ID: nht75-3.28

DATE: 11/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

COPYEE: ROBERT E. WELTZER -- HWY. SAFETY MGMT. SPECIALIST, REGION V

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter of June 11, 1975, to Mr. Kenneth Bowman, Area Director, Cleveland, Ohio, concerning the legal responsibilities of a person who modifies a motor vehicle.

IMPACT OF FEDERAL LAW

A person who performs work on a vehicle prior to the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale may be subject to the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) either as an alterer of a completed vehicle or as a final-stage manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle. A vehicle is "complete" only if it bears a certification label stating conformity to all applicable Federal regulations.

In addition, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that

"No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." (Sec. 108(a)(2)(A), Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1470; 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A))

This prohibition applies both before and after the first purchase of a motor vehicle, but does not apply to work performed on a vehicle by the individual owner of the vehicle. In addition, exceptions are provided to permit the rendering inoperative of safety belt interlocks and continuous buzzers after first purchase of the vehicle, and in certain circumstances just before first purchase.

VEHICLE ALTERATION

The regulations of the NHTSA cover two types of vehicle alterations. The first is an alteration of a completed vehicle by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting which do not alter the vehicle's stated weight rating (49 CFR @ 567.6). This type of alteration does not involve any additional responsibilities by the alterer.

The second type of alteration is an alteration of a certified vehicle by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or alteration in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid (49 CFR @ 567.7). This type of alteration, if done prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, must include, in addition to the certification label, a label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and containing the firm or individual name of the alterer (49 CFR @ 567.7).

COMPLETION OF VEHICLE MANUFACTURE

If a vehicle (such as a chassis-cab) requires further manufacturing operations in order to become a completed vehicle, the completion of the vehicle constitutes final manufacture and necessitates compliance with the certification requirements of 49 CFR @@ 567.5 and 568.6. The name of the finalstage manufacturer must appear on the certification label as the manufacturer, unless the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes legal responsibility for the vehicle as finally manufactured (49 CFR @@ 567.5, 568.6 and 568.7).

To aid the final-stage manufacturer, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer is required to furnish with the incomplete vehicle a statement including the weight ratings of the vehicle if completed as intended, descriptions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the vehicle, and the conditions under which final completion of the vehicle will comply with such standards (49 CFR @ 568.4). If the final-stage manufacturer follows these instructions and conditions, the liability for non-compliance with a safety standard will be on the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Although the certification requirements may be modified as a result of litigation, the NHTSA will consider compliance with the published requirements to meet any manufacturer's responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403 et seq.).

Final-stage manufacturers are also subject to the manufacturer identification rules of 49 CFR @ 566, which require manufacturers to submit to the NHTSA identifying information and descriptions of the items they produce. A final-stage manufacturer may also be subject to the defect reporting requirements of 49 CFR @ 573, which concern a manufacturer's responsibilities to report safety-related defects.

Enclosed are copies of section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and Parts 566, 567, 568 and 573 of the NHTSA's regulations. In addition, we are enclosing a copy of "Standards", a summary description of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If you have any questions concerning the foregoing regulations or any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, we suggest that you write

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

We hope that this information has been of assistance.

Yours truly,

Enclosures

ID: 19376-1.pja

The Honorable Tim Holden
Member, United States House of Representatives
Berks County Services Center
633 Court Street
Reading, PA 19601

Re: Mr. Gary Issod

Dear Representative Holden:

This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Gary Issod of Reading, regarding Federal regulations on window tinting and how they relate to the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the Federal requirements for window tinting.

Mr. Issod objects to a Pennsylvania law requiring automobile windows to transmit at least 70 percent of the incident light. Mr. Issod believes that the State law is based on an erroneous interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, which regulates automotive glazing materials (windows). As explained below, Pennsylvania correctly interprets Standard No. 205, and we have determined that the State law is not preempted.

By way of background, NHTSA has the authority, under 49 U.S.C. 30111, to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this statute, we issued Safety Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for vehicle glazing. The standard includes a requirement that all windows "requisite for driving visibility" (including all windows in passenger cars) have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Although the standard does not apply to vehicles once the vehicle has been sold to a consumer, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) of our statute prohibits a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Therefore, the act of tinting any car window to transmittance levels darker than 70 percent is a violation of section 30122(b), if it is performed by one of the regulated businesses listed above.

We do not regulate or limit owners tinting their vehicle windows, although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than that allowed by Standard No. 205 for new vehicles. Moreover, NHTSA does not regulate the use of vehicles. Instead, the operation or use of vehicles is under the jurisdiction of the States.

States have the authority to regulate how vehicles are operated or used, as long as the State law is not preempted by Federal law. State operational restrictions addressing an aspect of performance regulated by the Federal standard would be preempted by Federal law only to the extent that they prohibit the use of vehicles that comply with Federal regulations.

Examining Pennsylvania's law, as outlined in the letter you forwarded from Assistant Counsel Sanders, we find that the Pennsylvania law is not preempted by NHTSA's regulations. Pennsylvania's law does not prohibit the use of vehicles with windows allowing 70 percent light transmittance. It requires the identical level of light transmittance as the Federal standard. There appears to be no conflict between the State and Federal glazing standards, with regard to the light transmittance issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
NCC-20:PAtelsek:6-2992:OCC# 19376:1/21/99

NHTSA # ES99010044, DOT # 984688

ref: FMVSS 205
I10, I20, NOA-01, NOA-02, NOA-03, NOA-04,NOA-10
cc: NCC-20 Subj/Chron,
NCC-20 PJA, NPS-01, NSA-01
Interp.: 205, Redbook (2)

Re: Mr. Gary Issod

Dear Representative Holden:

This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Gary Issod of Reading, regarding Federal regulations on window tinting and how they relate to the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the Federal requirements for window tinting.

Mr. Issod objects to a Pennsylvania law requiring automobile windows to transmit at least 70 percent of the incident light. Mr. Issod believes that the State law is based on an erroneous interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, which regulates automotive glazing materials (windows). As explained below, Pennsylvania correctly interprets Standard No. 205, and we have determined that the State law is not preempted.

By way of background, NHTSA has the authority, under 49 USC 30111, to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We issued Safety Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for vehicle glazing. The standard includes a requirement that all windows "requisite for driving visibility" (including all windows in passenger cars) have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Although the standard does not apply to vehicles once the vehicle has been sold to a consumer, section 30122(b) of our statute prohibits a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Therefore, the act of tinting any car window to transmittance levels darker than 70 percent is a violation of 30122(b), if it is performed by one of the regulated businesses listed above.

NHTSA's regulations do not apply to the use of vehicles by their owners. We do not regulate or limit owners tinting their vehicle windows, although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than that allowed by Standard No. 205 for new vehicles. Instead, the operation or use of vehicles is under the jurisdiction of the States.

States have the authority to regulate how vehicles are operated or used, as long as the State law is not preempted by Federal law. Preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards is addressed by section 30103(b)(1) of our statute, which states, in pertinent part: "[w]hen a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect . . . a State . . . may prescribe . . . a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance . . . only if the standard is identical to the [Federal standard]." State laws would be preempted by Federal law to the extent that they regulate the same aspect of performance in a different way, or permit an action that is prohibited by the Federal regulations (such as permitting the sale of noncomplying vehicles, not allowing the sale of complying vehicles, or permitting businesses to tint windows darker than 70 percent transmittance).  As long as the State law restricts itself to regulating the operation or use (as opposed to the sale or modification) of vehicles, it would not be preempted by Federal law.

Examining Pennsylvania's law, as outlined in the letter you forwarded from Assistant Counsel Sanders, we find that the Pennsylvania law is not preempted by NHTSA's regulations. Pennsylvania's law does not permit businesses to tint vehicle windows darker than 70 percent light transmittance. It requires maintenance of the identical level of light transmittance as the Federal standard. There appears to be no conflict between the State and Federal glazing standards, with regard to the light transmittance issue.

Further, the relevant State provision, 75 Pa. C.S. 4524(e)(1), states "[n]o person shall drive any motor vehicle . . ." (emphasis added). No part of the law quoted by Mr. Sanders appears to regulate anything beyond the operation of vehicles or the criteria for inspection. It does not restrict the operation of vehicles that are manufactured in compliance with Federal regulations that concern the same aspect of performance addressed by the State standard. Finally, Pennsylvania's law does not permit businesses to tint vehicle windows darker than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, it requires maintenance of the identical level of light transmittance as the Federal standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:205
d.2/11/99

ID: 86-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Doug Cole

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Doug Cole Director of Public Relations and Membership National Van Conversion Association, Inc. 2 West Main Street, Suite 2 Greenfield, IN 46140

Dear Mr. Cole:

Thank you for your letter of December 2, 1985 to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how our regulations would affect the placement of a national Van Conversion Association (NVCA) certification decal on vehicle windows by a van conversion company. The material enclosed with your letter explains that the NVCA certification program is a voluntary effort by the van conversion industry to set minimum safety and quality standards for its products. You explained that the decal, which has a diameter of 2 1/2 inches, would be placed on the lower corner of the passenger's side of the windshield by a manufacturer whose products conform to the NVCA program.

Placement of the decals on a vehicle's windshield would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes the windshield in motor vehicles).

Part 567, Certification, of our regulations requires each vehicle manufacturer to place a plate within the vehicle certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A person, such as a van converter, who makes significant modifications to a vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered a vehicle alterer under our regulations. Under Part 567.7, an alterer must also add a plate to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, still continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, no manufacturer or alterer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screening devices or other opaque materials in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device or other opaque material for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of section 108 (a) (2) (A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

We have not previously ruled on whether these prohibitions apply to the installation of State vehicle inspection and private industry regulatory decals by commercial businesses. In general, these decals are small in size and placed in locations which minimize the obstruction, if any, to the driver's vision. In contrast, tinting films and other sun screening devices are generally applied to the entire window and thus can substantially obscure the driver's vision if they do not meet the light transmittance and other performance requirements of the standard. As with State regulatory decals, your proposed decal is small in size and would be placed in the lower right corner of the vehicle windshield, an area which should minimize any possible obstructing of the driver's vision. Given these considerations, we would consider the placement of the NVCA decal in the lower right hand corner of the windshield to be merely a technical violation of Standard No. 205, and would exercise our prosecutorial discretion and not bring an enforcement action.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

December 2, 1985

Mr. Steve Oeshe NHTSA, Office of the Chief Council 400 7th Street South West Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Steve:

Will you please provide me a written statement, from your department, that the placement of our Certification decals are not in violation of any Federal Safety Standards?

I have enclosed a rough drawing showing the placement of the decal, on the inside lower passenger side of the windshield. Also enclosed is our information packet about National Van Conversion Association's Van Conversion Manufacturer Certification program.

If you have any questions about the program, or if I can be of service, please call on me.

Sincerely,

Doug Cole Director of P.R. and Membership

DC/lp

Enclosure:

ID: nht80-3.20

DATE: 07/15/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1980, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to headlamp design. Specifically, General Motors asks whether a headlamp with a mounting tang that differs from the design illustrated in SAE Standard J571d, Dimensional Specifications for Sealed Beam Headlamp Units, June 1976 and SAE Recommended Practice J1132, 142 mm x 200 mm Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit, January 1976 is permissible. It is your opinion that this variance has no effect upon headlamp interchangeability or otherwise affects safety.

As you know, paragraph S4.1.1 requires headlamps to be "designed to conform" to SAE materials incorporated by reference, which include J571d and J1132. The SAE materials contain detailed drawings and dimensional requirements which manufacturers have followed in headlamp design. Standard No. 108 has been criticized for its specificity regarding headlamps although this aspect of it has been judicially upheld as necessary to the overall safety performance of the headlighting system. Standardization through such specificity is necessary to achieve the safety goals of interchangeability and ease of replacement.

To encourage innovation and relieve manufacturers of unnecessary restrictions, as well as to enhance the performance aspects of Standard No. 108, we believe that a manufacturer can certify that its headlamps have been designed to conform to Standard No. 108 without the necessity of strict adherence to the SAE dimensions if the safety purposes of Standard No. 108 are in no way compromised. Principally, headlamps must continue to be interchangeable with those of like nominal dimensions. With this in mind, the tang design postulated by General Motors is not prohibited by Standard No. 108 provided that headlamps incorporating it are interchangeable with those that meet all the design specifications of SAE J571d and SAE J1132.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht80-3.35

DATE: 08/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Nick Oliver

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms your July 25, 1980, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning your plans to rehabilitate school buses.

As you stated, your initial program of bus rehabilitation appears only cosmetic in nature. You will do some maintenance work on the vehicles and repaint and letter them. Your only responsibility in this type of operation is not knowingly to render inoperative the compliance of the bus with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The type of operations that you would be performing are not likely to render inoperative any safety standard of which we are aware.

Your long-term plans are to make more substantial modifications of school buses. As Mr. Tilton said, if you install a new chassis on a used body it is the same as manufacturing a new motor vehicle. You would be required to comply with all of the new safety standards applicable to school buses. This would be very difficult when you use a bus body manufactured prior to April 1, 1977. That was the date of the applicability of the new school bus safety standards, and it would be almost impossible to upgrade an old bus body to comply with the new safety standards. You indicated that you do not plan this type of operation.

You stated that you might place a new chassis on bodies manufactured after April 1, 1977, if the original chassis were damaged in an accident. You still would be considered as the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle and would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all of the applicable safety standards. However, it should be possible for you to mount a post-April 1, 1977, body on a new chassis and make the vehicle comply with all applicable standards.

If you have any further questions after receiving this information and after obtaining a copy of the Federal safety standards, please contact us.

ID: 1984-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Armond Cardarelli

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Armond Cardarelli Director, Safety Equipment Services American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 910 Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Cardarelli:

Thank you for your letter of February 1, 1985, concerning the application of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, to sun- screening materials used on vehicle glazing. I hope that the following discussion will answer your questions.

You first asked if Standard No. 205 regulates the use of sun-screening materials. Standard No. 205 affects the use of sun-screening materials in the following ways. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements that all glazing used in new motor vehicles and all glazing sold as aftermarket equipment for use in motor vehicles must meet. One of the requirements of the standard is that, as explained in more detail in response to your second question, all windows requisite for driving visibility must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Another is that glazing for use in those areas must meet specified requirements for resistance to abrasion.

Manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility, whether clear or tinted, conforms with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Likewise, if a dealer or other person places sun-screening material on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.

Purchasers of new vehicles may alter the vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. There are no requirements under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which would limit such alterations. However, certain commercial establishments must not install tinted film or other sun-screening material on windows if the combination of the sun-screening material and glazing cannot meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film or other sun-screening material on a used vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violators of this prohibition are subject to Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

State laws which are inconsistent with these Federal requirements are preempted. Any State law or regulation which would permit any person to install sun-screening material on a new vehicle in violation of Standard No. 205 is preempted under section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act. For example, a State law which specifies a transmittance level less than 70 percent for windows requisite for driving visibility would be preempted. The adoption or retention of such a law would have no effect on the illegality of that installation under Federal law. Further, any State law or regulation that would permit manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses to install sun-screening material on a vehicle after its first sale in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act is also preempted.

Your second question asked which windows in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles must meet the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. In particular, you asked if the luminous transmittance requirements apply to opera windows and sun roofs. The specification for light transmittance applies to all windows, including opera windows, in a passenger car. It does not, however, apply to car sunroofs . As to trucks , buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, it only applies to the windshield and the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver. Thus, none of those windows may be darkly tinted. However, the windows to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles are not required to meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement and thus may be darkly tinted.

Your third question asked if the luminous transmittance requirements apply to the windows behind the driver in passenger cars or station wagons if those vehicles are equipped with an exterior mirror on the right side of the vehicle. The answer is that those windows must still meet the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: nht76-5.63

DATE: 07/20/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Road America Tire

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your May 19, 1976, letter concerning the responsibilities that you would have as an importer and distributor of Dunlop passenger car tires. I understand that the tires would, before importation, be certified by Dunlop as conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, and labeled with a tire identification number as required by 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. This particular line of tires would at first be imported by Road America Tire but not by Dunlop Rubber and Tire Co. of Buffalo, New York (Dunlop New York), the usual importer of Dunlop tires.

You have inquired about your responsibilities concerning "record keeping, recall, and testing", with respect to the tires that you would import. The term "manufacturer" is defined in Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.)(the Act), to be

any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. (emphasis added)

In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer met an obligation imposed on a "manufacturer" by the Act or regulations issued thereunder, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be satisfied by either party. Please note that @ 574.8 of Part 574 also establishes requirements applicable to Road America Tire as a distributor of the tires in question.

The above discussion applies to manufactuers' notification and remedy obligations set out in Section 151 through 160 of the Act and to the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements of Part 574, among others. The Act does not specifically require any person to conduct tests of his products. Standard No. 109 establishes the performance tests which the NHTSA will conduct to determine conformity. A determination of nonconformity triggers the notification and remedy obligations regardless of the amount of testing the manufacturer has performed.

In conclusion, tires imported by Road America Tire would not be the responsibility of Dunlop New York. Conversely, tires imported by Dunlop New York would not be the responsibility of Road America Tire. While a factual issue might arise concerning which party actually imported a particular tire, such an issue would be resolved on the basis of information available in that particular case. You should note that, were the NHTSA to choose to proceed against Dunlop with respect to a tire imported by Road America Tire, the agency might serve administrative processes, notices, or orders on Dunlop New York. However, Dunlop New York would be served only in its capacity as the foreign Dunlop's designated agent for service of process pursuant to Section 110(e) of the Act, and not in its capacity as an importer.

Copies of the Act and Part 574 are enclosed for your convenience. You may rely on this letter in resolving any conflict that you might have with Dunlop New York.

YOURS TRULY,

road america tire

May 19, 1976

Mr. Schwimmer Office of the Chief Consol National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration

Thank you for taking time away from your busy schedule this morning to speak with us regarding our questions about D.O.T. regulations governing passenger car tires. As per your recommendation, we are putting into writing our various questions on the particular matters as follows:

1) What is our responsibility as an importer/distributor of a new type of Dunlop passenger car tire that is now D.O.T. marked and will not be imported by Dunlop Rubber and Tire Co. of Buffalo, New York in the following areas:

a) record keeping

b) recall

c) testing

2) Will any conflict arise, as far as your department is concerned, in us handling this new special tire apart from the normal passenger car line as carried by Dunlop, New York. Dunlop New York, is claiming that all D.O.T. marked tires are their responsibility since they are the major importer of most all other passenger car tires.

3) What would be the ramifications of both Dunlop New York and ourselves importing this same special tire and what problems would arise in the area of record keeping and recall. Dunlop New York has informed us that they will not import this tire at the present time, but may do so in the far future.

Please feel free to call me at the above number should you require any further information concerning this matter. We would appreciate receiving your official opinion in writing, so that we may resolve any conflict with Dunlop New York and we would also appreciate your approval in using your written opinion in this manner, as well. Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration in this matter.

Ronald E. Moser

ID: nht93-5.3

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President, Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-7-93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to Dorothy Nakama (OCC 8535).

TEXT: This responds to your request for our views on the consistency of a TTMA statement with NHTSA's regulations. TTMA's Recommended Practice Number 56-91 "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number," at paragraph 4.6, indicates that if a rebuilt trailer is not considered new, "there is no legal requirement to physically retain the VIN on the trailer." As explained below, to the extent that the statement implies that the VIN may be removed, it is not consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER - BASIC REQUIREMENTS (49 CFR S571.115), or with 49 CFR Part 567 CERTIFICATION. In addition, recently enacted Federal criminal legislation proscribes persons from knowingly removing an identification number from a motor vehicle.

Standard No. 115 specifies that each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. (See S4.1.) Sl of Standard No. 115 states that the purposes of the VIN are to simplify vehicle information retrieval and to reduce the incidence of accidents by increasing the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns. These safety purposes may be frustrated if VINs are removed from the motor vehicle.

Further, NHTSA's intent that an assigned VIN be physically present on a motor vehicle throughout the life of the vehicle is also expressed in S4.5 of Standard No. 115. That section specifies how VINs are to be placed on motor vehicles:

The VIN of each vehicle shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing THAT IS NOT DESIGNED TO BE REMOVED except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is PERMANENTLY AFFIXED to such a part. (Emphasis added.)

Part 567 requires that VINs be provided on the certification label for motor vehicles. (See S567.4(g)(6).) In specifying the placing of certification labels on vehicles (S567.4(b)), NHTSA intended that the certification label last as long as possible:

The label shall, unless riveted, be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it.

Thus, both Standard No. 115 and Part 567 express NHTSA's intent that the VIN be physically present throughout the life of the vehicle. TTMA's statement that there is no requirement to retain labels with VINs on rebuilt trailers is inconsistent with this intent, to the extent it implies that the VIN may be removed.

TTMA's statement must also be reviewed in light of recent legislation. Section 511, ALTERING OR REMOVING MOTOR VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, was added to Title 18 of the United States Code by the "Anti Car Theft Act of 1992." That section states that whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, for purposes other than repair, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Since the U.S. Department of Justice administers Title 18, section 511, it is the source of further information about that provision.

In sum, the purposes of Standard No. 115 are to simplify vehicle information retrieval and to reduce the incidence of accidents by conducting more effective vehicle recall campaigns. In order to further these goals, we ask that TTMA encourage its members to physically retain the VINs on trailers that are being rebuilt, but not newly manufactured.

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

ID: 1982-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept. Michelin Tire Corporation One Marcus Avenue Lake Success, New York 11042

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked whether Michelin could use two different size codes in the tire identification number to identify tires of the same size. You asserted that this assignment of differing size codes would not impair Michelin's ability to conduct a recall of tires of that size, should such a recall be necessary. As long as Michelin maintains accurate records of the size codes assigned to the various tire sizes, it would be permissible to assign more than one size code to each tire size.

At the outset, it is important to note that the size code in the tire identification number is not the means used by the consumer to determine the size of the tires on his or her car. Section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 and section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 specify that the tire size designation must be labeled on both sidewalls. The size designation is the exact size and is not the same as the size code. To satisfy this requirement, Michelin should label all tires of the same size with just one size designation.

For purposes of record keeping, paragraph S574.5 requires that each tire be labeled with a tire identification number, and that this identification number contain four groupings of information. The first grouping is a symbol identifying the manufacturer (the symbol is assigned by this agency); the second grouping is a symbol identifying the tire size; the third grouping is an optional symbol containing further information on the specific characteristics of the tire; and the fourth grouping is a symbol identifying the week the tire was manufactured.

There is no requirement in Part 574 which prohibits more than one tire size code from being assigned to each tire size. Additionally, the purpose of the tire identification number requirements in Part 574 is to facilitate effective recalls of the tires from the public if those tires are found not to comply with an applicable safety standard or if the tires contain a safety-related defect. For tire manufacturers such as Michelin, this purpose is served by the requirement that the manufacturer keep records of the names and addresses of the initial purchaser of each of its tires for at least three years, as specified in paragraph S574.7. As you noted in your letter, this purpose would not be defeated if a manufacturer assigns more than one size code to a given tire size. Accordingly, a manufacturer may assign more than one size code in the tire identification number for a given tire size, since this is not specifically prohibited by Part 574 and does not conflict with the purpose of that Part.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

REF: PART 574

18 January 1982

General Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

This is to request an interpretation of Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping.

Paragraph R574.5(b) requires that the second group of two symbols be used to identify the tire size. In addition, it requires that each new tire manufacturer shall maintain a record of each symbol used with the corresponding matrix or tire size and shall provide such record to the NHTSA.

Circumstances have arisen that will require us to use a size code for particular tire sizes that will be different than the code used on other tires of the same size. In other words in some cases we will have two different size codes for tires of the same size. This will, in no way, prevent us from maintaining control of tire location and tire records as required by the standard. Nor would it interfere with our ability to effectively recall such tires if necessary.

We do not think that this would be in violation of the standard but respectfully request your confirmation.

Yours truly,

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

abb

ID: nht79-4.50

DATE: 03/28/79

FROM: D. J. ARNOLD -- VESELY COMPANY DIRECTOR OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

TO: FREDERIC SCHWARTZ -- OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schwartz:

With issuance of Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8, relating to Vehicle Identification Numbers I must assume the NHTSA is getting closer to "finalizing" FMVSS No. 115 notwithstanding the VIN litigation upcoming in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As such, and in follow-up to my several letters and telephone conversation with you on January 9, 1979 I am again requesting official NHTSA written replies to these as soon as possible to enable our small company to try and comply with the Federal requirements.

To date, I have not received approval of our requested first three digit assignments (letter of October 30, 1978) as required by the standard and I have not received written permission to utilize digits 12 and 13 for our own in-house use (letter of December 11, 1978). Further, I have never received an official answer to my letter to President Carter other than a post card from Secretary Adams saying he will be replying.

All in all, not much action to help our company comply with these Federal mandates. If our company is going to be able to meet the effective date of September 1, 1980 we must have some answers now! Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8 has done nothing to alleviate or reduce this company's burden as I interpret the impact of it. Since we not only manufacture motor homes (MPV's) but recreational trailers as well, we must institute this 17 digit system even though the chassis manufacturer would assign his VIN. We cannot stay with our current VIN system for one product and change to a completely different VIN system for our other products.

Your replies will be anxiously awaited to enable us to continue the necessary work to comply with FMVSS 115 as it now stands by the effective date of September 1, 1980.

Very truly yours,