ID: 7685

Mr. Paul D. Barron
Professional Technologies International Inc.
400 South Vermont #116
Oklahoma City, OK 73108

Dear Mr. Barron:

This responds to your inquiry about this agency's requirements that are applicable to your product, a "UV Heat Shield." Your sales literature explains that this product is a UV protective window film that permits between 88 to 92 percent light transmission through the front windshield. You state that the UV Heat Shield blocks ultra-violet radiation from entering the vehicle's occupant compartment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not however approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (e.g., 70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure driver visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If, before the vehicle were first purchased by a consumer, a subsequent manufacturer or dealer were to install your window film over the glazing, that subsequent manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 with the window film installed. I note that while you state that your window film permits between 88 to 92 percent light transmission through the front windshield, it is the windshield with your product installed that would be required to meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any applicable safety standard. This provision means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film if the addition of the tinting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles. If you are interested in further information on the provisions on the provisions of State laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

In addition, under the Safety Act, the UV Heat Shield would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:205 d:10/22/92

ID: nht92-3.10

DATE: October 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul D. Barron -- Professional Technologies International Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/25/92 from Paul D. Barron to Paul Jackson Rice and Marvin Shaw (OCC-7685)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about this agency's requirements that are applicable to your product, a "UV Heat Shield." Your sales literature explains that this product is a UV protective window film that permits between 88 to 92 percent light transmission through the front Windshield. You state that the UV Heat Shield blocks ultra-violet radiation from entering the vehicle's occupant compartment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not however approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (e.g., 70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure driver visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If, before the vehicle were first purchased by a consumer, a subsequent manufacturer or dealer were to install your window film over the glazing, that subsequent manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 with the window film installed. I note that while you state that your window film permits between 88 to 92 percent light transmission through the front windshield, it is the windshield with your product installed that would be required to meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any applicable safety

standard. This provision means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film if the addition of the tinting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles. If you are interested in further information on the provisions on the provisions of State laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

In addition, under the Safety Act, the UV Heat Shield would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in S151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

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

ID: 6982

Mr. Brad Beach
389 Terrace Avenue
Suite 204
Virginia Beach, VA 23451

Dear Mr. Beach:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff, inquiring about Federal safety standards that apply to objects designed to be attached to the rear and side windows of passenger automobiles. Although you did not specify what this object is, you described the object as being "not transparent," rectangular in shape, with dimensions of 12 inches in width by 18 inches in length. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your product.

Some general background information on the Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

The agency has issued two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that might affect your product. These are Standards No. 205, Glazing Materials, and No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger automobiles). Standard No. 111 sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors. The standard provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standards No. 205 and 111. If, before the vehicle were first purchased by a consumer, a subsequent manufacturer or dealer were to install a device that was not readily removable over the glazing and that impaired the field of view to the rear of the vehicle, that subsequent manufacturer or dealer would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of Standards No. 111 and 205 with this additional device installed.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, none of these commercial entities may legally install a sun screen device or other device on a vehicle, if the device would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standards No. 111 and/or 205.

In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, such as a device that is mounted on the glazing of motor vehicles and that is not readily removable, is responsible for the recall and remedy of all such devices, if it is determined that the device contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

You should note that the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their own vehicles as they please, without violating any provision of Federal law. Thus, Federal law would not prohibit you, as an individual vehicle owner, from installing any devices you wish in the windows of your own vehicle, even if such installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standards No. 205, No. 111, or any other of our safety standards. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take actions that would degrade the performance of the safety features designed into their vehicles.

However, you should also note that the individual States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles by their owners and modifications owners can make to their own vehicles. Each of the States have exercised this authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered and operated within their borders. I cannot advise you about the laws established by each of the States. If you wish to learn whether Virginia or any other State prohibits the installation of your device in a vehicle, you may wish to contact the Department of Transportation for those States in which you are interested.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:205#111 d:4/14/92

ID: nht92-7.41

DATE: April 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brad Beach

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/10/92 from Brad Beach to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6982)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff, inquiring about Federal safety standards that apply to objects designed to be attached to the rear and side windows of passenger automobiles. Although you did not specify what this object is, you described the object as being "not transparent," rectangular in shape, with dimensions of 12 inches in width by 18 inches in length. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your product.

Some general background information on the Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

The agency has issued two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that might affect your product. These are Standards No. 205, Glazing Materials, and No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger automobiles). Standard No. 111 sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors. The standard provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle.

Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standards No. 205 and 111. If, before the vehicle were first purchased by a consumer, a subsequent manufacturer or dealer were to install a device that was not readily removable over the glazing and that impaired the field of view to the rear of the vehicle, that subsequent manufacturer or dealer would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of Standards No. 111 and 205 with this additional device installed.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, none of these commercial entities may

legally install a sun screen device or other device on a vehicle, if the device would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standards No. 111 and/or 205.

In addition, any, manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, such as a device that is mounted on the glazing of motor vehicles and that is not readily removable, is responsible for the recall and remedy of all such devices, if it is determined that the device contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

You should note that the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108 (a) (2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their own vehicles as they please, without violating any provision of Federal law. Thus, Federal law would not prohibit you, as an individual vehicle owner, from installing any devices you wish in the windows of your own vehicle, even if such installation causes the vehicle to n longer comply with Standards No. 205, No. 111, or any other of our safety standards. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take actions that would degrade the performance of the safety features designed into their vehicles.

However, you should also note that the individual States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles by their owners and modifications owners can make to their own vehicles. Each of the States have exercised this authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered and operated within their borders. I cannot advise you about the laws established by each of the States. If you wish to learn whether Virginia or any other State prohibits the installation of your device in a vehicle, you may wish to contact the Department of Transportation for those States in which you are interested.

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

ID: nht75-1.24

DATE: 03/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Stratoflex, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to confirm the interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, which I gave in a telephone conversation on February 27, 1975.

S5.2.4 of the standard requires each brake hose assembly to be labeled with a band. The band must include, among other information, "a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly. . . ." A brake hose distributor who manufactures assemblies at multiple locations is not required to assign a designation to each location; a single designation will suffice.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Department of Transportation -- Office of Chief Counsel

Subject: February 6, 1975 Inquiry on Paragraph S5.2.4 of FMVSS 106 (Tagging Requirement)

Attn: Mark Schwimmer

Dear Mr. Schwimmer;

An inquiry was made on February 6, 1975 at the Office of Chief Counsel to Mr. Mark Schwimmer regarding the FMVSS 106 labeling requirements per paragraph S5.2.4. This inquiry asked if an assembler with multiple locations was required to assign multiple designations. Mr. Schwimmer stated he could not answer the question as it was currently in process of discussion, however, within a few days time he would advise.

(Illegible Word) immediately enacted a "hold" on all phases of preparation (Illegible Word) compliance to "tagging" per S5.2.4 expecting clarification (Illegible Word) (Illegible Word) few days. The answer to this inquiry is essential in (Illegible Word) (Illegible Word) requirements for this national program.

On February 12, 1975 a meeting was conducted at the Office of Chief Counsel. In attendance were; Mark Schwimmer, D.O.T., Paul Hykes, ATA., Larry Strawhorn, ATA., C.P. Boling, Stratoflex. Discussed were all aspects of "Tagging" requirements including a request to exclude fleets from the tagging requirements at which time Office of Chief Counsel was unable to answer previous inquiry or comment on status except to say, "They will be able to advise in a few days." These 'few days' have now become weeks with no indication of a firm date established to answer our request.

This delay has now made it impossible for Stratoflex to complete a responsible national program that will effectively allow customers, which utilize bulk components, to comply by the current effective date of March 1, 1975.

We request that the effective date of March 1, 1975 be extended to allow time to reconsider our docket submittal of February 18, 1975 which extensively outlines the economic impact on fleet operators. ATA has determined that the total number of potential assembler's exceeds 4 million as presently defined. This figure alone raises the question of the tagging requirement being unrealistic to impose to administrate in addition to being of little or no value in (Illegible Word) the integrity of the end product.

Although we totally disagree with this imposed "tagging" requirement at the fleet level, Stratoflex has made and will continue to make an honest effort to fully comply with all aspects of FMVSS (Illegible Word) and reestablish a national program to support our customers.

C. P. Boling

SANTA ANA

February 18, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Attention: Mark Schwimmer -- Office of the Chief Counsel

Ref: FMVSS 106 Paragraph S5.2.4

Gentlemen:

We respectfully suggest that the implementation of the referenced tagging requirement, particularly at repair and maintenance levels, will result in an extreme inflationary impact on the trucking industry. Further, in view of the apparent massive effectivity, we seriously question the capabilities of involved suppliers to support this effort from an administrative and logistical standpoint. In this respect, we estimate that there are approximately 40,000 independent fleet or equipment operators that fabricate air brake hose assemblies in maintaining their equipment. In addition, we believe there are approximately 60,000 equipment and component dealerships that are active suppliers to the truck market. The potential effectivity of your labeling/tagging requirement could reasonably be expanded to supplier operations other than those that are primarily related to the automative or trucking industry: many mill supply, hydraulic, and farm equipment outlets service the trucking industry by means of providing hose, fittings, or hose assemblies. The collective effect of your regulation could involve several million suppliers.

Our Mr. C. P. Boling visited your office on February 12 and requested clarification or interpretation regarding several facets of the tagging requirement. On behalf of our customers that operate multiple repair operations, we requested clarification as to the necessity for a code number for each operating location. Additional clarification was requested as to applicability in view of the severe impact of this requirement as mentioned above.

As of this date, many of our questions are left unanswered and the effective date of the referenced regulation is eight working days away. As the primary hose and fitting supplier to the trucking industry, we are most concerned with any regulation that affects the sale and subsequent supply of our product line. In this regard, it is our intent to comply with all governmental regulations. However, it is our obligation to question the need for tagging operations at user level; and to question the basis under which effectivity at this trade level is necessary, practical, or in the public interest. We do not believe that the authors of the referenced regulation intended that this specific requirement encompass equipment operator maintenance facilities. Rather, the tagging of hose assemblies might properly include hose and fitting manufacturers.

In view of the apparent confusion as to who this specific requirement applies to, the potentially severe negative impact of mass effectivity, and the questions that still remain unanswered, we strongly recommend that tagging requirements per se be suspended pending a thorough evaluation. In any event, we urge that your office clarify the applicability of this specific requirement as related to users or fleets that are primarily involved with repairing or maintaining their equipment. If this requirement is applicable to equipment maintenance facilities, we believe an unnecessary and costly burden will be placed on fleet operators, with no positive result that will contribute to public safety.

Yours very truly,

A. J. Bowie -- General Manager Western Operations

ID: 86-4.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William H. Spain

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 20, 1986, asking how our regulations would apply to a wooden steering wheel you manufacture. You explained that you use a standard steering wheel with a steel outer rim. The steel outer rim is then veneered with wood, which is covered with a protective finish. The finished wheel will then be use as an item of original equipment by a vehicle manufacturer. I hope the following discussion answers your question.

The agency has issued two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set occupant crash protection performance requirements for vehicle steering systems, which includes the steering wheel. Those standards are Standard No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering System, and Standard No. 204, Steering Column Rearward Displacement. Those two standards do not regulate the types of material that may be used in the steering wheel, but instead set performance requirements that the steering systems must meet under certain test conditions. Therefore, a manufacturer may use any material in its steering wheel, as long as the steering system still complies with the performance requirements of Standard Nos. 203 and 204.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

NATIONAL MANAGEMENT, INC.

May 20, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones,

Confirming our telephone conversation of May 20, 1986 with your Mr. Steve Oesch, we have a tenative inquiry from a small manufacturer of automobiles for the purchase of wood steering wheels.

The steering wheels would be installed by the manufacturer as original equipment. We would use a standard steering wheel with a steel outer rim. The steel outer rim would be veneered with wood and then covered with protective coats of clear polyeutherene finish. There would be no modification to the steering wheel hub itself.

The manufacturer asked if there would be any problems with your office on this approach. I have discussed this briefly with your testing and engineering people and their first impression is that the material of which the rim is constructed is of no consequence so long as the steering assembly complies with the applicable regulations.

We would appreciate your taking the time to confirm whether or not we should anticipate any difficulties with your department using this approach.

Your department's time and courtesy are appreciated.

NATIONAL INDUSTRIES

William H. Spain

ID: 18202.ztv

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman
House of Representatives
377 Route 59
Monsey, NY 10952-3498

Dear Mr. Gilman:

This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1997, to the Department of Transportation on behalf of your constituent, Michael Sarafan of Spring Valley. Mr. Sarafan is president of Sarafan Truck & Equipment, Inc. Mr. Sarafan seeks to import two military trucks from Canada which were manufactured in the United States. You have asked us for a report. We are pleased to do so.

As a general rule, motor vehicles must comply, and be certified as complying, with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported into the United States. At the time of their manufacture, motor vehicles produced under contracts with and sold to the Armed Forces of the United States are exempt from compliance with these standards. This exemption has been effective from the issuance of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and was based upon a comment by the Department of Defense that, under some situations, compliance with a safety standard might prevent a military vehicle from full accomplishment of its mission. When a military truck is sold outside the United States to a civilian for civilian uses, it loses its status as a military vehicle. If the vehicle is then presented for importation into the United States, it will not be readmitted unless it has been brought into compliance with the standards that would have applied to it at the time of its manufacture had it not been a military vehicle. That is the reason that the U.S. Customs Service will not admit the two trucks that concern Mr. Sarafan.

Mr. Sarafan comments that this is a common form of business for him and that he has "returned many other U.S. made trucks to the U.S. from Canada previously." At the time that Mr. Sarafan wrote you on September 18, Mr. Vinson of this office was on leave and thus could not take his call, but he did talk with Mr. Sarafan on September 22 and understood that Mr. Sarafan was referring to military trucks (civilian U.S.-made trucks can be expected to bear a certification of compliance and can be reimported without problems). As Mr. Vinson explained to Mr. Sarafan, there has been no change in the law, and our interpretation is one of long-standing. It is possible that this interpretation was not previously understood, or applied, at the port of entry where he has been importing vehicles from Canada.

In order to import these trucks, Mr. Sarafan must follow Federal importation procedures. This requires him to contract with a "registered importer" who will undertake to obtain a decision from the agency that the trucks are capable of being converted to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If they are found capable of being so modified, the registered importer will bring the trucks into compliance with the standards. Mr. Sarafan has previously spoken with Mr. Van Orden of this agency, and he should contact him for further information.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.10/20/97

ID: nht87-3.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ellen A. Lockwood -- Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Guam

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ellen A. Lockwood, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney District of Guam Suite 502-A PNB 238 O'Hara Street Agana, Guam 96910

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1987, to Jim Marquez, the former General Counsel of this Department. You have asked about the applicability to the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI) of 15 U.S.C. 1381, and 19 C.F.R. 12.80. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., as you have noted, applies to the CNMI through Section 502(a)(2) of the "Covenant to Establish the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States," and is a "State" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1391. This means that it is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1) (A) to import into the CNMI any motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

As authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (3), the Departments of Tranportation and Treasury issued joint regulations to enforce the importation prohibition of 1397 (a) (1) (A). As the authority of the Customs Service is limited to the Customs Territory of the United States, these regulations apply only to "States" within this Territory. They do not apply to Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the CNMI, "States" that lie without the Customs Territory of the United States. It is our understanding tha t each of these "States" enforces 1397 (a) (1) (A) within its borders through an Executive Order issued by the Governor, designating an appropriate local agency for this task. In the Virgin Islands, for example, the Department of Public Safety will not r egister any vehicle that lacks the label required by 49 C.F.R. Part 567 Certification certifying compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose representative copies of correspondence that the National Highway Traffic Sa fety Administration has had with the Virgin Islands and the CNMI on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

September 24, 1987 Jim J. Marquez General Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Marquez:

I am an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. We were recently asked by local officials if Title 15, U.S.C. Section 1397, which prohibits the manufacture, sale or delivery into the United States of ve hicles which do not conform to DOT safety standards, applies to the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Northern Mariana Islands, formerly part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, became a Commonwealth in Political Union with the United States on November 3, 1986. The relationship of the United States with the Commonwealth of the Northern Ma riana Islands (CNMI) is defined in the "Covenant to Establish the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States", (the Covenant), which was approved by Congress in 1976 and placed into effect by Presidential procl amation on November 3, 1986. Article V of the Covenant concerns the applicability of federal laws to the CNMI. Section 502(a)(2) provides that all federal laws, in existence on January 9, 1978, which are applicable to Guam and of general application to t he several states, also apply in the CNMI. This legislation was originally enacted in 1966. Therefore, it was in existence prior to January 9, 1978. The term "state", as it is used in Subchapter I, is defined in Section 1391 to include Guam. Therefore, it appears that the law applies to Guam and is of general application to the several states. Based on this analysis, we have concluded that the law applies both to Guam and the CNMI. J. J. Marquez Sept. 24, 1987 Page 2

In our review of provisions of the C.F.R., however, we note that 19C.F.R. 12.80 prohibits the importation of non-conforming vehicles or equipment into the customs territory of the United States. (emphasis added). Neither Guam nor the CMNI are in the cust oms territory of the United States. Therefore, although the law seems to apply to both, the scope of the law has, it appears, been limited by the C.F.R.

We would very much appreciate your views on the applicability of this law to the CNMI and Guam and whether any enforcement actions are contemplated. This is a very important issue in the CNMI at this time. A prompt response would be greatly appreciated. I can be reached at 671 (country code) 472-7332 or FTS 550-7332. My home number, for your convenience, is 362-4218. We are 14 hours ahead of Washington, D.C. time. Thanks for your help.

Very truly yours,

ELLEN A. LOCKWOOD Assistant U. S. Attorney

ID: 1985-03.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Donald H. Giberson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 10, 1985 Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety State of New Jersey 25 Montgomery Street Trenton, NJ 08666 Dear Mr. Giberson: Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1985, to Administrator Steed expressing your concerns about the safety of the "Litestar" motorcycle, and asking questions about the relationship of Federal regulations to it. The Administrator has asked me to respond to your questions. With respect to your first, second, and fourth questions, there is no such thing as a "Federally licensed motor vehicle manufacturer". However, a manufacturer of motor vehicles is required to file an identification statement with this agency containing the information specified in 49 CFR Part 566 not later than 30 days after it commences manufacture. A check of our records shows that Litestar of New Jersey has not yet filed an identification statement. The purpose of the requirement is to facilitate regulation of manufacturers under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. But no Federal approval or "license" is required for a manufacturer to produce vehicles subject to the Act. We do not currently have a list of manufacturers who have filed information statements. Your third question is whether a manufacturer may legally sell vehicles which do not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is no; sale and offer for sale of a noncomplying motor vehicle are violations of Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). It appears from the product literature you enclosed with your letter that the "Litestar" motorcycle is a motor vehicle and thus it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In addition, any noncompliances or safety-related defects in those vehicles would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of section 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act, (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). Your fifth and sixth questions concern the powers of a State over motor vehicles and manufacturers subject to the Act and Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You asked specifically "Can a state legally refuse registration to vehicles constructed by licensed manufacturers which do comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards". The answer to this is determinable under New Jersey law. Under the Act, Federal safety standards are standards to be met by a motor vehicle at the time of its sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and compliance with them is not intended as a prerequisite to State registration. Many States do, of course, condition eligibility for registration upon compliance with State standards. Under Section 103(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), if a State has a safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard, the State standard must be identical. But the Act does not prohibit a State from establishing standards in areas where there are no Federal safety standards, and if New Jersey has a condition for registration outside the areas covered by the Federal standards, it may refuse registration notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle may be certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your further question is whether a State may legally require a vehicle manufacturer to submit test data from an independent testing laboratory regarding the performance of the vehicle. If the area of performance is one that is covered by both State and Federal safety standards, a State may not impose burdens which differ in any significant respect from those of the Federal regulatory scheme. Thus, States may require manufacturers to submit available test data supporting their certifications so that the States may determine the adequacy of the data. States also cannot compel manufacturers to submit data only from independent test laboratories, since the Federal regulatory scheme is based on manufacturer self-certification. States may, however, undertake independent testing. If the area of performance is outside the coverage of the Federal standards, the answer would appear to be determinable under the explicit and implicit powers of the State. Finally, you have asked what type of dynamic tests should a vehicle such as the Litestar undergo to assure that it is roadworthy. The agency has had very little experience with vehicles configured like the Litestar, and is unable to offer any specific suggestions. You may be aware of the agency's research report "Motorcycle Handling" (DOT HS 804190, May 1979), prepared by Systems Technology, Inc., 13776 So. Hawthorne, Hawthorne, California 90250. David H. Weir of the company was Principal Investigator under the contract. He was assisted by Jon McKibben Engineering Co., 2172 Dupont Drive, Suite 18, Irvine, California 92662. These experts might be able to answer your seventh question, and address your other concerns. I hope this information is of assistance. If you have any further questions please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/89

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

TO: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY ENGINEERING MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC. RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is to provide you with a clarification of our letter to you dated November 3, 1988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our letter advised you that Standard No. 108 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HB1 light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(1) states that "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual [HB1] or adjustment of reflector aim with two [HB1s]." To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 li ght sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(1). Standard No. 108 has been amended effective June 8, 1989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(1) and (e)(1). Each has been revised to state "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individ ual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector."

We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate.

The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to

mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,