ID: nht95-6.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 6, 1995

FROM: Earl Eisenhart -- Vice President, National Private Truck Council; Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President - Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/17/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Larry W. Strawhorn (A43; Std. 121)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of the phrase "separate electrical circuit" in Section 5.1.6.3 Antilock Power Circuit for Towed Vehicles of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, Air Brake Systems, which states:

"Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997 and each single unit vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 that is equipped to tow another air-braked vehicle shall be equipped with one or more separate electrical circuits, specifically provided to power the antilock system on the towed vehicle(s). Such a circuit shall be adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable."

Our interpretation is that the phrase "separate electrical circuit" allows the continued use of the single SAE J560 connector if one of the seven pins provides full-time power for the ABS. It is also our interpretation that the ABS malfunction signal can be multiplexed on the power circuit or any other circuit of the SAE J560 connector and that the other trailer devices can be powered off the circuit as long as the performance required by the last sentence of Section 5.1.6....3 is achieved, i.e., the circuit is adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable.

The bases for our interpretation are:

We interpret separate to mean full-time power is supplied to the ABS. The preamble appears to use terms continuous, dedicated, full-time and separate interchangeably but fails to define these terms. In contrast, we interpret shared to mean that the power is supplied only when switched ON by some means, e.g., turn signal switch, light switch, brake pedal, etc. The preamble (FR60-47, p13250) states that "The agency further notes that requiring that trailer ABSs receive "full-time power will not prohibit multiplexing." Therefore, we interpret that the ABS malfunction signal could be multiplexed on the power circuit. We further interpret that other trailer devices could also be powered through this circuit if they were automatically switched OFF if the trailer is equipped with an ABS, except when the vehicle is stationary. This would require that the trailer be capable of signalling the tractor that it has an ABS. The tractor would

have to be capable of receiving that signal and automatically deactivating the power to other trailer-mounted devices that now recieve power through the auxiliary pin. This solution would protect these devices from being continually powered if the trailer was equipped with an ABS, yet would still allow for the provision of power when the combination was not moving. The majority of today's applications for powering trailer equipment through the auxiliary pin, only require power when the vehicle is stationary.

Our interpretation of the word circuit as used in FMVSS 121 is that it refers to a single conductor between the towing and towed vehicle(s). This interpretation is consistent with preamble statements and SAE's commone use of the term. For examples, Notice 3 of Docket 88-18 (FR57-134, p30911) states, "The stop lamp circuit is powered through one of the pins on a seven-pin connector" and in SAE Standard J560, Seven Conductor Electrical Connector for Truck-Trailer Jumper Cable, in Sectino 6.4 defines the function and color code each of the seven pins, each of which is defined as a circuit. With the understanding that a circuit refers to one conductor between towing and towed vehicle, one can comply with Section 5.1.6.3 without having to provide a separate ground return fro the circuit to provide full-time power to towed vehicle ABS.

Utilizing a single ground on vehicles is considered to be good engineering practice since multiple grounds can cause EMI problems and ground loops which have in the past resulted on severe damage to vehicle electrical systems and even caused numerous fires. Without the need to provide a separate ground circuit, vehicle/antilock suppliers have the flexibility needed to provide the desired level of trailer antilock power in the most efficient method.

Because of the need to finalize design decisions, especially for truck-tractor manufacturers who must meet the requirements of the final rule on March 1, 1997, we would appreciate an early answer to this request.

Please contact us if there is a need for further information.

Sincerely

ID: nht95-4.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 6, 1995

FROM: Earl Eisenhart -- Vice President, National Private Truck Council; Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President - Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/17/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Larry W. Strawhorn (A43; Std. 121)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of the phrase "separate electrical circuit" in Section 5.1.6.3 Antilock Power Circuit for Towed Vehicles of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, Air Brake Systems, which states:

"Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997 and each single unit vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 that is equipped to tow another air-braked vehicle shall be equipped with one or more separate electrical circuits, specific ally provided to power the antilock system on the towed vehicle(s). Such a circuit shall be adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable."

Our interpretation is that the phrase "separate electrical circuit" allows the continued use of the single SAE J560 connector if one of the seven pins provides full-time power for the ABS. It is also our interpretation that the ABS malfunction signal ca n be multiplexed on the power circuit or any other circuit of the SAE J560 connector and that the other trailer devices can be powered off the circuit as long as the performance required by the last sentence of Section 5.1.6....3 is achieved, i.e., the c ircuit is adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable.

The bases for our interpretation are:

We interpret separate to mean full-time power is supplied to the ABS. The preamble appears to use terms continuous, dedicated, full-time and separate interchangeably but fails to define these terms. In contrast, we interpret shared to mean that the pow er is supplied only when switched ON by some means, e.g., turn signal switch, light switch, brake pedal, etc. The preamble (FR60-47, p13250) states that "The agency further notes that requiring that trailer ABSs receive "full-time power will not prohibi t multiplexing." Therefore, we interpret that the ABS malfunction signal could be multiplexed on the power circuit. We further interpret that other trailer devices could also be powered through this circuit if they were automatically switched OFF if the trailer is equipped with an ABS, except when the vehicle is stationary. This would require that the trailer be capable of signalling the tractor that it has an ABS. The tractor would

have to be capable of receiving that signal and automatically deactivating the power to other trailer-mounted devices that now recieve power through the auxiliary pin. This solution would protect these devices from being continually powered if the trail er was equipped with an ABS, yet would still allow for the provision of power when the combination was not moving. The majority of today's applications for powering trailer equipment through the auxiliary pin, only require power when the vehicle is stat ionary.

Our interpretation of the word circuit as used in FMVSS 121 is that it refers to a single conductor between the towing and towed vehicle(s). This interpretation is consistent with preamble statements and SAE's commone use of the term. For examples, Not ice 3 of Docket 88-18 (FR57-134, p30911) states, "The stop lamp circuit is powered through one of the pins on a seven-pin connector" and in SAE Standard J560, Seven Conductor Electrical Connector for Truck-Trailer Jumper Cable, in Sectino 6.4 defines the function and color code each of the seven pins, each of which is defined as a circuit. With the understanding that a circuit refers to one conductor between towing and towed vehicle, one can comply with Section 5.1.6.3 without having to provide a separ ate ground return fro the circuit to provide full-time power to towed vehicle ABS.

Utilizing a single ground on vehicles is considered to be good engineering practice since multiple grounds can cause EMI problems and ground loops which have in the past resulted on severe damage to vehicle electrical systems and even caused numerous fir es. Without the need to provide a separate ground circuit, vehicle/antilock suppliers have the flexibility needed to provide the desired level of trailer antilock power in the most efficient method.

Because of the need to finalize design decisions, especially for truck-tractor manufacturers who must meet the requirements of the final rule on March 1, 1997, we would appreciate an early answer to this request.

Please contact us if there is a need for further information.

Sincerely

ID: cmc4935car_carrier

Massoud S. Tavakoli, Ph.D. , P.E.
Savage Engineering, Inc.
132 N. Leroy Street
Fenton, MI 48430

Dear Dr. Tavakoli:

This responds to your e-mail inquiry as to whether a motor vehicle you designed to transport other motor vehicles is subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 223, Rear impact guards, and 224, Rear impact protection. As explained below, the vehicle you described is not subject to these standards.

In your letter, you described a vehicle that you refer to as a "roll-back car carrier."You stated that the vehicle is a single-unit truck that is at least 10,000 lb in weight. You explained that the vehicle has a flat bed that can be rolled back and tilted down so that another vehicle can be pulled on the bed. In addition, you state that the vehicle is equipped with a wheel-lift device that is used to tow vehicles behind the truck in a "more traditional way. "

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to establish regulations for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). To reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries that occur when light duty vehicles collide with the rear end of trailers and semitrailers, we established FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. FMVSS No. 224 requires most trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or more to be equipped with rear impact guards that comply with the requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 223. Vehicles other than trailers and semitrailers are not subject to FMVSS No. 224.

The agency defines a trailer as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

(49 CFR 571.3(b)). A semitrailer is a subclass of trailer and is defined as:

[A] trailer, except a pole trailer, so constructed that a substantial part of its weight rests upon or is carried by another motor vehicle.

(49 CFR 571.3(b)).

The vehicle described in your letter is a straight truck and is not designed to be drawn by another motor vehicle. Therefore it is not a trailer or semitrailer. As your vehicle is not a trailer or semitrailer, it is not subject to FMVSS No. 224.

Your e-mail also inquired into the applicability of related Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations. We are unable to speak to the applicability of these regulations and suggest you contact FMCSA directly. The general number for FMCSA is (202) 366-2519.

I hope you find this letter helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:224
d.9/22/04

ID: 0552

Ms. Melinda Dresser
Manager Contracts/Transportation
Carlin Manufacturing, Inc.
3714 N. Valentine
Fresno, CA 93722

Dear Ms. Dresser:

We have received your letter of November 28, 1994, asking whether the exterior lighting of six Oscar Mayer "Wienermobiles" that your company is manufacturing conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed diagrams showing the location of the exterior lighting devices.

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, the determination of whether a vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is that of the manufacturer who, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30115, must certify compliance of the vehicle with those standards upon completion of manufacture. NHTSA has no authority to approve or disapprove specific vehicle designs. We do, however, provide interpretations of our standards to manufacturers upon request. The appropriate standard here is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your letter does not state whether Carlin has classified the Wienermobile as a "passenger car" or as a "truck". We believe that the vehicle is a "truck" within the meaning of 49 CFR 571.3(b) because it appears to be "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment", rather than for the transportation of passengers, and that its overall width of 94 inches makes it more appropriate for the Wienermobile to meet wide vehicle lighting requirements. Therefore, the Wienermobile must be equipped with the lighting equipment specified in Table I of Standard No. 108, and located as specified in Table II, the requirements for trucks whose overall width is 80 inches or more. This means that they must be equipped with the front and rear clearance and identification lamps that Table I requires for wide trucks; these lamps do not appear on your drawings.

In addition, all four-wheeled motor vehicles are required to have hazard warning/turn signal lamps and we don't see these

lamps either on the drawings. With respect to front lighting equipment that is depicted, we note that supplementary lighting equipment such as fog lamps and the "front marker light" are permissible under Standard No. 108 if the manufacturer determines that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, in this instance, the headlamps. In the absence of a clearly erroneous determination, NHTSA will accept the manufacturer's judgment on impairment. Trucks that are subject to Table II need not be equipped with a center high- mounted stop lamp or parking lamps, if that is the purpose of the front marker lamp.

We hope that these comments will be helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:1/9/95

ID: 2973yy

Mr. Paul R. Kirchgraber
Souvenirs of the Future
Suite 201-71
3435 Ocean Park Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Mr. Kirchgraber:

This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1991, with respect to which Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if any, must be met in order to sell an exterior tire/wheel cover with reflective characteristics that will help to make "the vehicle more visible to the surrounding traffic." In addition, you "want to be certain that the reflective nature of the fabric used in this cover does not present a safety hazard", and ask for the citation to "appropriate federal test standards from the code of federal regulations for similar automotive accessories."

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish performance requirements for reflective material of this nature, or for wheel coverings on exterior-mounted tires. The standard on vehicle lighting, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, does prohibit, as original equipment, the installation of a "reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment" that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. It is theoretically possible that your material could create glare in the eyes of a following operator so that (s)he would fail to respond to a stop signal, or a turn signal. The samples submitted with your letter are too small for us to judge its reflectivity, and we suggest that you conduct your own tests, approaching a vehicle with the tire cover from the rear, with headlamps on the lower beam. This, to us, is preferable to your redesigning the material to conform to any federal test standard relating to reflectivity.

Although the color of lighting equipment on the rear is generally red, with amber permitted for turn signals, and white required for back up lamps, we do not believe that the use of additional colors would create any confusion. In short, we believe that the wheel cover will be perceived for the wheel cover it is.

I hope that this responds to your concerns.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:5/6/9l

ID: nht91-3.38

DATE: May 6, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul R. Kirchgraber -- Souvenirs of the Future

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-16-91 from Paul R. Kirchgraber to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5964)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1991, with respect to which Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if any, must be met in order to sell an exterior tire/wheel cover with reflective characteristics that will help to make "the vehicle more visible to the surrounding traffic." In addition, you "want to be certain that the reflective nature of the fabric used in this cover does not present a safety hazard", and ask for the citation to "appropriate federal test standards from the code of federal regulations for similar automotive accessories."

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish performance requirements for reflective material of this nature, or for wheel coverings on exterior-mounted tires. The standard on vehicle lighting, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, does prohibit, as original equipment, the installation of a "reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment" that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. It is theoretically possible that your material could create glare in the eyes of a following operator so that (s)he would fail to respond to a stop signal, or a turn signal. The samples submitted with your letter are too small for us to judge its reflectivity, and we suggest that you conduct your own tests, approaching a vehicle with the tire cover from the rear, with headlamps on the lower beam. This, to us, is preferable to your redesigning the material to conform to any federal test standard relating to reflectivity.

Although the color of lighting equipment on the rear is generally red, with amber permitted for turn signals, and white required for back up lamps, we do not believe that the use of additional colors would create any confusion. In short, we believe that the wheel cover will be perceived for the wheel cover it is.

I hope that this responds to your concerns.

ID: nht70-2.6

DATE: 04/30/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Tradewind Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 1970, concerning the location requirements for lamps and reflectors as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In answer to your first question, intermediate side marker lamps and intermediate side reflex reflectors are not required on trucks that are 60 inches or more in overall width and less than 30 feet in overall length.

In answer to your second question, front clearance lamps are not required on the truck body, provided the clearance lamps on the truck cab indicate the left and right extreme edges of the vehicle. For the vehicle shown on your drawing no. 130003A, it would appear that clearance lamps must be mounted on the truck body to provide an indication of the extreme edges of the vehicle. With clearance lamps on the body, duplicate lamps would not be required on the cab.

In answer to your third question, Table II of Standard No. 108 specifies that intermediate side marker lamps and reflectors be located at or near the midpoint between the forward and(Illegible Word) side marker lamps or reflectors, respectively. For side marker lamps the mounting height above the road surface is "not less than 15 inches." For side reflex reflectors the mounting height is "not less than 15 inches nor more than 60 inches." With this flexibility in mounting requirements, we are not aware of any truck body designs that would require installation of these devices "on the upper edges of the sides" of the truck bodies. Again, intermediate side marker lamps and reflectors are not required on vehicles that are less than 30 feet in overall length.

Removable sides (stakes) of farm and commercial stake-type bodies are not considered to be a permanent part of the vehicle.

Therefore, lamps and reflectors mounted on the platform bed of the body will meet the location requirements of Standard No. 108.

The alternative locations of lamps and reflectors on farm grain trucks and dump trucks, as suggested by your Drawing No. 130003A, are in conformance with Standard No. 108, except for location of front and rear clearance lamps. If such vehicles have permanent sides, the clearance lamps should be mounted "as near as practicable to the upper left and right extreme edges of the vehicle." The wording "as near as practicable" was purposely chosen to provide the vehicle manufacturer with a degree of flexibility in mounting clearance lamps on special purpose vehicles to insure that these lights will not be obscured or otherwise rendered ineffective in operation. Since certain vehicles may be covered with tarpaulins, this requirement may be met by mounting the clearance lamps as high as practicable and yet allow space for the use of tarpaulins,

Your concern for assuring compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht71-1.18

DATE: 09/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Roger Levin, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1971, concerning certain aspects of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials."

You are correct in your statement that Standard No. 205, which has been in effect since January 1, 1968, and was amended on September 19, 1968 (33 F.R. 14163) and March 1, 1969 (34 F.R. 3688), applies to a manufacturer of automobile sunroofs, "either in kits for installation by others, or for direct installation by the sunroof manufacturer, in either case after the car has been completed." To comply with the standard the sunroof material must meet the requirements for either AS1, AS2, AS3, AS5, AS10, or AS11 glazing material, as specified in ANSI Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z26.1-1966, July 15, 1966. The 1969 amendment to this standard has not, as you state, been incorporated into Standard No. 205. However, a notice of proposed rulemaking published January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 326), proposed to include that amendment. This matter is presently under consideration.

You are also correct in stating that a sunroof is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle. Certification may be made, pursuant to section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), by the statement you submit, "Material Certified to Comply with U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205", followed by the name of the manufacturer.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

July 23, 1971

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

This is an inquiry about certain aspects of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. I would appreciate your advising me if your interpretation of the statute and regulation is different from mine.

In the manufacture of automobile sunroofs, either in kits for installation by others, or for direct installation by the sunroof manufacturer, in either case after the car has been completed, Standard No. 205 applies and requires the manufacturer to comply with ASA Standard Z26.1-1966, specifically with the requirements of Item 5 glazing materials. Standard No. 205, as amended in 1968 and 1969, is now in effect.

The manufacturer of the sunroof is required by sec. 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to certify to its customer that the sunroof complies with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205; since the sunroof is a piece of equipment, not a motor vehicle, that certification may be made by a tag or sticker attached to the sunroof, in language equivalent to the following:

"Material Certified to Comply with U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205",

followed by the name of the manufacturer.

The 1969 amendment to ASA Standard Z26.1-1966 has not yet been incorporated into Standard No. 205.

Thank you in advance for your help in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Roger Levin

ID: nht94-3.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1994

FROM: Unrath, Albert W., Sr. -- President, Construction Consultant, Albert W. Unrath, Inc.

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 10/11/94 From Philip R. Recht To Albert W. Unrath, Sr. (A42; PART 567)

TEXT: We spoke with Dorhy Nakama of your office on June 23, 1994 and again on Tuesday, June 28, 1994. She was very helpful in obtaining information that will allow us to re-classify our Traffic Control Attenuator vehicles. In following the fax of June 28, 19 94 we will attempt to highlight the paragraphs that we believe applies to our specific operations regarding the remanufacturing process. We will supply a brief description of this process as well as describe the vehicles and show pictures.

I. We manufacture between 15 to 18 vehicles per year. Below are photographs of our completed Traffic Control Attenuating vehicles which are totally dedicated to this use.

A) 1977 Chevy Titan, COE, Tandem Axle, 6 cyl. Diesel Engine, 9 spd Transmission, Road Tractor. Combined GVW 80,000# or Single GVW 45,000#. Photo #1 (page 3) shows in the transport/travel mode.

(1) During Remanufacturing:

(a) Truck 5th Wheel or body is removed and scraped.

(b) All air lines and brake systems used in the trailer towing operation are removed and lines are plugged. (will not be needed or reused)

(c) All Sub-frame, brakes, remaining brake lines, engine drive line, rear suspension, and axles are checked. Any items needing repair are repaired and/or replaced.

(d) Steering systems and shocks are checked and are repaired or replaced if needed.

(e) Frame and all running gear is cleaned, prime painted, and finish painted.

(f) A new support frame and truck mounted Attenuator mounting hardware with braces is then installed.

(g) A new Pre-cast concrete counter weight is installed that will bring the completed vehicle to its new GVW of +/- 25,500# and not to exceed 25,999#.

(h) New rear lighting, heavy duty safety lights, and reflectors are then installed in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

(i) A new Advanced Warning Flashing Arrow (4' x 8') sign is installed along with (3) 4D batteries or (6) Deep cycle batteries, a solar battery charging system, and a electronic controller inside the truck cab are installed.

(j) Final installation of Vehicle Attenuation cushion and lift/tilt hydraulics.

(k) Unit is painted if required and then placed in service (lease/purchase) or sold.

(B) 1979 Peterbilt same as Titan except shows Vehicle Attenuating Device in highway operation mode. Photo #2 (page 3)

II. Under 49 CFR ChV (10-1-93 Edition) on (Page 172), we fall within subparagraph (e) combining New and Used components manufacturing; and part of (f) Combining New and Used components in trailer manufacturing (1) & (2).

III. In your letter to John Paul Barber, Esq. (Copy attached) we find that our situation is similar. However, our truck with an original GVW of 45,000# or 80,000# when the unit was constructed. All that we require to meet state specifications is (20,0 00# to 24,000# GVW)

All these vehicles are subject to sales and use taxes if rented, leased or sold and amount is subject to total value.

IV. We are requesting that if you review our re-manufacturing operation as we described along with the photographs we would request that you issue us a ruling similar to those of the other letters. We will, if approved, supply the new Supplementary Vin Plate showing Mfg. Name, Date of Mfg., Vehicle Make and Model, Original Mfg. Vin Number, and NEW Actual GVW. This plate will be attached below the original Vin Plate.

Photo #1 1977 CHEVY TITAN.

[PHOTOGRAPH OMITTED - SEE ORIGINAL SOURCE]

Photo #2 1979 Peterbilt

[PHOTOGRAPH OMITTED - SEE ORIGINAL SOURCE]

If you should have any questions on any of these items please call us or fax the request.

ID: 2523y

The Honorable Lawrence J. Smith
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Smith:

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

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

Section 108(a)(i)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), this paragraph does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), provides that "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ."

Thus, by installing tint film on automobiles that reduces the light transmittance of their glass below 70 percent, the firms in question have been rendering those vehicles "inoperative," in violation of the Safety Act. The same principle would apply to a service station that removed an airbag or a safety belt from a vehicle, since such an action would create a noncompliance with the occupant protection requirements of NHTSA's standards.

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:205#VSA d:6/25/90