ID: nht93-8.10

DATE: November 15, 1993

FROM: Richard L. Plath --Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from John Womack to Richard L. Plath (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I know that Jim Peepas from our company has contacted you concerning the conspicuity program. I am responsible for sales for Selecto Flash and thought I would share with you some of the concerns of the various manufacturer's.

In our discussions with the trailer and container manufacturer's who supply this equipment, there seems to be differences of opinion as to the actual requirements. For this reason I will outline the procedure as we understand it and will further ask for confirmation on several issues set forth within this letter.

1) A chassis for purposes of the conspicuity requirement shall be considered to be a trailer.

2) That the total length of the chassis shall be used in computing the 50 per cent coverage of high intensity reflective for each individual side.

3) In the case of a forty eight foot chassis, the law will thus require a minimum of 24 feet of the approved reflective sheeting to be applied to each side. Further, there shall not be more than 18 inches of either red or silver reflective in a continuous strip and that there shall not be an allowed void of more than 48 inches between modules.

4) It shall be recognized that a chassis may travel both with and without a container. In the case of a gooseneck chassis, the gooseneck portion is not visible when the chassis is loaded with a container. The gooseneck portion is generally about 8 feet in length. When the chassis is not loaded with a container, the application of 24 feet per side of a 48 foot chassis of evenly spaced reflective modules would comply with the law as we understand it. It would identify the extreme front and rear portions of the chassis.

The confusion is the treatment of the same gooseneck chassis that is loaded with a container. It is our understanding that the requirements now are for the entire 24 feet (50 per cent of length) to be applied behind the gooseneck. In general this would mean that the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis would contain the 24 feet of reflective modules. Further, we understand that the 50 per cent requirement would be satisfied and that additional modules would not have to be applied to the gooseneck.

If our interpretation is correct, then the gooseneck chassis illustrated above would be in violation if traveling without benefit of a container.

The eight foot gooseneck would be dangerously unmarked creating a hazard and would violate the requirement stating that a void of no more than four

feet is allowable. It is our feeling that since the chassis travels both loaded and unloaded, if the reflective modules were applied evenly spaced along the total length, that the spirit of the law would be realized. Is there a benefit in applying the additional 4 feet of reflective within the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis? If a chassis is considered to be a trailer for purposes of the conspicuity law, then the evenly spaced treatment would seem to be more consistent.

We would appreciate a confirmation from your office indicating the legal application of the law as it pertains to gooseneck chassis.

1) Will we need to apply 24 feet of stripping on a forty eight foot chassis behind the gooseneck plus an additional 4 feet on the gooseneck?

2) Since a chassis is considered to be treated as a trailer, shouldn't we apply the 24 feet evenly spaced from the extreme rear and front portions of the chassis?

3) Is a tire considered a legal obstruction? If so, can we deduct the distance behind the tire from the 50 per cent coverage?

4) We anticipate that the slide mechanism on an extendable chassis will scrape the reflective film from off the chassis. Is the operator then subject to penalties? How will the operator be able to avoid these penalties since they have no control over this process?

We hope that you can respond to these questions well in advance of the December 1st deadline. The application process has already begun and the manufacturer's need to finalize the process.

ID: 2910yy

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

Dear Mr. Munro:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

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

ID: 3325o

Mr. Wes Sprunk
Saf-Tee Siping & Grooving, Inc.
l4l80 West 78th, Suite l02
Eden Prairie, MN 55344

Dear Mr. Sprunk:

This responds to your letter concerning the siping of tires. You asked whether "there is any possible problem with the siping of new, used, truck, passenger, or light duty tires," under Department of Transportation regulations. Your question is responded to below, to the extent that it concerns regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We note that your letter indicates that you have also discussed this issue with officials of the Federal Highway Administration.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards.

As noted by your letter, the term "siping" should be distinguished from "grooving." You stated that grooving is a "process of removing rubber from the tire to give it an additional space for water release." You stated that siping is "a process of cross cutting the tread, never deeper than the original tread depth of the tire; and in most cases, l/32" or less, with a fine knife--either four or five cuts to the inch--that does not remove rubber."

Section l08(a)(l) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, selling or offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States, any item of motor vehicle equipment unless it is in conformity with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The prohibitions of section l08(a)(l) do not apply after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. (Section l08(b)(l).)

NHTSA has issued several safety standards for tires. Standard No. l09 specifies performance and labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars; Standard No. ll7 specifies performance and labeling requirements for retreaded pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars; and Standard No. ll9 specifies performance and labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

The siping of new tires (including retreaded tires) is permissible only if that operation does not adversely affect the compliance of the tire with Standard No. l09, ll7 or ll9, as applicable. If a dealer offers for sale or sells new tires (including new retreaded tires) that have been siped and those tires do not comply with Standard No. l09, ll7 or ll9, as applicable, the dealer would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $l,000 for each tire that did not comply.

Section l08(a)(2)(A) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, any persons or businesses within the above categories that perform siping should ensure that the siping does not render inoperative the compliance of tires with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You should also be aware that the agency's regulation on regrooved tires (49 CFR Part 569) specifies requirements concerning regrooved tires and regroovable tires which have been siped. See sections 569.7(a)(2)(vii) and 569.7(b).

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l09#ll7#ll9 d:l2/30/88

ID: firestonelaser-2

Michael D. Kane
Vice President, Quality Assurance
Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc.
535 Marriott Drive
Nashville, TN 37214

Dear Mr. Kane:

This responds to your question whether laser etching of the tire identification number (TIN) date code is permitted by the tire marking and tire labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139 and 49 CFR 574.5, respectively, that go into effect on September 1, 2004. You raised these questions in an April 29, 2003 meeting with us and in a letter of the same date. As explained below, the answerto your question is "yes."

Beginning September 1, 2004, paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139, "Tire Markings," requiress that each tire must be "marked" with certain information and that "the tire identification and DOT symbol labeling must comply with part 574" of 49 CFR. With respect to the TIN in particular, S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 139 requires that "each tire must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 CFR part 574 on the intended outboard side of the tire." Part 574.5 requires that "each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously labelby permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section." The TIN contains the manufacturers identification code, the tire size, an optional manufacturer code, and a 4-digit date code representing the week and year of manufacturer. In comments on the Tire Safety Information rulemaking, the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) had stated that, under the new labeling requirements, molding the date code portion of the TIN on the intended outboard side of the tire would make it necessary for technicians to change the date code plate in the upper half of the tire mold on a weekly basis.

You state that Bridgestone/Firestone has been exploring the possibility of using laser technology as a means of etching the tire identification number into the tire sidewall. This process would involve a diode pumped, solid state laser beam that etches tire letters or numerals into the rubber with the required character heights and to the required character depths. You state that this technology would avoid the risk that would otherwise result from technicians having to make the weekly date code change in the top half of the tire mold. That risk has been the weekly date code change in the top half of the tire mold. That risk has been a safety concern to the tire industry. You also state that the laser etched characters, while "not molded," are permanent and that the characters are sharp, easy to read, and conform to the letter styles specified in Notes to Figure 1 of 574.5. Finally, you note that paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139 states that the tire must be "marked" with certain information, instead of "permanently molded." The latter is the language in paragraph 4.3 of FMVSS No. 109, the standard that has been largely superseded by FMVSS No. 139

As a general matter, the term "molding" does not include laser etching. However, in the context of the situation you describe, we would consider permanent laser etching of the date code portion of the TIN to be a satisfactory method of complying with paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139, so long as it occurred in-line, i.e., as part of the manufacturing process of the tire.In responding to petitions for reconsideration, we will amend the regulatory text to make it clear that this is permissible.

If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:109
d.5/30/03

ID: nht90-3.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack E. Eanes -- Chief, Vehicle services, State of Delaware, Department of Public Safety, Division of motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 10-20-89 to T. Vinson from J. E. Eanes (OCC 3822)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter asking whether very darkly tinted rear windows that obscure the center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) required in passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 would violate any Federal laws or regulations. Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue two safety standards that are relevant to your question. The first of these is standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR S571.108), which applies to all new vehicles and new replacement equipment for motor vehicles. Among the requirement s set forth in this Standard is a requirement for all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 to be equipped with a CHMSL of specified minimum size, brightness, and visibility from the range of locations set forth in the standard. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205). This standard applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing for use in motor vehicles, and includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance of the glaz ing (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(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. A new passenger car with a rear window tinted so darkly that th e CHMSL was not easily visible would probably not be in conformity with Standards No. 108 and 205, and so could not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States. However, this prohibition on the manufacture or sale of a nonconforming vehicle doe s not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer.

Both before and after the first sale of a vehicle, 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 in part, any device or element of design installed on a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." If any of the listed commercial entities were to install tint film or otherwise darken the rear windows on passenger cars so that the light transmittance of that window plus the darkening material was below 70 percent, those entities would be "rendering inoperative" the light transmittance of the rear window of the car, in violation of Federal law.

This same prohibition in Federal law makes it unlawful for a service station to permanently remove the safety belts or permanently disconnect the brake lines on a car.

Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle no longer complies with the safety standards aft er such alterations. Hence, no provision of the Safety Act or our safety standards makes it unlawful for vehicle owners themselves to tint or otherwise darken the rear window of their car so that its light transmittance is below 70 percent and/or its CH MSL is obscured.

The individual States, however, do have authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. The States also have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that Stake.

You indicated in your letter that the State of Delaware "allows vehicle rear windows to be tinted as dark as the owner desires." While I am not familiar with Delaware law, I assume that this statute, and similar statutes adopted by other States, does no t purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing and CHMSLs by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, any commercial firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittanc e of less than 70 percent and/or reduces the required brightness of the CHMSL would have violated the "render inoperative" provision in Federal law, even if Delaware permits individual owners to make such modifications themselves and to register and oper ate vehicles with rear windows and CHMSLs that would not comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards for new vehicles. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifi cations commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Delaware from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in t he State of Delaware.

Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and Delaware law, and Delaware would be free to enforce the provisions of its law. We would, however, urge the State of Delaware to carefully consider the adverse safety consequenc es that will result from the provision of its law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety, and that the CHMSL on passenger cars enhances motor vehicle s afety. It is not clear why the State of Delaware would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance and CHMSLs in new passenger cars is satisfied by allowing far lower light transmittance levels and lower-brightness CHMSLs in passenger cars to be operated in the State.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202)

366-2992.

ID: nht89-1.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/17/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JAMES R. TOMAINO -- YOUNGSTOWN RUBBER PRODUCTS COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/30/89 FROM JAMES R. TOMAINO TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 3073

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tomaino:

This responds to your January 30, 1989 letter asking whether a "permanently embossed raised dot" on your air brake hose assembly satisfies the requirement in Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, for a manufacturer identification. As explained below, we believ e that use of the raised dot may be potentially confusing, since it isn't readily apparent whether the mark represents an intentional effort to identify the manufacturer of the assembly or is an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process.

By way of background, Standard No. 106 sets forth two methods of labeling air brake hose assemblies made with crimped or swaged end fittings. S7.2.3 states that these assemblies must be labeled by means of a band around the assembly or, at the option of the assembly manufacturer, by means of marking at least one end fitting as described in S7.2.3.1. You have asked us about the labeling requirements under the second option.

Since, for reasons of drafting convenience, the second option incorporates the portions of the first option relating to the nature of and filing of the designation, it is necessary to begin with a discussion of the first option. The first option (S7.2.3( b)) provides that the bank must be marked with informtion including:

A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, D .C. 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol. (Emphasis added.)

The second option (S7.2.3.1) requires assemblies to be "etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly and is filed in accordance with S7.2.3(b)." (Emphasis adde d.) The concluding language,

"in accordance with S7.2.3(b)," modifies both of the preceding clauses, i.e., both "identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly" and "is filed." Thus, the identification provided in compliance with the second option "may consist of block capital let ters, numerals or a symbol."

Since the raised dot is clearly neither a block capital letter or a numeral, the issue is whether it can be considered a symbol. The dictionary defines "symbol," for the purposes relevant to your inquiry, as follows: "something that stands for or sugges ts something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental but not intentional resemblance." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged edition.) The agency concludes that the dot is not a symbol because it is not readily apparent that the raised dot stands for or suggests anything. Instead, the dot appears to be only an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process.

Manufacturer identification is crucial for the enforcement of Standard No. 106's requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies. We urge you to use a more distinctive mark to identify your company as the manufacturer of the assembly. To assist you , and in response to your March 17 telephone request, we are enclosing examples of designations which manufacturers of brake hoses, fittings and assemblies have registered with NHTSA. These examples should be helpful in providing ideas for another desig nation.

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

ATTACHMENT

ID: 2636y

Mr. Jack E. Eanes
Chief, Vehicle Services
State of Delaware
Department of Public Safety
Division of Motor Vehicles
P. O. Box 698
Dover, Delaware, 19903

Dear Mr. Eanes:

This is in response to your letter asking whether very darkly tinted rear windows that obscure the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL) required in passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 would violate any Federal laws or regulations. Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue two safety standards that are relevant to your question. The first of these is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), which applies to all new vehicles and new replacement equipment for motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in this Standard is a requirement for all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 to be equipped with a CHMSL of specified minimum size, brightness, and visibility from the range of locations set forth in the standard. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). This standard applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing for use in motor vehicles, and includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance of the glazing (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(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. A new passenger car with a rear window tinted so darkly that the CHMSL was not easily visible would probably not be in conformity with Standards No. 108 and 205, and so could not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States. However, this prohibition on the manufacture or sale of a nonconforming vehicle does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer.

Both before and after the first sale of a vehicle, 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 in part, any device or element of design installed on a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." If any of the listed commercial entities were to install tint film or otherwise darken the rear windows on passenger cars so that the light transmittance of that window plus the darkening material was below 70 percent, those entities would be "rendering inoperative" the light transmittance of the rear window of the car, in violation of Federal law. This same prohibition in Federal law makes it unlawful for a service station to permanently remove the safety belts or permanently disconnect the brake lines on a car.

Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle no longer complies with the safety standards after such alterations. Hence, no provision of the Safety Act or our safety standards makes it unlawful for vehicle owners themselves to tint or otherwise darken the rear window of their car so that its light transmittance is below 70 percent and/or its CHMSL is obscured.

The individual States, however, do have authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. The States also have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State.

You indicated in your letter that the State of Delaware "allows vehicle rear windows to be tinted as dark as the owner desires." While I am not familiar with Delaware law, I assume that this statute, and similar statutes adopted by other States, does not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing and CHMSLs by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, any commercial firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittance of less than 70 percent and/or reduces the required brightness of the CHMSL would have violated the "render inoperative" provision in Federal law, even if Delaware permits individual owners to make such modifications themselves and to register and operate vehicles with rear windows and CHMSLs that would not comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards for new vehicles. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifications commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Delaware from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in the State of Delaware.

Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and Delaware law, and Delaware would be free to enforce the provisions of its law. We would, however, urge the State of Delaware to carefully consider the adverse safety consequences that will result from the provision of its law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety, and that the CHMSL on passenger cars enhances motor vehicle safety. It is not clear why the State of Delaware would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance and CHMSLs in new passenger cars is satisfied by allowing far lower light transmittance levels and lower-brightness CHMSLs in passenger cars to be operated in the State.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:108#205#VSA d:7/3l/90

ID: 1784y

Mr. James R. Tomaino
Youngstown Rubber Products Company
854 Mahoning Avenue
P.O. Box 1377
Youngstown, OH 44501-1377

Dear Mr. Tomaino:

This responds to your January 30, 1989 letter asking whether a "permanently embossed raised dot" on your air brake hose assembly satisfies the requirement in Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, for a manufacturer identification. As explained below, we believe that use of the raised dot may be potentially confusing, since it isn't readily apparent whether the mark represents an intentional effort to identify the manufacturer of the assembly or is an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process.

By way of background, Standard No. 106 sets forth two methods of labeling air brake hose assemblies made with crimped or swaged end fittings. S7.2.3 states that these assemblies must be labeled by means of a band around the assembly or, at the option of the assembly manufacturer, by means of marking at least one end fitting as described in S7.2.3.1. You have asked us about the labeling requirements under the second option.

Since, for reasons of drafting convenience, the second option incorporates the portions of the first option relating to the nature of and filing of the designation, it is necessary to begin with a discussion of the first option. The first option (S7.2.3(b)) provides that the band must be marked with information including:

A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol. (Emphasis added.)

The second option (S7.2.3.1) requires assemblies to be "etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly and is filed in accordance with S7.2.3(b)." (Emphasis added.) The concluding language, "in accordance with S7.2.3(b)," modifies both of the preceding clauses, i.e., both "identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly" and "is filed." Thus, the identification provided in compliance with the second option "may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol."

Since the raised dot is clearly neither a block capital letter or a numeral, the issue is whether it can be considered a symbol. The dictionary defines "symbol," for the purposes relevant to your inquiry, as follows: "something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental but not intentional resemblance." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged edition.) The agency concludes that the dot is not a symbol because it is not readily apparent that the raised dot stands for or suggests anything. Instead, the dot appears to be only an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process.

Manufacturer identification is crucial for the enforcement of Standard No. 106's requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies. We urge you to use a more distinctive mark to identify your company as the manufacturer of the assembly. To assist you, and in response to your March 17 telephone request, we are enclosing examples of designations which manufacturers of brake hoses, fittings and assemblies have registered with NHTSA. These examples should be helpful in providing ideas for another designation.

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Attachment

/ref:106 d:4/l7/89

ID: nht75-5.13

DATE: 06/26/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Humanoid Systems

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 30, 1975, to the Administrator.

Thank you for the offer to assist in the establishment of new specifications for dummy skin and flesh components. Any procurement of such services would be awarded by competitive procurement, and I hope your company will participate in any such competition when solicited.

The NHTSA issued Part 572, in the form of a large number of dummy design and material specifications supplemented by some calibrating component tests, in order to specify the vehicle performance requirements of certain crash-tent standards, such as standard No. 203, as precisely and objectively as possible. Dummies are not regulated items and not ends in themselves: as @ 572.3 states, the dummy specification "does not in itself impose duties or liabilities on any person." Thus, the dummy specification serves only as a means of informing the vehicle manufacturers how their vehicles must perform if and when tested by the government. There is no regulatory requirement either for "certification" of dummies or their "verification by an independent agency" or anyone else. It may be assumed that government testing will be carried out with dummies that conform to Part 572 as closely as possible. Vehicle manufacturers can ascertain that their vehicles will pass government tests by any means they choose. With this in view, it should be clear that any deviations from the Part 572 specifications are purely a matter of private negotiation and decision making between the dummy manufacturers and their customers, and no governmental "approvals" are possible or appropriate.

Any changes in Part 572 will of course be done through notice and opportunity for comment, and we expect and hope for your full participation in an administrative proceeding when it takes place.

SINCERELY,

June 27, 1975

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is to advise you that we have today sent to a Committee of the United States Senate various details concerning your policies as they affect our company.

We have discussed our situation with a number of prominent auto manufacturers which are coming to our support because they do not want to be confronted by a dummy industry in which we are not represented. They have given us considerable data to show that there are many precedents under which NHTSA has altered its rules to avoid giving unfair competitive advantage to any company or submitting another company to unfair competitive disadvantages. We have submitted the data which they have given us to our legal counsel with a view toward possibly taking legal action against your Agency.

I want to ask you to spare both parties the expense and the time involved in such an action by considering again the bald facts of this matter.

I alerted NHTSA in 1973 about the dangers inherent in the use of Nitrosan and was brushed off. In January, 1975, I notified NHTSA that the Dupont plant producing this material had exploded and would not resume its manufacture nor license its technology to any other company because of the numerous explosions which had occurred in the plants of Nitrosan users.

The response of NHTSA was to offer some suggestions for a substitute material and to inquire of the three dummy manufacturers as to their supplies of Nitrosan. Your own records disclose that ARL has a one-year supply, Sierra has enough material for 3 or 4 dummies, and we will exhause our own supply in 3 weeks. This spells creation of a dummy monopoly for ARL by NHTSA's failure to prepare a timely remedy.

In our own report to the Senate Committee, we have discussed the existence of two drawings of the dummy head, both stamped "NHTSA Release". Both drawings cannot be satisified in the same head. We have received no response to our several letters on the subject, dating back to two years ago, but we did receive information from other sources as to which drawing to follow. When I queried your people 2 or 3 months ago as to the status of these two drawings, I was told to "forget the GM drawing". This is to us a baseline as to your respect for "statutory" procedures.

In Part 572, we are dealing with a standard that is not a standard at all. There is little or no control of dummy kinematics, either by performance tests or by specification of some of the most critical determinants of such responses. We are dealing with a dummy where the neck cannot be assembled to the thorax if drawings are followed literally, where the drawings of 2 of the 6 ribs are indeterminate, where the pelvis cannot satisfy the molded weight requirement and the assembled weight requirement simultaneously, where the adbominal sac cannot both be molded to specification and pass your performance tests, and which generally can best be described as a mess. This is the background against which the legolisms of your agency should be weighed.

I have been told by Jim Hofferberth, that the only way we can use a substitute for Nitrosan is by the complete rule-making process which cannot possibly be carried through in less than 6 months, by which time our company will have been forced out of business. When viewed against the time frame, the disposition of the head matter, and the status of the Part 572 specifications, the treatment of this problem is patently unreasonable.

I spoke at length yesterday with Dick Dyson in your Legal Counsel's Office, and I was told that I was making a fuss about nothing, that the Part 572 had no legal standing any more, and that our inability to certify that we met the Part 572 requirements would have nothing to do with our sales of the dummy. I checked this out with the "Big 3" and found Dyson's remarks to be totally unfounded.

No one will buy our dummies if we cannot certify them, and we cannot certify them if the specifications call for a material which exists currently only in the plant of our competitor. If the situation were not so serious for our company, it would be an absurd comedy.

May we request that in the coming week you clear this matter up and permit us to continue to manufacture dummies, which, on balance, we know that we do better than anybody else.

HUMANOID SYSTEMS

Samuel W. Alderson

President

ID: visor21836

Mr. Richard Larson
55 South Smith Street
Palatine, IL 60067-2636



Dear Mr. Larson:




This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a sun visor attachment. As you state, the attachment "is roughly 2 inches in diameter and can be attached to the visor wherever the driver prefers" and "is translucent and can be tinted as well." You do not mention, however, the purpose of the attachment, or provide a more thorough description of the product. Further, you ask for information regarding 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30122, the "make inoperative" provision of our statute (formally codified at 15 U.S.C. 108(a)(2)(A).) ⁽¹⁾

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing new vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

As far as we can tell from your letter, your product appears to be an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Our statute defines "motor vehicle equipment," in relevant part, as any system, part, or component "sold ... as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B)). An item of equipment is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

a.   A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b.   It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Your sun visor attachment is an accessory because it was presumably designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. (We make this assumption because you designed the product to attach to a vehicle's sun visor, "wherever the driver prefers.") Further, the attachment is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

There is currently no FMVSS that is directly applicable to a sun visor attachment sold directly to a consumer. The FMVSSs that regulate aspects of sun visors, FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, apply only to new, completed motor vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold for purposes other than resale) and not to items of aftermarket equipment, such as a sun visor attachment. However, a manufacturer of aftermarket equipment, whether you or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 (copy enclosed) which set forth the notification and remedy (recall) requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer of the product determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. The installation of the sun visor attachment by a commercial entity is also subject to certain restrictions, as discussed below.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (the section of which you inquire in your letter), provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the sun visor attachment could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the compliance of a vehicle with any FMVSS, including but not limited to those identified above.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles.

I note that the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. You should contact that agency at (202) 366-4012 for information about any requirements that may apply to your product.

In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions and may prohibit sun visor attachments. Therefore, in response to your question regarding who you should contact regarding the standards of each state, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used. In further response to your question, we regret that we do not have the internet addresses for each state.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.




Sincerely,




Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel




Enclosures
ref:201#302
d..8/30/00

---

1. Our statute, formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, was recodified in 1994 without substantive change. It is now codified at Title 49 of the U.S. Code in Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety.)