ID: aiam2708

Dear Mrs. Foster: Your recent letter to President Carter concerning the installation of bench seat in a cargo van was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for reply. You were apparently told by your local Ford dealer that Federal law prohibits the installation of a seat in the cargo area of a van vehicle.; The Ford dealer's representation to you was incorrect. There is n Federal law that precludes installation of a seat such as your letter describes, although, depending on the time and manner of the installation, the seat might be subject to Federal safety standards.; If the vehicle manufacturer (Ford) or your dealer installs the sea prior to the time you take possession of the vehicle, either will have to certify that the vehicle, including the seat, is in compliance with all applicable safety standards, as provided in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.). Specifically, the installation of the seat would require compliance with Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*. If done by your dealer, he would be required to attach a label or tag to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle was in compliance with all safety standards, including the three just mentioned (49 CFR 567.7).; If you first take possession of the vehicle, you or your dealer ma then install an additional seat without certifying compliance with Federal safety standards (15 U.S.C 1397). Your dealer would, however, be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which provides 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 in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that the dealer would not be permitted to destroy the vehicle's conformity to any safety standard by his installation of the additional seat. We do strongly recommend that, for the safety of your child, you assure the seat and safety belts conform to the minimum performance requirements of our safety standards.; Perhaps it is the policy of Ford Motor Company and its dealers not t install additional seats in cargo vans because of the responsibilities mentioned above. The policy is not, however, a Federal law. I suggest you show this letter to your local dealer.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4870

"Dear Mr. Wakamatsu: This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter t Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for 'derating' the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request. NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR 'shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.' There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles. I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2662

Dear Mr. Mathieson: This responds to your August 25, 1977, letter asking several question about the applicability of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, to buses other than school buses.; You first state your conclusion that paragraph S5.2 of the standar applies only to buses other than school buses. Your interpretation of S5.2 is correct. Secondly, you state that S5.2.1 applies to all buses with GVWR's of more than 10,000 pounds. This assertion is incorrect. See S5.2.3. Paragraph S5.2.1 applies only to buses other than school buses that have GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds.; Your final inquiry pertaining to Standard No. 217 concerns th requirement for unobstructed emergency exits in both school and non-school buses. You first correctly state that paragraphs S5.4 through S5.4.2.1 describe the required size of the unobstructed openings for school buses. You then claim that there is no equivalent description for the size of unobstructed openings required in buses other than school buses. This last statement is not entirely accurate. The amount of unobstructed emergency exit openings required for buses other than school buses is detailed in S5.2. This section establishes requirements for the total area of unobstructed emergency exit openings and for the location of those exits. This section also specifies the extent to which the area of each exit is to be counted in determining compliance with the total unobstructed opening requirement. Therefore, although the standard does not specify minimum size requirements for individual exits in buses other than school buses, the standard does contain other requirements for unobstructed openings in buses other than school buses.; You concluded in your letter that buses other than school buses are no required to use the parallelepiped device in determining whether their rear exits comply with the requirements. This conclusion is accurate. For purposes of clarity, however, you should note that Standard No. 217 does not mandate rear doors in buses other than school buses. Those buses can utilize either rear exits or roof exits. Further, regardless of the fact that you use a rear emergency door in buses other than school buses, you must insure that you also provide the other mandatory exits and the correct area of unobstructed openings as described in paragraphs S5.2 through S5.2.2.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5515

"Dear Mr. Haenchen: This responds to your letter of March 6, 1995 asking for an interpretation of the license plate requirements of Standard No. 108. SAE J587 OCT81 is the SAE standard that has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 for license plate lamps. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that 'paragraph 6.1 of SAE J587, which relates solely to the mounting angle of the license plate and not to the performance of the license plate lamp, is not included in the requirements of FMVSS 108.' This paragraph requires that, when the license plate lamp is mounted on the vehicle, the angle between the plane of the license plate and the plane on which the vehicle stands will be 90 degrees plus or minus 15 degrees. You believe that 'license plate mounting for visibility is a matter of concern for State law enforcement agencies and Volkswagen is not aware of any State laws that make reference to SAE J587 or that specify the mounting angle of the license plate.' However, you acknowledge 'that paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of SAE J587 specifying the angle of incidence of the lamp to the plate at a minimum of 8 degrees is part of FMVSS 108 and is intended to assure that the lamp illuminates the license plate.' You believe 'that a design which meets the 8 degree requirement and in which the plate is mounted so as to be clearly visible to an observer at the rear of the vehicle meets the intent and requirements of State laws and FMVSS 108, even if the angle of the plate itself is 15 degrees from the vertical.' We cannot agree with your interpretation. Tables I and III have incorporated SAE J587 in its entirety, and there is no exclusion of paragraph 6.1 in Standard No. 108. To be sure, a plate may continue to be visible when it is mounted more than 15 degrees from the vertical, but the 15 degree limitation of paragraph 6.1 is necessary to ensure its legibility as well. The fact that the States and the Uniform Vehicle Code are silent on the point is legally irrelevant. If a State has a license plate mounting requirement, 49 U.S.C. 30103 requires it to be identical to the Federal requirement. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4406

Dear Mr. Patterson: This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1987, asking for ou 'acceptance and recommendation' of a safety device endorsed' by the government of the Province of Saskatchewan. This device automatically activates parking lamps, and the lower beams of headlamps 'with the touch of the Brake Pedal'.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority t accept, recommend, or endorse any item of motor vehicle equipment. We can, however, discuss the relationship of your device to U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('the Act') under which the standard was issued. This standard applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. A device such as yours is permissible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. There is no indication in your descriptive literature that the effectiveness of parking lamps, headlamps, or the stop lamps would be impaired by the installation and operation of your device.; With respect to sale in the aftermarket for vehicles in use, you device is not prohibited under the Act if its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner does not render inoperative in whole or in part any lamps installed to comply with Standard No. 108. We see no indication that this would occur. However, such an installer should be aware of the wiring requirement in Standard No. 108 that taillamps, parking lamps, side marker lamps, and the license plate lamp shall be activated when the headlamps are on.; The rules for operation of vehicles in use are established by th individual States, and several of these may have restrictions on the use of headlamps during daylight hours. For further information on this subject you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.; This agency has proposed that motor vehicles be equipped with daytim running lights, in a manner similar, though not identical, to the new requirement of the Canadian Ministry of Transport. If this proposal is adopted, the Act would prohibit any State from having a different standard than the Federal one. As of the effective date of such an amendment to Standard No. 108 daytime operation of frontal lighting should be permissible in all States.; If you have any further questions we will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1377

Dear Mr. West: This is in response to your letter of January 2, 1974 requestin information concerning the legal permissibility of an automobile dealership furnishing private passenger motor vehicles with add-on gasoline tanks of modifying existing gasoline tanks.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity* establishes minimum performance requirements for motor vehicle fuel systems. Compliance with the level of performance mandated by the standard is enforced by Section 108 (a)(1) of the National Traffic Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet the requirements of applicable safety standards. Therefore, if your client modified a motor vehicle fuel tank in such a manner that it no longer complied with Standard No. 301 and then offered it for initial sale for purposes other than resale he would be in violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and would be subject to civil penalties of not more than $1,000 for each such violation. If, however, your client performed a fuel tank modification on a vehicle that was already owned by and in the possession of a buyer who purchased the vehicle for purposes other than resale, no violation of the Act could result. The installation of an add-on fuel tank would be considered a modification. Therefore, the fuel system would have to comply with Standard No. 301 with the add-on fuel tank considered as part of the system.; There are no Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to add-o gasoline tanks since these are items of motor vehicle equipment and Standard No. 301 restricts its application to motor vehicles. Section 113(e)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, however, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If the Secretary finds that a safety-related defect exists, your client may be compelled to notify all purchasers of vehicles with the add-on fuel tanks of the attendant hazard.; The action of installing add-on gasoline tanks in motor vehicle exposes your client to the requirements of yet another safety regulation (49 CFR 567.7). If the vehicle in which he installs the fuel tank is a certified and complete vehicle that has not yet been purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale, your client will be considered an alterer of the vehicle, and he must provide a certification that the vehicle as altered still conforms to the standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5006

"Dear Mr. Chun: This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992 requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below. First, you asked about the meaning of 'manufactured date,' in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the 'manufactured date' would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance. For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the 'manufactured date' for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea. Second, you asked whether 'manufactured date,' as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as 'model year.' The answer is no. The term 'model year' is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) as 'the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.' As explained above, the concept of 'manufactured date' refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer. Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years. See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars. I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4270

This is in reply to your letter of September 29, 1986, to Mr. Vinson o this Office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed a copy of a flyer for 'Ad-A-Lens,' the device appears to be an overlay with a dealer's name, intended to be placed over the lens of the center highmounted stop lamp. You have told us that 'the company selling this product says there is no problem legally or safety-wise....' You have also furnished us with a portion of a preamble to the standard discussing the visibility requirements for the lamp in which the statement is made that beyond the specified test points 'no requirements are established other than that the signal be 'visible,' which means any portion of the signal, without regard to lens area or candela.'; Standard No. 108 does not prohibit adding an overlay to the cente highmounted stop lamp that contains a dealer's name. However, the addition of the overlay must not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Paragraph S4.1.141(a) requires each center highmounted stop lamp t have an effective projected luminous area not less than 4 1/2 square inches. Application of dealer identification to an original equipment lamp not designed for the overlay could well reduce the luminous area below the minimum required by the standard. Further, there is the possibility that the overlay could affect photometric compliance as well. The lamp must meet the photometric requirements at the 13 test points specified in Standard No. 108 up to the maximum specified 10 degrees right and left. Beyond 10 degrees, up to 45 degrees right and left, the overlay must not obscure the signal so that no portion of it is visible.; Should the overlay create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, an person offering for sale or selling a vehicle with it would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as would any dealer adding an overlay to the lamp of a vehicle after it is sold. The Act provides that a penalty of up to $1000 per violation may be imposed, up to a maximum of $800,000 for any related series of violations. You should also seek the advice of State motor vehicle authorities on this matter.; We are providing a copy of this interpretation to Ad-A-Lens, an appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1379

Dear Mr. West: This is in response to your letter of January 2, 1974 requestin information concerning the legal permissibility of an automobile dealership furnishing private passenger motor vehicles with add-on gasoline tanks or modifying existing gasoline tanks.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity* establishes minimum performance requirements for motor vehicle fuel systems. Compliance with the level of performance mandated by the standard is enforced by Section 108(a)(1) of the National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of vehicles or mtor vehicle equipment that do not meet the requirements of applicable safety standards. Therefore, if your client modified a motor vehicle fuel tank in such a manner that it no longer complied with Standard No. 301 and then offered it for initial sale for purposes other than resale he would be in violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and would be subject to civil penalties of not more than $1,000 for each such violation. If, however, your client performed a fuel tank modification on a vehicle that was already owned by and in the possession of a buyer who purchased the vehicle for purposes other than resale, no violation of the Act could result. the installation of an add-on fuel tank would be considered a modification. Therefore, the fuel system would have to comply with Standard No. 301 with the add-on fuel tank considered as part of the system.; There are no Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to add-o gasoline tanks since these are items of motor vehicle equipment and standard No. 301 restricts its application to motor vehicles. Section 113(e)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, however, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If the Secretary finds that a safety-related defect exists, your client may be compelled to notify all purchasers of vehicles with the add-on fuel tanks of the attendant hazard.; The action of installing add-on gasoline tanks in motor vehicle exposes your client to the requirements of yet another safety regulation (49 CFR 567.7). If the vehicle in which he installs the fuel thank is a certified and complete vehicle that has not yet been purchased ingood faith for purposes other than resale, your client will be considered an alterer of the vehicle, and he must provide a certification that the vehicle as altered still conforms to the standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 17440.drn

Jörg S. Mager, Vehicle Policy Engineer
Safer Vehicles, Roads & Rail
Vehicle Policy
Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand
Level 4
7-27 Waterloo Quay
P. O. Box 2840
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND

Dear Mr. Mager:

This responds to your request for information on U. S. requirements for aftermarket tinting of motor vehicle glazing by means of self-adhesive films. You posed several questions which are answered below:

The first question concerned the "current legal position" of motor vehicle tinting in the United States. You also wished to know what Federal policy is with respect to tinting.

NHTSA has the authority under 49 USC 30111 to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to all new motor vehicles at time of first sale to the consumer. Standard No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR Part 571.205) specifies performance requirements for glazing, and includes a requirement that all windows "requisite for driving visibility" (including all windows in passenger cars) have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. In establishing the 70 percent light transmittance requirement for motor vehicle glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined that level met the need for motor vehicle safety.

Although Standard No. 205 itself does not apply after the first sale of the vehicle, 49 USC 30122(b) prohibits a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." The effect of Section 30122(b) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard No. 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent.

Note however, that NHTSA's regulations do not apply to certain parties or actions. Vehicle owners are not restricted by Federal law in the modifications that they make to their vehicles, and could tint their windows as dark as they like without violating Federal law (although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than Standard No. 205 allows). NHTSA recommends that vehicle owners not degrade the safety features of the glazing in their motor vehicles by tinting the glazing darker than Standard No. 205 allows. Federal law also does not regulate the operation or use of vehicles, which is under the jurisdiction of the individual States.

Under certain circumstances, State laws would be preempted by Federal law. 49 USC 30103(b)(1) states "[w]hen a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect . . . a State . . . may prescribe . . . a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance . . . only if the standard is identical to the [federal standard]." A State law would be preempted by the Federal law to the extent that it regulates the same aspect of performance in a different way, or permits something prohibited by the Federal regulations (such as modifications by vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses that would violate Standard No. 205). A State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture and sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard No. 205.

State requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as the state requirements do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a State could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard.

You asked about the outcome of the "Blue Skies" case in the Middle District of Florida.

In a Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking of January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496) (copy enclosed), NHTSA noted the following regarding the "Blue Skies" case:

One Florida District Court has held that Standard No. 205 is not currently enforceable against window tinting businesses because the agency did not issue a "new and revised Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard" pursuant to the second sentence of Section 103(h) of the Safety Act. United States v. Blue Skies Projects, Inc., No. 90-253-CIV-ORL-18 (M.D. Fla., August 13, 1991) ... NHTSA strongly believes that the court's opinion was erroneous and that the current standard is valid and enforceable. (57 FR at 2507)

Please note that the U.S. government did not appeal the decision of the Florida District Court. Also, NHTSA has not yet issued a final determination regarding the January 22, 1992 Federal Register notice.

You asked if NHTSA has a list of the "legal requirements with respect to the minimum visible light transmittance allowed by the states for windows of motor vehicles."

Since NHTSA does not maintain such a list, we cannot provide it to you.

You also asked if "the requirements in terms of permissible minium visible light transmittance spelled out in FMVSS 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1:1995 will be adopted on a state level in the foreseeable future."

NHTSA has no information on any planned state actions in this area. As described in our answer to the first set of questions, depending on the conduct or aspects of performance it seeks to regulate, a State law reducing the level of window light transmittance below the Federal standard may be preempted by Federal law.

I am enclosing a copy of NHTSA's March 1991 "Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows." Among other matters, the report discusses: (1) the current performance requirements in the Federal standard concerning window light transmittance, (2) how vehicles on the road at the time the report was written compare to the standard's requirements, (3) the rules and regulation other countries have in effect (at the time the report was written) on light transmittance through windows, (4) research on the effect of various tinting levels on depth perception, night vision, or other faculties that affect safety.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:205
d.6/22/98