ID: 2636y

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

Dear Mr. Eanes:

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

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

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. A new passenger car with a rear window tinted so darkly that the CHMSL was not easily visible would probably not be in conformity with Standards No. 108 and 205, and so could not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States. However, this prohibition on the manufacture or sale of a nonconforming vehicle does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer.

Both before and after the first sale of a vehicle, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." If any of the listed commercial entities were to install tint film or otherwise darken the rear windows on passenger cars so that the light transmittance of that window plus the darkening material was below 70 percent, those entities would be "rendering inoperative" the light transmittance of the rear window of the car, in violation of Federal law. This same prohibition in Federal law makes it unlawful for a service station to permanently remove the safety belts or permanently disconnect the brake lines on a car.

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

ID: 2637o

Mr. E. W. Dahl
Vice President
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
Akron, Ohio 443l6-000l

Dear Mr. Dahl:

This responds to your letter concerning the tire marking requirements of Standard No. ll9, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked whether the standard would prohibit the following size designations from being marked on the tire:

385/65R22.5 REPLACES l5R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES l6.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES l8R22.5

As discussed below, it is our opinion that the above markings are prohibited by Standard No. ll9.

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1."

As noted by your letter, NHTSA recently provided an interpretation letter to Michelin, dated July 9, l987, concerning one of the exact sizes included in your request. The agency stated the following:

In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire size.

The tire size marking at issue in the Michelin interpretation differs from your proposed marking in that it did not include the word "replaces." You stated the following:

In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles.

As indicated in our letter to Michelin, the only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. Any practice of using dual-size markings has the potential for confusing consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle, since consumers may erroneously believe that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of more than one tire size designation. For example, a consumer seeing a tire marking that size A replaces size B might erroneously believe that it is appropriate to replace size A with size B.

You cited a l974 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Standard No. l09 which stated that NHTSA believed that the providing of replacement size information on the tire itself was advantageous to consumers. See 39 FR l0l62.

I would note several things about the background and subsequent history of that NPRM. The NPRM indicated that despite the clear language in Standard No. l09 that each tire must be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used," NHTSA had previously taken the position [in interpretation letters] that replacement markings constituted an exception to this requirement. (Emphasis added.) The interpretation letters had not offered any basis for concluding that this exception existed. (See June 8, l97l letter to Mercedes-Benz; January l9, l972 letter to Kelly-Springfield; March 2, l973 letter to Samperit.)

The NPRM sought to "clarify the labeling requirements of Standard No. l09, to allow, subject to certain conditions, the labeling of replacement tire size designations." However, the NPRM was not adopted as a final rule. We also note that while the l97l-72 interpretation letters cited above do not appear to have been expressly overruled, our February 7, l980 interpretation letter to Michelin (copy enclosed) concluded that Standard No. l09 prohibited replacement markings.

NHTSA has never interpreted Standard No. ll9 to permit any type of dual size markings, including replacement markings. Based on the reasoning presented in our July 9, l987 interpretation letter to Michelin, and the additional discussion presented above, we conclude that Standard No. ll9 prohibits a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if the word "replaces" is used.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l09#ll9 d:1/7/88

ID: 2637y

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

Dear Ms. Dittemore:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:205#VSA d:7/30/90

ID: 2638o

Mr. Koji Tokunaga
Manager, Engineering
Isuzu Motors America, Inc.
2l4l5 Civic Center Drive
Southfield, MI 48076-3969

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays, as amended by a final rule published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (52 FR 3244) on February 3, l987. We apologize for the delay in our response. You described a proposed design for a radio and asked whether the requirements of section S5.3.5 would apply to the source of illumination for the radio and, if so, whether your design would meet those requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

As discussed below, the requirements of section S5.3.5 would apply to the source of illumination for your planned radio. Your current design would meet the requirements of that section.

You described your planned radio as follows:

In the case of the radio to be installed on our vehicle, radio display is automatically illuminated when radio switch is turned "on." Likewise, when the switch is turned "off," this display is automatically extinguished. This illumination is a single intensity, but the intensity is not "barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions."

The current language of section S5.3.5, which reflects an amendment made by a final rule published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (52 FR 334l6) on September 3, l987, is as follows:

S5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (ll0.6 mm) rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated.

The first issue raised by your letter is whether section S5.3.5 would apply to your proposed design. The answer to that question is yes. You suggested that the section might not apply, since "display illumination turns 'on' or 'off' simultaneously with the 'on' or 'off' operation of radio switch irrespective of vehicle motion." However, section S5.3.5's limitation of applicability to sources of illumination which are "capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion" does not refer to illuminations which are provided only when the vehicle is in motion but instead incorporates all sources of illumination which are "capable" of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion.

The second issue raised by your letter is whether your proposed design meets the requirements of section S5.3.5. You suggested that the "off" switch of the radio would be "a means of being turned off," under that section. We agree with your suggested interpretation. Section S5.3.5 requires that the "source of illumination" have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. As discussed in the preamble to the February 3, l987 final rule, the purpose of providing section S5.3.5's three options was to meet concerns raised by commenters, while maintaining essential limits on glare. Although a driver may use the radio while driving at night, he or she will have the means to remove the radio as a source of glare by turning the radio off. In our view, this meets section S5.3.5's third option.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:101 d:1/7/88

ID: 2638y

Mr. William Waltz
Wagner Division
Cooper Industries, Inc.
155 Algonquin Parkway
Whippany, NJ 07981

Dear Mr. Waltz:

This is in reply to your letter of April 12, l990, stating that Wagner Division "would like to petition N.H.T.S.A. for a 'Determination of Inconsequentiality' for non-compliance."

Specifically, Wagner wishes to manufacture round sealed beam headlamps (not "bulbs" as you call it) for Lectric Limited, a small parts business geared towards the antique automobile hobby. The headlamps are intended for use on "antique automobiles". We understand that term to mean any automobile manufactured in l940 and subsequent model years that was originally equipped with round sealed beam headlamps. Although the headlamps would be designed to conform to current specifications, those of SAE Standard J579c, the word "top" would be used on the 7-inch diameter headlamp instead of the designation "2CI" (you mean "2D1"), the numeral "1" for "1C1" on the single beam 5 3/4-inch diameter headlamp, and the numeral "2" for "2C1" on the dual beam 5 3/4-inch diameter headlamp. The lamps would not bear "DOT" identification. Lectric Limited is willing to "ink stamp" DOT, 2Dl, 1C1, and 2C1 "on either the face and or the rear" of each headlamp so that they would not be mistaken for those conforming to SAE J579a, and to print instructions for purchasers explaining the difference. Lectric Limited is also willing to insure that the headlamps are marketed only through antique auto specialty retailers.

First, let me explain that your request cannot be considered as one for a determination of inconsequentiality. These determinations are made after-the-fact in order to determine whether a manufacturer must fulfill statutory obligations which include replacement, repurchase, or repair of the already-manufactured noncompliant product. What you seek is permission to produce motor vehicle equipment that fails to comply with labeling requirements. Unfortunately, the agency has no exemption provisions which can address this issue. We have authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicles from compliance for a temporary period, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, on either a temporary or permanent basis. Further, we cannot waive the marking requirements of sections S7.2 and S7.3 of Standard No. l08, even for the limited purpose and subject to the restrictions you discuss.

After due consideration of the matter, we believe that you have no choice other than to conform to the marking requirements of Standard No. l08. Although neither the marking nor the performance of J579c headlamps replicates that of J579a headlamps, I hope that auto enthusiasts will be willing to accept the marking that goes with the improved performance.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:7/25/90

ID: 2639o

Art Look, Marketing Executive
Burke Communication Industries
1165 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60610

Dear Mr. Look:

Your letter of October 30, 1987, addressed to Administrator Diane Steed, was referred to me for reply. You are apparently seeking this Department's approval of your product which you describe as a new warning device for stopped motor vehicles. As explained below, we do not provide approvals for products.

Your product is made of inflatable plastic material that you describe as "flexible and extremely durable." When a user inflates your device, the product takes the shape of a cone standing about 18" high. The pictures you enclose indicate that the inflatable part of the cone has three broad alternating stripes. Two of the stripes are orange, and a 6" "reflective" white stripe is sandwiched between them. Your cone sits on a non-inflatable, spherical, black base filled with "approximately" 3 lbs. of sand.

You state that your device has many advantages over the warning device currently specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 125, Warning Devices. Among the advantages you list are that your device is "more visible at night, up to 1,000 ft. away;" that it "(is) not affected by winds up to 50 MPH;" and that if struck, it "will return to an upright position" without damaging the vehicle involved. You state your company's intention to package your device in a corrugated container with three inflatable cones to a kit, including both a "new-type double-action hand pump" and instructions for proper use of your device.

Let me begin with some general information about this agency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agency of the Department of Transportation, and has authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards issued by this agency. Periodically, NHTSA conducts tests to determine whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

One of the safety standards issued by this agency is Standard 125, Warning Devices, which sets uniform performance requirements for certain devices that are designed to be carried in a motor vehicle and used when needed to warn approaching traffic when the vehicle is disabled and stopped in or by the side of the road. The Standard applies to any such device that does not have a self-contained energy source (such as a battery). Your product falls under this Standard. Thus, it must meet the requirements of Standard 125, such as those on configuration, color, and reflectivity. Failure to comply with a standard renders the manufacturer subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Safety Act requires a manufacturer to recall and remedy or replace a noncomplying item of motor vehicle equipment.

As the above discussion suggests, you do not need approval from NHTSA or any other agency in the Department of Transportation to market your product. However, you do need both to ensure that your product meets Standard 125's requirements and to certify compliance. Our preliminary review of your product indicates that you may not be able to make that certification. For example, it appears that your product may not comply with the color, reflectivity, configuration, and stability requirements of Standard 125. If your product fails to meet these or other Standard 125 requirements, you cannot legally market it as a warning device.

I hope you find this response helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:125 d:1/4/88

ID: 2639y

AIR MAIL

Mr. Wayne Brush Director, Material Management Conceptor Industries, Inc. 521 Newpark Blvd. P. O. Box 149 Newmarket, Ontario Canada L3Y 4X7

Dear Mr. Brush:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. Clive Van Orden of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance seeking an interpretation of this agency's requirements for a vehicle identification number (VIN), as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements, and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115). You stated that your company plans to modify vans manufactured by General Motors (GM) to produce electric powered vehicles for sale in the United States. You asked whether these vehicles may use the GM world manufacturer identifier (WMI), as well as a check digit, model year identification, and production sequence codes assigned by GM, and use an X as the engine type code to show that the vehicles were actually manufactured by your company. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

S4.1 of Standard No. 115 reads as follows:

Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. Each vehicle manufactured in more than one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Vehicle alterers, as specified in 49 CFR 567.7, shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the vehicle.

As described in your letter, Conceptor Industries plans to produce completed electric powered vehicles by using an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment produced by GM, including frame and chassis structure, steering, suspension, and braking systems. However, the assemblage provided to your company by GM would not include a power train. The absence of a power train means that this assemblage would not be an "incomplete vehicle," as that term is defined in S3 of Standard No. 115, so the Conceptor electric vehicles would not be considered to be manufactured in more than one stage. Your company would not qualify as a vehicle alterer, based on the information provided in your letter, because GM would not have already certified the vehicles modified by your company. Thus, the electric powered vehicles produced by Conceptor would be considered to be vehicles manufactured in one stage, and the VIN for these vehicles would have to be assigned by Conceptor, the manufacturer of these vehicles.

Part 565 specifies the format and content of the VIN that Standard No. 115 requires your company to assign to its electric powered vehicles. In relevant part, 49 CFR 565.4 provides that:

The VIN shall consist of four sections of characters which shall be grouped accordingly: (a) The first section shall consist of three characters which occupy positions one through three (1-3) in the VIN, This section shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. If the manufacturer produces less than 500 motor vehicles of its type annually, those three characters, along with the third, fourth, and fifth characters of the fourth section shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle. * * *

Under the approach suggested in your letter, GM would be identified as the manufacturer of the vehicle by the first three characters of the VIN, and the eighth character would indicate that Conceptor was the actual manufacturer. This approach would be plainly inconsistent with the requirements of 565.4 quoted above, because the regulation requires the first three characters in the VIN to identify the vehicle manufacturer. Your company is the manufacturer of these vehicles, not GM, so your company must be identified by the first three characters of the VIN. Furthermore, 565.4(b) provides that the eighth character in the VIN shall uniquely identify specified attributes of the vehicle, not identify the manufacturer. Hence, the approach suggested in your letter would not comply with this agency's VIN requirements.

Additionally, you informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff in a July 3, 1990 telelphone conversation that, at least in the initial years of your company's production of these vehicles, the annual production will be less than 500. If this is the case, you should note that 565.4(a) requires your company to use not only the first three characters of the VIN to uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle, but also the 12th, 13th, and 14th characters of the VIN as well to make this unique identification.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:565#115 d:7/25/90

ID: 2640o

Mr. Toshio Maeda
Executive Vice President
& Chief Operating Officer
Nissan Research & Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 8650
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1987, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.1.1.36(b)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

That paragraph specifies in pertinent part that a replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1-Aiming Adjustment Test, of SAE Standard J580 AUG79 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly. Section 6.1.1 states that "when the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of +/-4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes." You have asked whether the aiming adjustment is to be achieved by the headlamp assembly, or by both the headlamp assembly "and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the vehicle."

SAE J580 applies to the design of headlamp assemblies, including the functional parts other than the headlamps, such as aiming and mounting mechanisms and hardware. The assembly may include one or more headlamps. Although the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, its design must be identical to the headlamp assembly used on the vehicle. Thus, if the aiming adjustment requirement is met by the headlamp assembly in the laboratory, it should also be met when the assembly is installed on the vehicle. An individual headlamp installed on the vehicle need not meet the aiming adjustment test unless that headlamp is part of a headlamp assembly comprising only one headlamp.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:1/14/88

ID: 2640y

Mr. Ron Boucher
Energy Savings Systems
P.O. Box 294
Centralia, WA 98531

Dear Mr. Boucher:

Thank you for your letter asking whether the products you plan to market would comply with the laws and regulations administered by this agency. As explained below, the laws and regulations administered by this agency would not be applicable to these products.

Enclosed with your letter were two brochures describing the "Signal Flash" personal identification lights. The brochure included pictures and descriptions of several different types of battery-powered lights that are small enough to be carried on one's person, and include straps that make them suitable to be carried on one's arm, around one's wrist, or inserted into a life preserver. The brochures describe these "Signal Flash" lights as suitable for use in "diving, mountaineering, jogging, sailing, windsurfing, cycling, fishing, car breakdown, life jacket, etc."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and items of "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment", in part, as:

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 vehicle...

Your "Signal Flash" lights are plainly not a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured," nor are they a "similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement" of an original equipment part of a motor vehicle. The issue is whether these lights would be considered an "accessory" within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory," the agency applies the relevant statutory language and the two following criteria: first, whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the item are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

In evaluating the first criterion, the product literature enclosed with your letter emphasizes the versatility of these personal identification lights. While these lights occasionally may be used in connection with a motor vehicle breakdown or repair, most of the suggested uses involve sports activities that have nothing to do with a motor vehicle. Thus, a substantial portion of the expected uses of the light would not appear related to the operation or maintenance of a vehicle, so these "Signal Flash" lights would not be considered items of "motor vehicle equipment." This conclusion means that the "Signal Flash" lights are not subject to any of the laws and regulations administered by this agency.

You may wish to consult the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any requirements applicable to these lights. That agency protects the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products. You may write to the Consumer Product Safety Commission at 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20207, or contact them by telephone at (301) 492-6580.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ ref:VSA d:7/27/90

ID: 2643o

Mr. Billy S. Peterson
President
Automotive Safety Testing, Inc.
Product Liability-Testing-Certification
at TRC of Ohio
East Liberty, OH 43319

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1987, with respect to positioning of rear mounted lamps and reflectors in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. Your client has designed a vehicle in which the backup lamps and rear reflex reflectors would be mounted on the deck lid, and you have asked whether there are any current or contemplated prohibitions that would preclude this design.

The lamps in question will be mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle as required by paragraph S4.3.1 of Standard No. l08, and the deck lid will be closed and the lamps and reflectors in full view under normal operating conditions. The visibility requirements of lamps and reflectors in Standard No. l08 are predicated on the normal driving or closed deck lid position. Since the use of motor vehicles, including driving with deck lids open or otherwise having the lamps and reflectors obscured by a particular load on the vehicle is under the jurisdiction of the individual States, we do not anticipate rulemaking on this subject. Thus this design is not prohibited by Standard No. l08.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:1/28/88