ID: 1933y

Mr. Robert W. Kahle
4111 Blood Road
Metamora, MI 48455

Dear Mr. Kahle:

This responds to your letters to Mr. Jettner of our Office of Vehicle Safety Standards asking about the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of an "aftermarket" head restraint for light trucks. Your letters have been referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in responding.

You ask whether you need this agency's approval of your product. The answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraints sold as an item of "aftermarket" equipment for pickup trucks.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

A commercial business that installs your head restraint would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108.

However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

You ask for a copy of an "order" requiring head restraints on new pick-up trucks in 1991. Please note that NHTSA has thus far only proposed to require head restraints in new light trucks and vans (10,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight rating), and has proposed a September 1, 1991 effective date for the requirement, if the proposed rule is adopted. I have enclosed a copy of the proposal for your information. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding shortly.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:VSA#202#302 d:8/7/89

ID: nht78-1.8

DATE: 11/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Nov. 20, 1978

Mr. R. W. Cheetham Director, Quality Assurance The Armstrong Rubber Company 500 Sargent Drive New Haven, Connecticut 06507

Dear Mr. Cheetham:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1978, requesting approval of the tread labels Armstrong Rubber Company proposes to use in satisfaction of the labeling requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)). You propose to include the applicable UTQGS grades for a particular tire on a trend label identifying the tire brand, type and size. A separate label would contain the general grading information from Figure 2 of the rule, including a listing of all possible traction and temperture grades, with the text on the label oriented along the tread circumference instead of across it.

Part 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B) requires that each passenger car replacement tire, other than a snow tire or temporary use spare tire, have affixed a tread label containing both the specific UTQGS grades for the tire and an explanation of the grades in the form illustrated in Figure 2. Thus, the specific grades for the tire must appear on the same label that contains the explanation of the grading system. The regulation calls for a depiction of all possible traction and temperature grades with the grades applicable to the specific tire indelibly circled.

While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no objection to the inclusion of the required UTQGS information on the same label with other data such as tire size and brand name, failure to provide the required explanations of the same label with the applicable tire grades is not permitted by the regulation. Your proposed labels also fail to meet the regulation's requirement that applicable traction and temperature grades be denoted by circling the appropriate letter in a display of all possible grades. Finally, the general UTQGS information in your proposal is not in the form illustrated in Figure 2, since the text in your example will appear along the tread rather than at right angles as specified by Figure 2.

While your proposed tread labels do not meet the present requirements of Part 575.104(d)(l)(i)(B), NHTSA will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking and consider amending the UTQG regulation to permit greater flexibility in tread labeling.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

October 19, 1978

Dr. Cecil Brenner Automotive Rating NRM-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Brenner:

Subject: Part 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading page 30549 of the Federal Register, dated Monday, July 17, 1978.

This is to confirm our telephone conversation of October 19, 1978, concerning the labeling requirements of the subject part.

The Armstrong Rubber Company requests an interpretation of this section. As stated to you, Armstrong requested that the treadwear, traction, and temperature identification be added to our regular label, which identifies a specific tire. In addition, the legend labeled as figure 2 in the subject part number would be affixed to the tread surface a maximum of 1/2" from the end of the label, which has the identification symbols. In this manner we will minimize the possibibities of mislabeling tires.

The Armstrong Rubber Company has requested that only one identification symbol be placed on the label which clearly defines the traction and temperature resistance of the particular tire. This would replace indelibly circling on the label one of the three grades under the traction and temperature resistance characteristics.

The Armstrong Rubber Company respectfully requests that part 575.104 be modified so that the labeling can be interpreted as indicated above.

Please find attached a copy of the two labels that the Armstrong Rubber Company would appreciate your consideration and concurrence. Label number 2, which is the legend describing the D.O.T. quality grading, was not printed verbatum and will be changed as shown in figure 2 of part 575.104. Figure 2 on page 30552 of the Federal Register was changed to reflect your thinking on the traction grades as A, B, C.

I trust this request will meet with your approval. If additional information is requested, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

R. W. Cheetham Director, Quality Assurance

cc: J.A. Walsh R. L. Donnelly

RWC/eam

ID: 77-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dry Launch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1976, asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You referenced my letter of October 7, 1976 to Wesbar Corporation, and my views about the prohibition against the optical combination of lamps (S4.4.1).

It is evident from your letter and others that our previous interpretations of the term "optical combination" have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal Motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is "optically combined" when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (e.g. taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the "same light source". In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. Our re-interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over from one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.

You have also asked whether the November 1975 amendments (S4.3.1.1.1) "permit clearance lights that are designed for OEM application only be allowed to have lower or no photometrics in this area but still be considered a combination clearance and sidemarker lamp" as the lamp otherwise complies with Standard No. 108.

The amendment in question was intended to cover clearance lamps only. If a lamp is intended as a combination clearance and side marker lamp and does not meet the requirements for a clearance lamp because of the exemption provided by S4.3.1.1.1, it must nevertheless meet the requirements for side marker lamps. If it doesn't, a separate conforming side marker lamp must be provided.

Yours Truly,

DRY LAUNCH

December 27, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration In a recent discussion with an Engineer at the California Highway Petrol's Certification Office in Sacramento, we discussed combining of lighting functions. He had a copy of a letter from you to Mr. B. A. Weber of Wesber Corporation dated October 7, 1976. As a result of reading this, the following two questions come to mind - the third question I have been intending to write you about.

1. Question and Answer to No. 2 was the following:

"Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?

The answer is no because the same luminous area of the lens would be lighted when both lamps are in use, and the lamps would be "combined optically."

I ask if no barrier existed between the two functions and both photometric tests simultaneously, (that is, neither were over maximums or under minimums) and both passed their tests when the other one was extinquished (that is, not over maximums or not under minimums), why must the opaque wall exist at all? In view of public safety, it would appear to enhance it as well as save money and weight by omitting the opaque wall.

2. If an opaque wall must exist between clearance light and tail light, there is bound to be a certain amount of "spill over" of one compartment's light into the next. In this case what limit of "spill over" might exist realistically?

3. Recently, an amendment to Federal 108 allowed the covering of the 45 degrees sector of a clearance light that was inboard (S4.3.1.1.1). Does this permit clearance lights that are designed for OEM application only be allowed to have lower or no photometrics in this area but still be considered a combination clearance and sidemarker lamp as long as all other rules of Federal 108 are met and they are properly mounted?

I would appreciate a prompt reply as your answers affect two decisions for new lights that we are working on.

Dennis G. Moore

ID: 16073.drn

Mr. Jerry McNeil
Vice President of Engineering
Pines Trailer Limited Partnership
2555 South Blue Island Avenue
Chicago, IL 60608

Dear Mr. McNeil:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Great Dane Limited Partnership ("G.D. Ltd.") and its two divisions, Pines Trailer Limited Partnership ("Pines Trailer") and Great Dane Trailers, Inc. ("Great Dane Trailers") must be assigned a new WMI (world manufacturer identifier) number. Under the new facts you have provided, the two separate divisions may keep their WMIs.

In your letter, you referred to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) letter of June 4, 1997, to your attorney, Norman Shubert, Esq. that addressed your company's situation at that time. The facts behind the June 4 letter are G.D. Ltd., a holding company (with no WMI), purchased two existing vehicle manufacturers with WMIs, Pines Trailers and Great Dane Trailers, and became their parent. The issue was whether G.D. Ltd. could use the WMIs of its two subsidiaries. In the June 4 letter, NHTSA stated that because the parent itself is not assigned a WMI, but its two divisions have separate WMIs, and will have distinct product lines, G.D. Ltd. may continue to use the WMIs assigned to the subsidiaries. Under the facts described, there would be no confusion as to which corporate entity manufactured a particular motor vehicle.

Your September 18, 1997, letter to us states that business plans have changed. Although Great Dane and Pines Trailers will continue to manufacture different types of trailers, the two divisions may now manufacture some trailers that are the same. The letter states that "these common trailers will have the same product markings regardless if they are built by Great Dane Trailers or Pines Trailers." In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that G.D. Ltd. no longer intends to keep the Great Dane and Pines Trailers names separate, distinctive trade names, and that the Pines Trailers name will eventually be phased out. However, Great Dane and Pines Trailers will be maintained as separate corporate entities, and each entity will be responsible for certifying the vehicles (pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567 Certification) it manufactures. For example, the certification label will identify the manufacturer as "Great Dane Trailer, a division of G.D. Ltd." or "Pines Trailer, a division of G.D. Ltd.," as appropriate. G.D. Ltd. will not manufacture any vehicles.

To answer your question, we must apply the regulatory provision of 49 CFR 565.4(a). That section provides that the WMI "shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if the manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually." NHTSA has previously interpreted "uniquely identify the manufacturer" to preclude the use of a WMI assigned to one manufacturer by any other manufacturer.

The primary difference between your new business plans and the plan described in our letter of June 4 is that Great Dane and Pines Trailers will no longer be advertised as separate trade names. The other facts remain the same; there are no plans for the parent company, G.D. Ltd., to manufacture motor vehicles (which would require obtaining a WMI), and within G.D. Ltd., Great Dane and Pines Trailers will remain separate entities, with each entity responsible for certifying the vehicles it manufactures. Although common vehicles built by either Great Dane or Pines will be identified with the same brand name, the certification label on each vehicle will indicate whether the vehicle was built by Great Dane or Pines.

Because the corporate structure of G.D. Ltd., as the parent company, with two subsidiaries, will remain the same, and G.D. Ltd. itself will not be manufacturing motor vehicles, we believe there would be no confusion if the separate divisions, Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers, continue to retain their own WMIs. Therefore, we agree that Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers may continue to use the WMI assigned to each respective entity.

Please note that because each division may continue to use the WMIs assigned to it, G.D. Ltd. must report any new types of trailers that either the Pines Trailer division or the Great Dane Trailers division will manufacture. 49 CFR Part 566 Manufacturer Identification requires manufacturers that have previously submitted identification information to keep their entries current by submitting revised information not later than 30 days after the relevant changes occur. A copy of Part 566 is enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Ms. Cathy Douds

ID: nht76-4.30

DATE: 06/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: City of Marion

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1976, request for permission to remove the brake system from two trucks that were manufactured with brake systems conforming to the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

From the description of the problems you have encountered with the vehicles, I assume that you do not intend to remove the entire brake system, but only one or more antilock systems installed in satisfaction of the "no lockup" requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits, with one exception, knowing disconnection of the antilock system by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business. Your dealer's refusal to remove the devices is probably based on this prohibition.

A person that does not fall into these categories is not prohibited from disconnection of the systems. Other State or Federal requirements, such as those of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for operation in interstate commerce, may prohibit disconnection. In any case, the NHTSA urges that you not disconnect safety devices without consulting the vehicle manufacturer with regard to the safety configuration of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

CITY OF MARION

May 6, 1976

Gordon Lindquist Regional Office National Highway Safety Administration

The City of Marion purchased two new Ford trucks in 1975 for use in the Sanitation Department, Serial No's N 80 FVW 47128 and N 80 FVW 47129. These trucks are used for garbage pickup within the city and the brake systems are presenting problems. As I understand this is the Federal Regulation SM2SF-121. I have asked the local Ford dealer, Kennedy Ford, Inc., to remove this system as we can not keep the trucks on the street due to downtime caused by this system. They, of course, refused to do so because of the regulation.

The purpose of this letter is a request for permission from you to allow the system to be removed.

These trucks have been out of service three times since the purchase and each time is for two to three weeks. I feel this brake system is a safety hazard when used for the purpose stated above.

Thank you for your consideration.

Charles N. Eblin Service Director

ID: nht76-1.20

DATE: 06/16/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Moss Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The President has asked me to reply to your letter of February 9, 1976, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to replacement brake hoses for MG sports cars built from approximately 1945 to 1955.

All brake hose and brake hose end fittings manufactured on or after September 1, 1974, must meet the performance and labeling requirements of Standard No. 106-74. All brake hose assemblies manufactured on or after March 1, 1975, must meet those performance and labeling requirements in the standard that apply to assemblies and, with an exception noted below, must be constructed of conforming hose and end fittings.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not applicable to classic or antique cars in the following sense: a standard applies only to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that is manufactured after its effective date. Thus, for example, there is no requirement that the MG's in question be retrofitted with conforming brake hose. However, any person manufacturing brake hose for use in such a vehicle must, on and after September 1, 1974, ensure that the hose conforms.

You may find some relief in S12 of the standard. To facilitate the depletion of inventories of hose manufactured before September 1, 1974, that conforms to all aspects of the standard except the labeling requirements, this provision permits the use of such hose in assemblies manufactured before September 1, 1976.

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to hydraulic brake system components other than Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MOSS MOTORS, Ltd.

April 14, 1976

Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

Dear Sirs:

I am very disappointed at not having received a reply to my letter of February 9, 1976, a copy of which is enclosed herewith.

May I please have the courtesy of a prompt reply to this letter?

Yours very truly,

E. Alan Moss

Enclosure: letter copy

February 9, 1976

Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

Dear Sirs:

I am writing to you at this time in order to attempt to clarify the present situation as regards hydraulic brake hoses as fitted to older British Sports Cars.

I have just finished reading all available information published by the Department of Transportation covering the manufacture of hose and fittings effective September 1, 1974, manufacture of brake hose assemblies March 1, 1975, and manufacture of vehicles effective September 1, 1975.

A very large part of our business is in the sales of replacement parts for the British MG sports car as built from approximately 1945 to approximately 1955. These are the models designated as TA, TB, TC, TD, TF add Y. All of these vehicles had hydraulic braking systems built by British Lockheed Corporation, from whom we have been obtaining replacement parts in the past. We are now unable to supply our customers with any brake hoses whatsoever due to the fact that Lockheed has apparently not "tooled up" to produce these hoses to your new specifications as yet and probably will not do so, at least until they can catch up with the present more popular hoses. There are 2 other companies, one in England and one in Australia, who have supplied replacement hoses in the past but I do not believe that they are labeled to meet the United States specifications.

While we are very anxious to be able to supply our customers with brake hoses in order to keep these rather elderly cars running, we certainly do not want to be party to supplying any hoses which would be unsafe or illegal, particular in light of todays very common lawsuits. I have heard, unofficially, that the DoT requirements are not applicable to older (classic or antique?) cars and would like to hear from you directly as to how we should best handle this situation.

I would also like to know if there are any regulations covering other hydraulic brake components such as cylinders, repair kits, or merely hoses and fluid.

Anxiously awaiting your prompt reply, I remain,

yours very truly,

E. Alan Moss

ID: nht87-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/15/87 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHRISTINE COTTLE -- OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR, CLASSIC AUTO ACCESSORIES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-30-87, FROM CHRISTINE COTTLE, TO ERIKA JONES-NHTSA

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry of June 30, 1987, where you ask for information "regarding any federal regulation that may apply to or restrict the use of items which might be suspended from the centered rear view mirror in an automobile or truck." In your letter, you refer specifically to "decorations" such as hanging dice and air fresheners, and express your company's wish "to avoid liability for any obstruction of vision which might occur as the result of the use of such items." Your letter does not say whether you manufacture the kinds of products you list, or install these kinds of products in motor vehicles.

First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment, n or does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applic able standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

A product would fall under our agency's jurisdiction if it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in @102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(4) defines "motor vehicle equipment" in relevant part as follows:

. . . any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor v ehicle . . . (Emphasis added.)

In determining whether an item of equipment is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordi nary users of motor vehicles. The kinds of products you list do not fall within this framework, and therefore NHTSA does not regard them as items of motor vehicle equipment subject to our regulations.

There is one section of the Safety Act that I would call to your attention. Among other things, @108 (a)(2)(A) of the Act states 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 a n applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..."

If your company is among the persons or performs the kinds of operations in @ 108 (a) (2) (A), then it may not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment or designs installed in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standar d. For example, you could not install any item in a motor vehicle that would render inoperative Standard 111 (Rearview Mirrors) "field-of-view" specifications. (I enclose a copy of that Standard.)

However, @108 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to vehicle owners. Therefore, owners may install items in their own cars, even if doing so involves removal, disconnection or degradation of safety equipment or designs, without violating @ 108 (a) (2) (A). Furt her, neither the manufacture of such items nor their sale to vehicle owners violates that prohibition.

Please note that a violation of @108 or of any regulation issued under it is punishable by a civil fine of up to $ 1000 per violation, subject to a maximum fine of $ 800,000 for a related series of violations.

Finally, you may wish to consult the laws of the various States to determine whether there are any limitations in their laws on the hanging of objects from inside rearview mirrors.

I hope you find this information helpful. ENCLOSURE

ID: 1983-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: C. H. Percy, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 18 1983 NOA-30

The Honorable Charles H. Percy United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Percy:

This responds to your letter of March 25, 1983 (Ref. 3084500004) requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Mary Ella Dockson. Ms. Dockson is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. She believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Following is a discussion of the implications under Federal law of installing these tinting films.

A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances, precludes the practice referred to by Ms. Dockson. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated 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 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such as the type referred to in Ms. Dockson's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor 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. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Ms. Dockson may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing solar film on their automobile windows.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure Constituent's Letter

ID: nht73-5.45

DATE: 11/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: R. H. Schroeter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 1973, in which you ask the following questions:

1. Is it true that Standard Nos. 109 and 110 are not applicable to a 1/2-ton pickup truck with camper because such vehicle is not a "passenger car" as defined in Standards 109 and 110?

2. Is it true that in Appendix A of Standard 110 no "alternative rims" are listed for the L70-15 tire simply because no one has requested (in the manner provided in Appendix A to Standard 110) inclusion of such additional or alternative rim widths.

With respect to question 1, a pickup truck is not a passenger car but a "truck" (as defined in 49 CFR S 671.3) for purposes of all the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard Nos. 109 and 110. Standard No. 109 applies to tires for passenger cars. Standard No. 110 (49 CFR S 571.110) applies only to passenger cars, not to pickup trucks.

In response to your second question, the answer is not an unequivocal "yes", and I regret that you may have drawn that conclusion from your conversations with Michael Peskos of this office. In order for alternative rims to be listed with a tire size designation in the Appendix of Standard No. 110, data showing that the tire and rim combination meets the requirements of both

Standard No. 109 and 110 must first be submitted to the agency. Once that data has been provided, the NHTSA will publish the alternative rim size in Standard No. 110, and if no objections are received within a 30-day period, the tire/rim combination becomes part of the standard. Thus, there are not one but two possible reasons why a rim size is not listed in Standard No. 110:

The tire/rim combination fails to meet either Standard No. 109 or 110; or

It does meet both standards, but no one has requested approval of the combination. This could occur simply if the combination was not intended to be used as original equipment on a passenger car.

ID: nht88-4.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DONALD N. STAHL -- DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

TITLE: MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO. CF696

ATTACHMT: UNDATED LETTER FROM JOHN T FORTH AND DONALD N STAHL TO ERIKA Z JONES; RE MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO. CF696; OCC 1749; LETTER DATED 03/01/88 FROM DAVE TAYLOR TO JOHN FORTH; LETTER DATED 07/13/87 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO JACK DENIJS; LETTER D ATED 05/19/87 FROM JACK DENIJS TO CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA; OCC-500; RE COVERED DOT NUMBERS ON REMANUFACTURED TRUCK CASINGS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stahl:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements concerning the importation of tire casings. According to your letter, a routine inspection by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) of a local school district's buses disclosed recapped tires on a bus which did not have DOT markings on the tires. The CHP learned that the tire casings were originally designed for use by a rubber tire train in Japan and were new tires that had been imported for recapping purposes. The tire casings were imported as sli cks (no tread design), and the slick was removed. The tires were then recapped using the "bondag" process and sold to the school district. You asked whether it is permissible to import this type of tire casing and, if so, whether the particular type of tire casing meets Department of Transportation standards. Your questions are responded to below. Our opinions are based on the facts provided in your letter.

Before addressing your specific questions, I will provide background information about requirements for tires. All tires which are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must have the symbol "DOT" molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standards.

New tires for use on school buses are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR 571.119). Section S6.5(a) of the standard requires that all new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars have the DOT symbol molded i nto the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not be legally imported. This is also true for used tires manufactured on or after the effective date of Standard No. 119, March 1, 1975, with one narrow exception.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger car which have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are imported solely for the purpose of being retreaded in this country prior to resale may be imported without a DOT symbol on the s idewall. I have enclosed a copy of a June 18, 1981 letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirements that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported.

No Federal safety standard is applicable to retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. They may be imported without certification of compliance by the retreader. However, these tires must have a tire identification number mark ed on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574.

Your first question is whether it is permissible to import the type of tire casing at issue. As indicated above, new tires for use on school buses may not be imported without the DOT symbol. However, it is our opinion that the casings at issue are mate rials needing further manufacturing operations to become completed items of motor vehicle equipment, rather than finished items of motor vehicle equipment (tires which could lawfully be used or sold as they are). This opinion is based on the fact that th e casings are being imported as slicks, which generally cannot be used on the public highways under state laws since they have no tread, and since the casings are being imported for purposes of recapping.

Your second question is whether the casings at issue meet Department of Transportation standards. A key issue in answering this question is whether the tires are considered to be retreaded tires or new tires subject to Standard No. 119. It is our opini on that any tires manufactured by applying new tread to new casings are considered new tires rather than retreaded tires, and are subject to the same requirements as any other new tires.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defines "retreated" as "manufactured by a process in which a tread is attached to a casing." The term "casing" is defined as "a used tire to which additional tread may be attached for the purpose of retr eading." See 49 CFR Part 571.117 and 49 CFR Part 574.3(b).

In the situation you described in your letter, the casings were not used tires at the time the "recapping" took place. Instead, they were simply new tires (originally designed for use on a rubber tire train) which were imported for recapping purposes. These casings would not be considered used tires until they have actually been used (presumably on a train prior to importation, or on the highway, with the new tread attached, in the United States.)

Since the tires at issue were not used tires at the time they were recapped, they are not retreaded tires but are instead new tires, subject to Standard No. 119. The tires would appear not to comply with Standard No. 119, given the absence of the DOT sy mbol.

Your letter states that the original manufacturer of the tire has stated that the tires are not suitable by any means for highway use. If the tires are not suitable for highway use after they have been recapped, they may contain a safety-related defect. See 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq. We note that the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of whether there is an applicable safety standard.

We hope this information is helpful, and we are referring your letter to our Office of Enforcement.

ENCLOSURE