipment other than original equipment (i.e. accessories) its products appear to be "replacement equipment" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1419(2)(B). Since Parts 573 and 576 apply only to motor vehicle manufacturers and not to equipment manufacturers you are correct in your conclusion that these regulations are inapplicable to your client. We have proposed, however, that Part 573 be amended to apply to manufacturers of replacement equipment although no action has yet been taken on the proposal. I include a copy of that proposal.

You also asked about the applicability of Section 577.4 which you found to be "silent about the duty of manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment". The Part 577 that you referenced reflects the statutory scheme that was in effect until December 27, 1974, under which a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment (as contrasted with a vehicle manufacturer who also produced equipment) was not required to notify purchasers of safety-related defects or noncompliances which it, the manufacturer, had discovered. The equipment manufacturer's obligation to notify arose only upon determination of the existence of a safety-related defect or noncompliance by the NHTSA Administrator and in that event Section 577.5 requires the equipment manufacturer to follow the provisions of Section 577.4. The new statutory scheme of 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq., as reflected in revised Section 577.5, now extends the notification and remedy obligation to safety-related defects and noncompliances discovered by manufacturers of replacement equipment.

Finally, you have asked if there is no duty to retain records how can an equipment manufacturer "observe the requirements of Part 577.4." I assume what you mean is how can it notify "the first purchaser (where known) . . . and any subsequent purchaser to whom a warranty on such . . . item of equipment has been transferred". The actual obligation of a manufacturer of replacement equipment today, however, is that established by 15 U.S.C. 1413(c)(3)(A), in effect since December 27, 1974, and it is to notify "the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer" (See also new Section 577.7(a)(2)(ii)(A). Congress appears to have recognized that manufacturers of small and less expensive items of motor vehicle equipment generally may not keep records of ultimate purchasers when it authorized our agency to issue a public notice when the public interest requires it (15 U.S.C. 1413(c)(3)(B)). Since there is no obligation for a manufacturer to know the names of its purchasers, NHTSA will accept in good faith an equipment manufacturer's statement as to the extent of its knowledge of its most recent purchasers. Under proposed Section 573.7(c) your client, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be required to maintain certain records including a list of the names and addresses of the "most recent purchasers known to the manufacturer". Such a list would probably at a minimum comprise distributors of the product, might also include the dealers of the distributors, and possibly in some instances the ultimate purchaser. But it is not a requirement that steps be taken to know and list the names and addresses of all ultimate purchasers. If you have further questions after reviewing this letter and its enclosures I will be happy to answer them for you.

ID: nht90-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/90 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR - WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Joel Leitson, with respect to litigation recently brought by the United States against several firms that install plastic film, or "tint," on automobile windows.

You have asked about the statutory authority under which these suits were brought. Pursuant to section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act"), 15 U.S.C. @ 1392, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(i)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1), this paragraph does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2), provides 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, by installing tint firm on automobiles that reduces the light transmittance of their glass below 70 percent, the firms in question have been rendering those vehicles "inoperative," in violation of the Safety Act. The same principle would apply to a service station that removed an airbag or a safety belt from a vehicle, since such an action would create

a noncompliance with the occupant protection requirements of NHTSA's standards.

You also asked for our comments on whether Florida's statutes are preempted by these suits. We assume that you are referring to the provision of Florida law that prohibits the operation of any vehicle in the State of Florida that has glazing with less than 35 percent light transmittance. This statute, and similar statutes adopted by other states, do not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by tint installation firms -- that is illegal under the Safety Act. Thus, there is no conflict with Federal law, and Florida may continue to enforce its operating rules.

I hope that this responds to your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know.