ID: aiam5559

"Dear Mr. Hooker: This responds to your question about whether th State of Missouri has authority to promulgate regulations relating to the safety of motor vehicles powered by alternative fuels, particularly compressed natural gas (CNG). The short answer is that while Missouri is generally preempted in this area, it could issue its own more stringent safety standard for State-owned vehicles. Federal law will preempt a State law if (1) there is a Federal safety standard in effect, (2) the State law covers the same aspect of performance as that Federal standard, and (3) the State law is not identical to the Federal standard. Specifically, section 30103(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code states that (b) Preemption. - (1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter. State safety standards applicable to CNG fuel system integrity are generally preempted by Federal law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles. (59 FR 19659, April 25, 1994, copy enclosed). The Standard specifies frontal barrier and rear barrier crash tests conducted at 30 mph and a lateral moving barrier crash test conducted at 20 mph. The Standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less and use CNG as a motor fuel. It also applies to school buses regardless of weight that use CNG as a motor fuel. The Standard takes effect September 1, 1995. Accordingly, after September 1, 1995, Missouri could only issue its own safety standard applicable to CNG vehicle fuel system integrity if the State safety standard is identical to FMVSS No. 303. The one exception to requiring such identical standards is that Missouri could prescribe a standard for motor vehicles obtained for its own use, provided the State law imposed a higher performance requirement than the level of performance prescribed by FMVSS No. 303. Thus, Missouri could issue its own more stringent safety standard for State-owned vehicles. NHTSA further notes that Missouri is free to issue safety standards applicable to the fuel system integrity of vehicles powered by other alternative fuels (e.g., liquid propane, hydrogen), since the agency has not issued any FMVSS applicable to other alternative fuels. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ";

ID: aiam2625

Dear Mr. Verrill: This responds to your April 20, 1977, petition to amend Standard No 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. In your petition, you request that the National Highway traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permit the use of tires that have a maximum load rating of not less than 95% of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and not less than 95% of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Your petition is denied.; The problem addressed by your petition concerns a revision in the 197 Tire and Rim Manual that alters the load rating of tires. In effect, this revision will result in lower load ratings for certain tires. According to the facts you submit, the change in tire load rating will be implemented by tire manufacturers throughout the next few months which may not provide vehicle manufacturers sufficient time to correspondingly alter the GAWRs of their vehicles in accordance with the new tire load ratings. Therefore, for a short period of time, you allege that it will be impossible to obtain tires that correspond to the GAWR indicated on the vehicle.; To alleviate the above problem, you recommend rulemaking that woul permit vehicle manufacturers to install on their vehicles tires with load ratings slightly less than the GAWR of each axle. The NHTSA cannot permit the relief you request even for the limited time you propose. The intent of our tire standards is to provide minimum requirements for tires to ensure adequate safety. One of these minimum requirements mandates that the tire load rating be at least equal to the GAWR. Your request would have us reduce this minimum requirement. Since the matching of tires on a vehicle with the GAWR of each axle is such a basic principle of safety, the agency concludes that it would not be in the interest of safety to grant your request. Further, such an amendment might violate Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 *et seq*.), which requires that motor vehicles be equipped 'with tires which meet the maximum permissible load standards when such vehicle is fully loaded...'; As you may know, the label requirements of Standard No. 120 whic become effective in September permit you to list suitable tire and rim combinations on the vehicle. You need not equip a vehicle, however, with the tires indicated on the label. In this case, you may equip a trailer with any trailer tire that has a load rating equal to or greater than the GAWR of its associated axle. This may help resolve part of your problem with respect to a short term problem with matching tires on the vehicle with those indicated on the vehicle label.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam3781

Dear Mr. Brantner: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1983, to the Urban Mas Transit Administration, which was forwarded to this agency for reply, concerning legal requirements regulating window stickers. The following discussion addresses the Federal requirements applicable to sticker or other films applied to glazing materials in motor vehicles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority t 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.; The agency has stated in past interpretations that films such as th type referred to in your 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 hi vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the 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 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.; Please contact Stephen Oesch of my staff if you have any furthe questions (202- 426-1834).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4751

"Dear Mr. Smith: I am writing in response to your letter forwardin correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Joel Leitson, with respect to litigation recently brought by the United States against several firms that install plastic film, or 'tint,' on automobile windows. You have asked about the statutory authority under which these suits were brought. Pursuant to section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ('Safety Act'), 15 U.S.C. 1392, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA') has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Section 108(a)(i)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), this paragraph does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), provides that 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' Thus, by installing tint film on automobiles that reduces the light transmittance of their glass below 70 percent, the firms in question have been rendering those vehicles 'inoperative,' in violation of the Safety Act. The same principle would apply to a service station that removed an airbag or a safety belt from a vehicle, since such an action would create a noncompliance with the occupant protection requirements of NHTSA's standards. You also asked for our comments on whether Florida's statutes are preempted by these suits. We assume that you are referring to the provision of Florida law that prohibits the operation of any vehicle in the State of Florida that has glazing with less than 35 percent light transmittance. This statute, and similar statutes adopted by other states, do not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by tint installation firms -- that is illegal under the Safety Act. Thus, there is no conflict with Federal law, and Florida may continue to enforce its operating rules. I hope that this responds to your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4079

Dear Mr. Hayashibara: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of certain term used in Standard No. 110, *Tire selection and rims - passenger cars* (49 CFR S571.110). Specifically, you asked about the definitions of the terms 'curb weight', 'accessory weight', and 'production options weight'. These terms are defined in Standard No. 110 as follows.; The 'curb weight' of a vehicle is calculated by adding the weight o the vehicle with all of its standard equipment, including its maximum capacity of fuel, oil, and coolant to the weights of two optional items of equipment, *if the vehicle is equipped with these optional items*. The items whose weight is included in calculating the curb weight, if present on the vehicle, are air conditioning and the additional weight of an optional engine. No other optional items are included in calculating a vehicle's curb weight, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options.; The 'accessory weight' of a vehicle means the combined weight (i excess of the weight of the standard equipment items that may be replaced) of automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, power windows, power seats, radio, and heater to the extent that these items are available as factory-installed options on that vehicle, *regardless of whether these options are actually present on the vehicle in question*. No other items of optional equipment are included in calculating the accessory weight, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options.; The 'production options weight' means the combined weight of all item of optional equipment that meet all of the following criteria:; (1) The weight of the item of optional equipment is more than fiv pounds greater than the weight of the item of standard equipment that it replaces,; (2) The optional equipment is present on the vehicle in question, and (3) The weight of the optional equipment has not previously bee considered in either the curb weight or the accessory weight.; Section S3 of Standard No. 110 lists the following examples of items o optional equipment whose weight might be considered when calculating the production options weight: heavy duty brakes, ride levelers, roof rack, heavy duty battery, and special trim. However, any item of optional equipment that meets the three criteria listed above *would* be included in calculating the production options weight, even if that item were not listed in the examples. Therefore, Mazda's understanding is correct that the weight of four-wheel drive components, aerodynamic accessories, special body styling panels, and sunroofs *are* included when calculating the production options weight.; If you have any further questions on this subject, or need mor information, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 10824

K. Olsen
8577 South State
Spanish Fork, UT 84660

Dear Ms. Olsen:

This responds to your letter of March 12, 1995, requesting an opinion as to the liability of the manufacturer, dealer, or customer in an accident involving a trailer originally sold with used tires. I apologize for the delay in our response.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30112 of Title 49 provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, or import a new motor vehicle or a new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification of such compliance. Generally speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first retail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state regulation.

This office cannot give you an opinion as to who may be liable in the accident you described. The question of liability would be a matter of state law. You may wish to consult with a local attorney on the question of liability.

I can advise you that FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, generally requires tires installed on new trailers to be new, but includes certain specified exceptions which do not appear to be relevant here. In that connection, please find enclosed a copy of a letter we wrote to a gentleman in Odessa, Texas, dated September 4, 1992, which discusses in some detail our requirements for tires installed on new trailers.

This agency does not have any standards for trailer brakes other than air brakes. Also, as indicated above, matters relating to the use of a vehicle, such as connection of the electric brake control to the towing vehicle and loading of the trailer, are not under the jurisdiction of this agency.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Based on your March 12, 1995 letter and your telephone and facsimile communications with the staff of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, that office has initiated an inquiry to the trailer manufacturer to determine if a noncompliance exists with FMVSS No. 120. If you have further information or data to offer in this regard, please contact Mr. Luke Loy at this address or at (202) 366-5288 or by FAX at (202) 366-3081.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:120 d:6/14/95

ID: nht76-2.6

DATE: 03/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Alberto Negro - FIAT

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 6, 1975, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5. of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

You asked whether the standard permits marking or penetration of the protected zone to a depth greater than 1/4 inch, by windshield wipers during a barrier crash test. Please excuse our delay in answering your question.

Paragraph S5. of Standard No. 219 states that "no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template" (emphasis added.) Windshield wipers are "components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield." Therefore, Standard No. 219 does allow penetration of the protected zone by windshield wipers during the barrier crash test.

Please note that Standard No. 219 was amended, Docket 74-21, Notice 3, to substitute the term "daylight opening" for "windshield opening", and to add the new term to the requirements of paragraph S5. The amendments are effective September 1, 1976, for passenger cars, and September 1, 1977, for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. I am enclosing a copy of the notice for your information.

Please contact us if we can of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT - U.S.A. BRANCH

November 6, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A.

We are kindly requesting your official interpretation of the Paragraph S.5 of the Standard 219 - "Windshield Zone Intrusion":

". . .no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, affixed according to S6, to a depth of more than one-quarter inch, and no such part of a vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield below the protected zone defined in S6."

The windshield wipers of a vehicle, that are normally in contact with the windshield under barrier crash condition could become detached from the windshield and spring back after impact penetrating the protected area for a depth of more than one-quarter inch or leave a light mark on the windshield surface.

In our opinion such penetration or marking is permitted by the Std. 219 and does not represent any safety hazard. We would appreciate your prompt reply with the official NHTSA interpretation on the matter.

Alberto Negro Director

ID: nht90-3.6

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 3, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles T. Thomas -- Prestige Travel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Undated letter to NHTSA Chief Counsel from Charles T. Thomas (OCC-4685)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter asking for a waiver of one of the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(g) for persons working outside the United States and seeking to import a nonconforming vehicle, i.e., the requirement that "the importer's assigned place of employment has been outside the United States at all times between October 31, 1988, and the date the vehicle is entered into the United States." You are able to meet the other requirements of paragraph (g), but you returned to the United States in September 1988 after a 12-year employment abroad, and your 1985 Jaguar remains in Germany.

We are sorry that we are unable to provide the waiver you seek. This specific requirement was established by Congress as part of an exception to more rigorous requirements that became effective on, and applicable to, vehicles imported on and after January 31, 1990, of this year. Further, Congress did not provide us with any authority to waive this requirement. These provisions were added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Public Law 100-562.

However, our inability to waive this requirement does not mean that you will be unable to import your car. Under its new authority, the agency has tentatively determined that 1985 Jaguar automobiles are eligible for importation (as well as a number of other cars). Public comments on the tentative determinations were due in mid-May. After a final determination is made, and assuming that it is favorable, you may then import your Jaguar pursuant to the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(f). In other words, you may import the vehicle either through an importer registered with this agency as one who will certify compliance of the Jaguar with Federal safety standards, or by yourself upon demonstration that you have a contract with a registered importer.

I enclose a copy of Part 591 for your information, as well as a list of registered importers approved as of April 13. We anticipate a final determination on vehicle eligibility this summer. If you wish to inquire as to the status of the determination, or to obtain an updated list of registered importers, please address your further correspondence to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590.

(List of registered importers is omitted.)

ID: 22222.jeg

Mr. Andrew P. Doornaert
Arthur Andersen LLP
Suite 2700
500 Woodward Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226-3424





Dear Mr. Doornaert:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. You asked for clarification concerning how the value of certain "minor items" is treated in making various content calculations. Your questions are addressed below.

You first asked about 583.6, Procedure for determining U.S./Canadian parts content. Paragraph 583.6(c)(4)(iv) of this section provides that "(f)or the minor items listed in the 583.4 definition of 'passenger motor vehicle equipment' as being excluded from that term, outside and allied suppliers may, to the extent that they incorporate such items into their equipment, treat the cost of the minor items as value added in the country of assembly." You noted that, as a result of a recent amendment to Part 583, the list of minor items once included in 583.4 is no longer there. However, the same list now appears in 583.6(a). The list is comprised of the following items: nuts, bolts, clips, screws, pins, braces, gasoline, oil, blackout, phosphate rinse, windshield washer fluid, fasteners, tire assembly fluid, rivets, adhesives, grommets, and wheel weights.

You are correct that we did not intend to change the provision permitting outside and allied suppliers to treat the cost of these minor items as value added in the country of assembly. We plan in the future to issue a technical amendment to correct this now-obsolete cross-reference.

You also asked whether the minor items provision of 583.6 can be considered in determining the country of origin for components of engines and transmissions in 583.8(c). While the minor items provision of 583.6 does not technically apply to the determinations made in

583.8, we nonetheless conclude that suppliers of engines and transmissions may treat the cost of these minor items as value added in the country of assembly for purposes of 583.8 determinations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adopted the minor items provision of 583.6 to avoid imposing on suppliers the unnecessary burden of having to obtain content information about minor items whose value was so small as to be unlikely to have any effect on overall content calculations. This rationale is equally applicable to 583.8 determinations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:583
NCC-20:EGlancy:mar:3/21/01:62992:OCC 22222
cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron, Redbook (2), interp 583
W:\nhtsaweb\cars\rules\interps\newhtml\22222.jeg.wpd

ID: 1985-04.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Susan B. House -- House Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Susan B. House House Enterprises 1450 Woodscliff Drive Anderson, IN 46011

Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1985, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to two solar glare shading products you have developed. You described the first product as an 8" diameter acrylic dish which is of optical quality and tinted. The second products is a 4" x 4" sheet of opaque plastic. You explained that both products are designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued 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 all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the ones described in your letter, 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 ny 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 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.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel