ID: nht94-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 13, 1994

FROM: Mary B. Falls -- Sherrard and Roe, Nashville, TN

TO: Office of General Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Vehicle Identification Numbers

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/08/94 from John Womack to Mary B. Falls (A42; STD. 115)

TEXT: Our firm represents Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corporation USA, who manufactures cars and light trucks in Smyrna, Tennessee. We have been advised that, from time to time, leased Nissan automobiles are stolen for the purpose of removing the plate contain ing the vehicle identification number ("VIN") from the dashboard of the leased car. In most cases, the leased vehicle is recovered with very little damage other than damage associated with the removal of the VIN plate. NMMC has asked us to determine ho w replacement VIN plates can be obtained for these stolen vehicles and what additional steps, if any, must Nissan or the vehicle lessee take to satisfy state and federal laws with respect to the issuance of a new VIN plate. While Tennessee statutes clea rly contemplate the issuance of replacement VIN plates, we have found no federal statute or regulation which addresses this particular issue. Among the various federal regulations we have reviewed are the following: 49 C.F.R. 565 and 49 C.F.R. 571.115. In addition to researching the federal statutes and regulations. we have contacted Peggy Proctor at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. This letter is submitted to you at the request of Ms. Proctor.

The issue we submit to you is as follows: If Nissan complies with the requirements prescribed by the State of Tennessee for the issuance of replacement VIN plates, will Nissan also be in full compliance with applicable federal statutes and regulations pertaining to vehicle identification numbers? If not, what additional steps must Nissan take to ensure full compliance with federal laws and regulations? For your convenience, the balance of this letter describes the process pursuant to which the State of Tennessee will issue replacement VIN plates to Nissan.

Section 55-5-111 of Tennessee Code Annotated provides that it is a Class C misdemeanor for any person to buy, sell, offer for sale, or possess a motor vehicle from which the manufacturer's serial, engine, or transmission number or other distinguishing number or identification mark or number has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed. In addition, @ 55-5-112 provides that the owner of an original engine, serial, transmission, or "other number or mark" may restore such number or mark pu rsuant to a permit issued by the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Tennessee Department of Safety.

Upon written request by the owner of a stolen VIN plate, the Criminal Investigation Unit will issue one (1) replacement VIN plate. Because the vehicles in question are leased, Nissan (as owner) would be the party making the request for the replacemen t plate. In addition to requesting a replacement VIN plate, the written request must include a copy of the certificate of title for the automobile in question (thus verifying the original VIN for that automobile), a copy of the theft recovery report for the automobile in question, and a check in the amount of $ 10.00. Once Nissan receives the replacement VIN plate, the plate is affixed to the door jamb of the vehicle. We have been advised that the replacement VIN plate contains a "control number" whi ch indicates that it is a replacement plate issued by the Tennessee Department of Safety. Apparently this control number permits the vehicle to be tracked and differentiates it from the vehicle bearing the stolen VIN plate. Because the replacement VIN plate bears the same VIN as the original VIN plate, the certificate of title for the automobile, the VIN stamped on other parts of the automobile, and the manufacturer's label affixed to the door of the car do not need to be changed.

Because these leased vehicles cannot be operated without replacement VIN plates, a prompt response would be greatly appreciated. Of course, if you have any questions, we would be pleased to provide any additional information that you desire.

ID: 16926.drn

Mr. Esko Lammervo
Marketing Manager
OY Talmu AB
FIN-24100 Salo
Finland

Dear Mr. Lammervo:

This responds to your letter asking whether your company's (Talmu's) warning triangles are excluded from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You state that some of your customers, European car manufacturers, are interested in using Talmu triangles in cars that will be exported to the United States. As explained below, because your warning triangles are designed to be carried in motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds (lb.) or less, they are excluded from the standard. However, since your product is "motor vehicle equipment," your company Talmu, as the manufacturer, may be subject to NHTSA's laws as described below.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Effective October 31, 1994, NHTSA amended Standard No. 125 so that the standard applies only to warning devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb. (See 59 FR 49586; September 29, 1994, copy enclosed.) If sold for use with buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb., your company's warning triangles must meet Standard No. 125's detailed specifications for a warning device. However, if the warning triangle is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb. or less, Standard No. 125 would not apply.

Bear in mind, however, that even if excluded from Standard No. 125, your warning triangle, as an item of "motor vehicle equipment," is regulated by NHTSA. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA should determine that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your devices are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:125#VSA
d.2/26/98

ID: 77-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Marchal America - Western Region

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 9, 1977, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for clarification of the effect of the preemption section of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act upon the use of quartz iodine headlamps by State fire and police organizations. Your letter was prompted by mine of January 18, 1977, to Jack D. Gross, Jr., National Sales Manager of Marchal America, in which I concluded that the preemption section was inapplicable to the conversion of vehicles by owners after initial manufacture.

Title 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d) reads in pertinent part:

"Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent . . . the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to . . . motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement establishes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable federal standard."

In my opinion, the preemption language is irrelevant to your primary concern of assuring local agencies that the Federal government has no objection to their use of headlamps that do not comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As I explained to Mr. Gross, the purpose of the preemption doctrine is to ensure uniform national manufacturing standards reserving to States and political subdivisions thereof the right to establish standards setting a higher level of performance on vehicles procured for their own use.

We have always construed this language narrowly. You have not informed us of the existence of any State law, municipal ordinance, or any other legislative act by a State or political subdivision establishing a level of performance for headlamps on publicly owned vehicles, that a manufacturer must meet, and thus the preemption question, in a legal sense, does not arise.

Instead, you have presented the situation of a few State and local agencies (city police, highway patrol, fire department, sheriff) who wish to substitute quartz iodine headlamps on publicly owned vehicles. Although 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) prohibits the removal of vehicle equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard, that prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. Thus, there is no Federal legal objection to any interested State or local agency replacing its conventional headlamps with quartz iodine ones. Indeed, we would be interested in knowing the views of these agencies after a period of use.

We understand from your letter that the headlamps in question are imported as conforming to the motorcycle headlamp requirements of SAE J584, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. As long as the headlamps do not exceed the candlepower maxima established by J584, and are not advertised or sold to the general public as suitable for use on passenger cars Marchal America would not appear to be violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

SINCERELY,

MARCHAL AMERICA WESTERN REGION

February 9, 1977

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ATTN: Taylor Vinson

Re: Your File No. N40-30

This is in reply to your correspondence dated January 18, 1977 and our phone conversation on February 7, 1977 regarding headlamp replacements.

Semi-sealed H-4 Iodine headlamp replacements are currently being used by the Highway Patrol, Sheriff, City Police, Fire and Highway Departments in ten of the eleven states in my region. The primary usage of these lamps is in critical need rural areas. General usage is prohibitive because these units cost four to five times more than standard units. Each department that has installed these units conducted cost vs. benefits testing. In each case the results were consistent. Benefits are:

Low Beam: 1. Less glare to opposing drivers;

2. More uniform light pattern on road and shoulder;

3. Light color makes it easier on eyes;

4. Dramatic reduction of whiteout caused by stray vertical light in fog and snow.

High Beam: 1. Besides the obvious increase in distance, peripheral vision is greatly increased allowing the operators to see pedestrians, side traffic and livestock at a great enough distance to allow them to react safely. High beam is primarily used in Code 2 or Code 3 operation where standard headlamps don't give adequate illumination for safe operation of high speed emergency vehicles.

Additional

Benefits: 1. If a rock or debris cracks the lens, you don't lose your headlight in a critical emergency situation;

2. Bulb life span is comparable to standard units and the intensity doesn't deteriorate with age.

We are not talking about an experimental unit that has never been tested. These headlamps are manufactured under the extremely tough international lighting standards known as the "E" or European Code. Every other country in the world has now adopted this standard including our neighbors in Canada. These headlamps are in daily use by some of the most respected state and local safety organizations in the country.

The reason I asked for the clarification on 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) was because the California Highway Patrol has an extremely hazardous fog condition in their central valley. They were interested in testing these units because of their low beam qualities in fog and snow, but they wanted 1392(d) interpreted in writing to make sure it was o.k.

The pertinent part of Section 1392(d) reads:

"Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent . . . the government of any state or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement establishes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable federal standard."

My interpretation of this section prior to your letter was our headlamp came under the classification of motor vehicle equipment and in each case of its use a higher standard of performance was established in both public and operator safety with the use of this unit.

These units are being imported under federal standard 108 J584 for motorcycle use. The spread from motorcycle to vehicle usage starts when a police department discovers that the headlamps that work so well in their motorcycles plug right into their patrol cars.

The international lighting standard mandates that the bulbs be interchangable regardless of the manufacturer, reflector size or shape of the lamp. This was done so that no matter where you travelled, replacement bulbs would be readily available regardless of the type of vehicle.

I respectfully submit these comments for you to consider.

CHAD DORNSIFE

ID: 11843.ZTV

Mr. Mark J. Bernten
59 Westover St.
West Roxbury, MA 02132-1317

Dear Mr. Bernten:

This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 1996, asking how "special purpose vehicles are classified", such as military four-wheel drive ambulances. You have also asked whether such vehicles may "be imported to be used as search and rescue vehicles in remote areas" of the United States."

Vehicles "manufactured for and sold to the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications" are exempt from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.7(b)). However, this exclusion does not extend to military vehicles of countries other than the United States. Such vehicles are imported in the same manner as other vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, that is to say, through the procedures established by 49 CFR Parts 591- 94, which you tell us you have read. In brief, the manufacturer of the vehicle or a registered importer acting on your behalf, must file a petition for an eligibility determination pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593. If the petition is granted, the registered importer may import the vehicle under bond in order to bring it into conformance with the standards and provide this agency with compliance data. If the submission is satisfactory, we release the bond and the car.

If the military ambulance is a vehicle which is "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation," it is a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b). We deem it probable that a military ambulance is a vehicle that is manufactured on a truck chassis. Four-wheel drive is considered a "special feature" allowing use for off-road operations such as search and rescue. However, in the absence of more information about the vehicle, we cannot conclusively advise you that it is a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:5/10/96

ID: nht76-3.36

DATE: 03/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Inoue Rubber International Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office on February 25, 1976, concerning tires that you export to the United States and to the Soviet Union.

I understand that you export tires from Japan to the Soviet Union, to be mounted on motorcycles that are in turn exported to the United States. Representatives of the motorcycle manufacturer have requested a certification that the tires comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked Mr. Schwimmer how to obtain such a certification from the Department of Transportation.

This Department does not certify or otherwise issue advance approvals of motor vehicles, tires, or other motor vehicle equipment. Certification, under the applicable law and regulations, must be done by the manufacturer. The symbol "DOT", molded in the tire sidewall by you, pursuant to S6.5(a), constitutes your certification that your product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., in this case, Standard No. 119). If it is subsequently determined that your product does not comply with the standard, then the tires are subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. The "DOT" symbol on the sidewall may very well be the certification that your Soviet customer has in mind. Please note that Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent, upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made. Our records indicate that Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. has not complied with this requirement.

The procedural regulations (49 CFR 551.45) for designation of agent pursuant to the Act require:

(1) A certification by its maker that the designation is binding on Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. 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 Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd;

(3) Trade names or other designations of origin of the products of Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. that do not bear its legal name;

(4) A provision that the designation remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd.; (5) A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

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

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

Copies of these regulations and of Standard No. 119 are enclosed for your information and guidance.

ID: nht92-8.48

DATE: February 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James Hansen -- Model E Concepts

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/20/91 from James C. Hansen to Office of the Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 6832)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter inquiring about the applicability of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to the alteration of previously certified new and used motor vehicles. You stated that your company is considering the alteration of motor vehicles to a hybrid version of an electric powered vehicle. In altering the current vehicles, your company would remove the internal combustion engine and associated components (including the transmission on some vehicles) and replace them with an electric battery. To accommodate the added weight, you would change the suspension and brake systems and add aluminum beams to the vehicle; however, your company does not plan to cut or otherwise change the vehicle's original unibody structure. You indicated that you believe NHTSA's regulations would only require your company to affix to the vehicle an additional label stating its modified gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and gross axle weight rating (GAWR). I welcome this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain 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 answer to your question depends upon whether the vehicles your company modifies are new (that is, the vehicles have not yet been sold to the first retail purchaser) or used (vehicles that have already been sold to and used by the first retail purchaser). With respect to your company's modifications of new vehicles, your company would be an "alterer" for the purposes of NHTSA's laws and regulations. 49 CFR S567.7 requires an alterer of a new vehicle to supplement the original manufacturer's certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. This label added by the alterer must state that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. The added label must set forth the alterer's name and the date of the alterations. In addition, if after alteration, the vehicle classification or the vehicle's GVWR or GAWR differs from the information shown on the original certification label, then the alterer's label must reflect this new information.

Your letter suggests that you believe your company must simply add a label showing the modified GVWR and GAWR of these vehicles. That is not entirely correct. Your company must also certify that the altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. An alterer must have some

independent basis for this certification. This does not however mean that an alterer must conduct crash testing, even with respect to standards that include dynamic test requirements. Certifications of continuing compliance for altered vehicles may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manufacturer in a "body builder's guide."

It may be difficult for your company to certify that the hybrid electric-powered vehicles your company produces will continue to comply with Standards No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and the other crashworthiness safety standards that measure compliance during or after a 30 miles per hour rigid barrier crash test. The difficulty would arise because the weight your company would add to the vehicles during the alteration may result in more overall deformation of the vehicle during the crash test. To address these potential difficulties for electric vehicles, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on whether and how the agency should modify its safety standards to account for electric vehicles. This advance notice was published on December 27, 1991 (56 FR 67038; copy enclosed). The comment period for this notice closes on March 27, 1992. Your company may wish to respond to our request for comments on this subject.

Different requirements apply if you modify used vehicles. In that case, the requirements in S567.7 would not apply, because that regulation applies only to motor vehicles before the first retail purchase of the vehicle. Hence, your company is not required to affix an alterer's label to those used vehicles you convert into hybrid electric vehicles. Instead, the relevant requirements are set forth in S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section of Federal law provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly "render inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

For your information, I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of the relevant NHTSA regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht80-2.25

DATE: 04/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sleek-Craft Boats

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 30 1980

Mr. Warren Robbins Manager, Automobile Division Sleek-Craft Boats P.O. Box 3563 Santa Fe Springs, California 90670

Dear Mr. Robbins:

This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, as it would apply to a new sports car that your company intends to market. You state that the side doors of this vehicle design can meet the "intermediate" and "peak" crush resistance requirements of the standard but not the "initial" crush resistance requirement because of an outer fiberglass veneer component of the door. You ask whether the vehicle can be exempt from this "initial" requirement since the door can withstand the maximum forces required by the standard.

The answer to your question is no. Safety Standard No. 214 requires doors to comply with all three stages of the crush resistance requirements and there is no provision for an averaging of the crush resistance abilities. Although inboard mounted structures may be effective in preventing intrusion if the door has a large cross section, with a correspondingly large distance between the protective structure and the inner panel, the standard reflects a determination by the agency that doors afford the greatest protection panel as possible. Additionally, the "initial" crush resistance requirements are necessary to ensure that the entire door system is structurally sound. This is particularly important because of the risk of occupant ejection if door hinges and latches separated during an accident, allowing the door to fly open.

Although the relief you seek cannot be granted by interpretation of Safety Standard No. 214, there are provisions for temporary exemptions from Safety Standards or portions of safety standards under certain circumstances; such as economic hardship. I am enclosing a copy of the regulation governing temporary exemptions for your information (49 CFR Part 555). After reviewing this regulation, you may wish to petition the agency for a temporary exemption from the "initial" crush resistance requirements of the standard. The regulation explains the procedures you must follow.

If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 13, 1980

National Highway Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Office of Chief Counsel

Re: FMVSS #214

Gentlemen:

Our firm is in the process of building a limited production sports car. We expect the automobile to comply with all Federal Safety Standards. As the automobile is not designed, we anticipate a problem with FMVSS-214, "Side Door Strength." The purpose of this letter is to secure an opinion from the Office of Chief Counsel before the actual testing is done.

Definition of anticipated problem:

The standard required the structure of the door to withstand 2250 pounds of applied pressure over the initial 6 inches of travel, (53.1). We foresee no problem in complying and exceeding 53.2 and 53.3 of the standard.

The problem with compliance with 53.2 is that the side doors are 10" thick. The outer-most 5 inches are decorative fiberglass veneer and are used as air ducts for the radiators which are mounted in the rear.

The inner 5" of the door constitute the frame work and intrusion protection. This protection is very substantial consisting of a triangularly shaped structure constructed from .120 wall 1020 steel. The accompanyiny drawing clarifies this intrusion barrier's location and mounting relative to other frame structures. As the drawing demonstrates, our intent is to provide very substantial protection from side impacts.

The intrusion barrier (c), is supported vertically by the door support (d), which itself is a substantial member (11" x 2" channel, .090 thick 1020 mild steel). The barrier is prevented from entry into the passenger compartment by a roll bar in the rear and roll hoop in front. These members are also of .120 wall 1020 mild steel and are cross braced from the platform frame.

Opinion requested:

Petitioner, Performance Products Inc., requests that the requirements of FMVSS #214 section 53.1 be waived and that the automobile produced by Performance Products be deemed in compliance if the provisions of 53.2 and 53.3 of FMVSS #214 are successfully performed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kindest regards,

Warren Robbins Manager Automobile Division

Enclosure

WR/ca

ID: nht90-3.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Betsy Dittemore -- Legislative Liaison, Iowa Department of Public Safety, Office of the Commissioner

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-14-89 to NHTSA from B. Dittemore; (OCC 3633); and NHTSA bulletin dated 8-85 re Federal Auto Safety Laws and Motor Vehicle Window Tinting

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter regarding a bill introduced in the Iowa Senate that, among other features, would establish light transmittance limits for "sunscreening devices" that may be applied to the windows of motor vehicles operated in Iowa. I apologize for the delay in this response. You requested our office's interpretation about whether provisions of this bill would violate or be preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205).

As you are aware, this agency is authorized by section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standard s that we have issued under this authority is standard No. 205, which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of ligh t transmittance (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)) specifies that no person may manufacture, import, or sell any vehicle in the United States unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)), this prohibition no longer applies after the vehicle is sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that "No manufacturer, d istributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal moto r vehicle safety standard . . . ."

In the case of windows on a passenger car, this provision of Federal law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any wind ow of the car, because such action would "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 205. This same provision of Federal law prohibits a service station from permanently removing safety belts or permanently disconnecting brake lines on motor vehicles.

Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle

owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of a Federal statute or this agency's reg ulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles.

The individual States, however, have the authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles and to establish requirements for vehicles operated or registered in that State. The Iowa Senate bill enclosed with your l etter appears to be an attempted exercise of this inherent authority.

You asked for comments on whether this bill, if adopted as law in Iowa, would be preempted by Standard No. 205. I assume you were referring to the provision in this Iowa bill that would prohibit the operation of motor vehicles required to be registered in the State of Iowa if the vehicle has a "sunscreening device" on the front side windows with light transmittance of less than 35 percent or on the rear window and side windows behind the driver with light transmittance of less than 20 percent. Since t he original glazing on the vehicle could have had light transmittance of as little as 70 percent, this provision would permit overall light transmittance levels of as low as 25 percent for the front side windows and 14 percent for the rear windows.

This provision in the Iowa bill, and similar provisions in statutes adopted by other States, does not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittance of less than 70 percent on any window of a passenger car would have violated the "render inoperative" provision in Federal law, even if Iowa had in place a statute that would per mit persons to operate and register vehicles whose windows had light transmittance that was far lower. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifications commercial enterprises ca n make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Iowa 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 Iowa.

Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and this Iowa bill, and Iowa would be free to enforce the provisions of this bill if it is enacted into law. We would, however, urge the State of Iowa to carefully consider the adv erse safety consequences that would result from enacting this bill into law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety. Your letter indicated that Iowa ha d also adopted this 70 percent light transmittance minimum as a State requirement for new vehicles. It is not clear why the State of Iowa would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance in new ve hicles is satisfied by allowing light transmittance levels as low as 25 and 14 percent in vehicles 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: nht88-4.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/88

FROM: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARDS 217, 222 AND 302; LETTER DATED 12/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL; LETTER DATED 08/11/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

On November 3, 1988 your office responded to our correspondence of August 11, 1988. A copy of both these letters are included for your convenience. In our letter we requested an opinion that our "Impact Control System" or safety-bar did not infringe on any existing standard for installation in school buses. Your reply details a number of conditions that must be complied with if we choose to install our system in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less; however, it is n ot clear to us from your letter that the device does not infringe on standards for installation in the larger school buses. While we are prepared to certify compliance with Federal safety standards for large bus installation, we do not wish to go forwar d on the assumption of not conflicting with those standards. In this regard, we would appreciate clarification on the following:

1) that your letter of November 3, 1988 addresses both the large and smaller school buses.

2) that your letter addresses only those vehicles with (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds and under.

If your letter addresses only the smaller vehicles, we wish at this time to request an opinion that our device does not conflict with any standard for large school bus installation. In that your office has recently reviewed this matter you should refer to the supporting documents previously submitted. Should you need any additional information, please let us know.

Thank you.

Cordially,

ID: 2637y

Ms. Betsy Dittemore
Legislative Liaison
Iowa Department of Public Safety
Office of the Commissioner
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319

Dear Ms. Dittemore:

Thank you for your letter regarding a bill introduced in the Iowa Senate that, among other features, would establish light transmittance limits for "sunscreening devices" that may be applied to the windows of motor vehicles operated in Iowa. I apologize for the delay in this response. You requested our office's interpretation about whether provisions of this bill would violate or be preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205).

As you are aware, this agency is authorized by section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that no person may manufacture, import, or sell any vehicle in the United States unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)), this prohibition no longer applies after the vehicle is sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a notor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ."

In the case of windows on a passenger car, this provision of Federal law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, because such action would "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 205. This same provision of Federal law prohibits a service station from permanently removing safety belts or permanently disconnecting brake lines on motor vehicles.

Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of a Federal statute or this agency's regulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles.

The individual States, however, have the authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles and to establish requirements for vehicles operated or registered in that State. The Iowa Senate bill enclosed with your letter appears to be an attempted exercise of this inherent authority.

You asked for comments on whether this bill, if adopted as law in Iowa, would be preempted by Standard No. 205. I assume you were referring to the provision in this Iowa bill that would prohibit the operation of motor vehicles required to be registered in the State of Iowa if the vehicle has a "sunscreening device" on the front side windows with light transmittance of less than 35 percent or on the rear window and side windows behind the driver with light transmittance of less than 20 percent. Since the original glazing on the vehicle could have had light transmittance of as little as 70 percent, this provision would permit overall light transmittance levels of as low as 25 percent for the front side windows and 14 percent for the rear windows.

This provision in the Iowa bill, and similar provisions in statutes adopted by other States, does not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittance of less than 70 percent on any window of a passenger car would have violated the "render inoperative" provision in Federal law, even if Iowa had in place a statute that would permit persons to operate and register vehicles whose windows had light transmittance that was far lower. 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 Iowa 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 Iowa.

Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and this Iowa bill, and Iowa would be free to enforce the provisions of this bill if it is enacted into law. We would, however, urge the State of Iowa to carefully consider the adverse safety consequences that would result from enacting this bill into law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety. Your letter indicated that Iowa had also adopted this 70 percent light transmittance minimum as a State requirement for new vehicles. It is not clear why the State of Iowa would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance in new vehicles is satisfied by allowing light transmittance levels as low as 25 and 14 percent in vehicles 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:205#VSA d:7/30/90