ID: nht95-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: K. Olsen

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/4/92 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO BOB BULLARD; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/12/95 LETTER FROM K. OLSEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: 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 pro vides 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. Genera lly 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. I n 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 manuf acturer 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.

ID: nht71-5.8

DATE: 11/26/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 9, 1971, in which you expressed concern over the requirement in our Certification regulations (36 F.R. 19593, October 8, 1971) that all vehicles, including those manufactured in two or more stages, have a vehicle identification number on their certification label.

You stated that your major concern was that the manufacturers would be "confused", and "would further add to the problems of vehicle identification experienced by the Motor Vehicle Administrators." Your letter did not, however, specify how or why our regulations would "add to the problems." With reference to a telephone conversation of November 4 with Mr. Dyson of our Chief Counsel's Office, you declined a request that you supply specific suggestions for modification of the regulation, on grounds that "this could be ultimately viewed as presumptive on our part."

I would like to clarify some points concerning this requirement. The requirement of placing a vehicle identification number on each certification label has existed since our first Certification regulations went into effect on September 1, 1969, and the amended regulations that become effective January 1, 1972 (to which you refer) contain no change whatever in that requirement. The reason why the VIN came to your attention as a separate proposal was that our March 17, 1970 notice, in which we proposed changes in the way we regulate multistage vehicles, had omitted the requirement, largely through oversight. The legal requirements for public notice required us to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking, in order to retain the VIN on the labels, where it has been since September 1969.

We have not attempted in this motor vehicle safety regulation to regulate the form of the vehicle identification numbers on vehicles other than passenger cars. We have, in effect, left the situation exactly as it has been since September 1, 1969, when the Certification regulations first went into effect: we require that each vehicle have on its permanent label a "vehicle identification number." We chose then (as we have since) to leave the form of the number to the manufacturer, in the first instance, subject to whatever State regulations might be in force, and in accordance with whatever guidelines he might choose to follow. While this policy has not solved the problems of the motor vehicle administrators, it is not at all clear to us how it could have added to them.

As you know, we are working closely with State officials on the problem of standardizing vehicle identification numbers, in connection with our highway safety program standard on motor vehicle registration. We would like very much to have your ideas on how we can deal with these problems through our Traffic Safety Programs.

ID: nht71-5.40

DATE: 10/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. Schmeltzer for L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 8, 1971, in which you request clarification of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, "Head Restraints". You state that you are of the opinion that "a head restraint system that can be retracted into the seat and thus made ineffective by virtue of being adjustable is in conflict with the prime object of the standard in reducing the frequency and severity of neck injuries in rear end or other collisons."

Standard No. 202 does not prohibit head restraints from being adjustable in an up-and-down direction, as long as the top of the restraint, at its fully extended design adjustment position, is at least 27.5 inches above the seating reference point (S4(b)(1)). While some of these adjustable head restraints may not be completely effective in cases where they are placed at their lowest adjustment position and used by tall drivers, we have determined that this design, as long as it meets the requirements of the standard, is a minimum performance level that meets the need for motor vehicle safety. Consequently, use of these types of restraints does not conflict with the standard.

The standard establishes only a minimum performance level, however, and the NHTSA endorces efforts by manufacturers to exceed the

2 requirements is establishes. Many manufacturers have installed head restraints in their vehicles that meet the standard's requirements yet do not present the disadvantages you describe.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ASTON MARTIN LAGONDA LIMITED

September 8 1971

Douglas W. Toms, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, National Highway Traffic Administration,

As designers and manufacturers of the Aston Martin DBS V8 car, currently being marketed in U.S.A., we are concerned at what appears to be a very loose interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints - Passenger Cars, Section 5.4(b), adopted by certain American automobile manufacturers.

Aston Martin Lagonda have been concerned for many years with primary and secondary safety aspects of the car, and we hold the view that a head restraint system that can be retracted into the seat and thus made ineffective by virtue of being adjustable, is in conflict with the prime object of the Standard in reducing the frequency and severity of neck injuries in rear end or other collisions.

We would appreciate clarification on this point, for our concern is to maintain the highest standard of interior safety as exemplified by our current production car.

H. Beach Director of Engineering

c.c. Mr. R. Layland, President, A.M.L. Inc. Mr. J. B. Walker, Vehicle Safety Engineer, A.M.L. Limited.

ID: nht92-3.8

DATE: 10/24/92

FROM: GEORGE D. JAMES, JR. -- SAFETY CHAIRMAN, UNIT 169 WBCCI

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL D.O.T.

TITLE: TEKONSHA COMMANDER & VOYAGER ELECTRONIC BRAKE CONTROL ("CONTROL")

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-4-92 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO GEORGE D. JAMES, JR. (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: I respectfully suggest that you have been hornswoggled by TEKONSHA into approving their electronic brake controllers for trailers.

You say that "IT IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE THAT THE CONTROL WILL NEVER BE OPERATED DURING THE LIFE OF THE TOWING VEHICLE."

Mr. Rice, that is WRONG!

Any Travel Trailer tow car driver who has any experience uses brake "controller only" WHENEVER he tows a trailer.

First, he uses the CONTROLLER ONLY to check his trailer brakes to be sure they ARE OPERATING. If this is done on the highway, the trailer stop lights should come on for his safety and safety of any following vehicle.

Second, he uses the CONTROLLER ONLY any time the trailer is PUSHING THE TOW CAR (down hills, approaching intersections, and especially when conditions are less than perfect (rain, snow, ice, gravel and sand) to keep the trailer from trying to pass the tow car.

The trailer stop lites should come on in such a situation.

Third, using CONTROLLER ONLY is an effective way to recover from a "sway situation" and when this is done the trailer stop lites should come on.

An experienced trailer tower also knows that under no circumstances should he lock the wheels of the trailer with his brakes. To safely operate a brake system on a tow car/trailer combination one must PRACTICE. Frequent practice prepares the operator for safe action when the need arises.

And trailer stop lights should go on even when practicing.

A sensitive, PRACTICED hand on a good controller is the only route to safe driving. User reports indicate that these Tekonsha controllers are an excellent device in all respects EXCEPT that the TRAILER STOP LITES are not activated whenever the CONTROLLER ONLY is used.

AND THIS IS NOT SAFE OPERATION.

I have over 200,000 miles on my present Airsteam Travel Trailer - without any accidents, thank the Lord (and my brake controller.) I use my CONTROLLER ONLY every time we go on the highway - and MY trailer stop lites work every time. I would not go on the highways if it didn't.

Mr. Rice, I think your people should review your thinking and rewrite the specs on this matter. And I think that TEKONSHA should redesign their controllers AND recall those that have been delivered to dealers or installed on tow cars.

ID: nht92-7.22

DATE: April 29, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George F. Reuss -- Reuss Engineers, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/92 from George F. Reuss to Barry Felrice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter addressed to Barry Felrice, NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, concerning your recently patented vehicle that is designed to transport passenger cars. You requested information about which specific regulations and standards would be applicable to your vehicle. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing the agency's general information fact sheet for new manufacturers and a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures," which summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to various vehicle types.

You explained that your vehicle consists of a chassis with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds and a structural frame between the cab and rear wheels. This frame includes moveable forks that can be extended from the framework and inserted beneath a passenger car's tires. The forks can be raised and retracted into the framework, thus allowing your vehicle to transport the passenger car.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. I note that you may be considered a "final-stage manufacturer" under Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, because you purchase the chassis.

Section 102 (3) of the Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

Based on the description in your letter, it appears that your vehicle is a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. More specifically, it appears that your vehicle would be considered a "truck" under the agency's regulations. The term "truck" is defined, at 49 CFR Part 571.3, as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

Accordingly, your vehicle must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds and be certified as conforming to those standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-6.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Isaias Rios -- Product Engineering Department, Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/29/95 LETTER FROM ISAIAS RIOS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 11007)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rios:

This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, to Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120.

You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other responsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs.

On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995.

We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as "covered equipment, such as wheels) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information required by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820.

ID: aiam5323

"Dear Mr. Slaughter: This responds to your inquiry about whether logging trailer known as the 'knuckle boom loader trailer' that you manufacture is a motor vehicle that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You explained that your trailer stays in the woods the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act' 13 U.S.C. 1392 et seq.) under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term 'motor vehicle' as follows: 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than 'incidental.' Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is not a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of the Safety Act. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and brochures that this equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose. Since your trailer is not a motor vehicle, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. If the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer is a motor vehicle, then the trailer would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers, Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 121 Air Brake Systems which requires automatic slack adjusters and brakes to act on all wheels. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3998

Dear Mr. Kroner: Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1985, concerning Federa requirements for safety belts in modified vans and their effect on state safety belt use laws. I regret the delay in our response.; According to your letter, a handicapped individual purchased a van an had the front seat removed to permit him to operate the vehicle from his wheelchair. You first inquired whether the vehicle is required to be equipped with a safety belt under Federal law.; This agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection*, that requires the installation of occupant restraint systems in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. Depending on its seating capacity and use, a 'van' would be classified under our regulations as a bus, truck or MPV. Regardless of that classification, the vehicle manufacturer is required to install a safety belt system for the driver's seating position. Belt systems may be required at other seating positions as well, depending upon the vehicle's classification. These requirements apply to any vehicle until its first sale to a consumer.; While our safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles, there ar some statutory restrictions on subsequent alterations. If a van were modified after its first sale to a consumer, then section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. That section provides, in pertinent part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai 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....<<<; Accordingly, none of those commercial businesses could lawfully remov a safety belt installed in compliance with Standard No. 208, since such an action would 'knowingly render inoperative' that safety device. This prohibition applies only to commercial businesses, not to individuals. Vehicle owners may themselves remove a safety belt without violating Federal law. They would, however, have to comply with any State law on vehicle equipment.; Thus, in answer to your first question, a manufacturer of a van i required by Federal law to provide a safety belt system at the driver's position, and certain commercial businesses are prohibited from removing the belt.; You also requested our opinion as to whether the owner/driver of th modified van would be required to wear a safety belt under the new Illinois safety belt use law. We do not believe it would be appropriate for this agency to offer an opinion on that question, since it requires an interpretation of state law. You may wish to consult with the State Attorney General's Office or counsel for an appropriate State agency on the matter, as they are in a better position to discuss Illinois state law.; I appreciate your interest in safety belt usage and hope thi information is of assistance to you.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2354

Dear Mr. Moser: This is in response to your May 19, 1976, letter concerning th responsibilities that you would have as an importer and distributer of Dunlop passenger car tires. I understand that the tires would, before importation, be certified by Dunlop as conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars*, and labeled with a tire identification number as required by 40 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*. This particular line of tires would at first be imported by Road America Tire but not by Dunlop Rubber and Tire Co. of Buffalo, New York (Dunlop New York), the usual importer of Dunlop tires.; You have inquired about your responsibilities concerning 'recor keeping, recall, and testing', with respect to the tires that you would import. The term 'manufacturer' is defined in Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.) (the Act), to be; >>>any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of moto vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.*(emphasis added)<<<; In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer me an obligation imposed on a 'manufacturer' by the Act or regulations issued thereunder, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be satisfied by either party. Please note that S574.8 of Part 574 also establishes requirements applicable to Road America Tire as a distributor of the tires in question.; The above discussion applies to manufacturers' notification and remed obligations set out in Section 151 through 160 of the Act and to the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements of Part 574, among others. The Act does not specifically require any person to conduct tests of his products. Standard No. 109 establishes the performance tests which the NHTSA will conduct to determine conformity. A determination of nonconformity triggers the notification and remedy obligations regardless of the amount of testing the manufacturer has performed.; In conclusion, tires imported by Road America Tire would not be th responsibility of Dunlop New York. Conversely, tires imported by Dunlop New York would not be the responsibility of Road America Tire. While a factual issue might arise concerning which party actually imported a particular tire, such an issue would be resolved on the basis of information available in that particular case. You should note that, were the NHTSA to choose to proceed against Dunlop with respect to a tire imported by Road America Tire, the agency might serve administrative processes, notices, or orders on Dunlop New York. However, Dunlop New York would be served only in its capacity as the foreign Dunlop's designated agent for service of process pursuant to Section 110(e) of the Act, and not in its capacity as an importer.; Copies of the Act and Part 574 are enclosed for your convenience. Yo may rely on this letter in resolving any conflict that you might have with Dunlop New York.; Yours truly, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3655

Dear Mr. Rudd: This responds to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mrs Jan Wilson, asking whether Federal law restricts motorists from having darkly tinted films installed on the windows of their automobiles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has authority t govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. 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. Seventy percent transmittance is required in all areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes the windshield and all windows in passenger cars. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films are no glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, use of such films on motor vehicles in certain cases would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance requirements of the standard (most of these films do reduce light transmittance below 70%). If a vehicle manufacturer or 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 (i.e., has to certify that the glazing still has a transmittance of at least 70%).; Regarding vehicles that have already been purchased, sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381) provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if the vehicle glazing would no longer meet the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this provision could subject the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business to civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.; Please note, however, that under Federal law the vehicle owner ma alter his or her vehicle as is desired. This agency does not govern use of vehicles by owners, this is left to the States. Thus, under Federal law, an owner could install solar film on his or her vehicle whether or not such installation affected compliance with Standard No. 205.; In summary, Federal law does not preclude Mrs. Wilson from havin darkly tinted film on her passenger car, provided she installed the film herself. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business (including an auto tint shop) installed the film for Mrs. Wilson, they are in violation of Federal law if the glazing no longer meets the 70% light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. The State of California is, of course, free to prohibit vehicle owners from operating vehicles with darkly tinted glazing in its jurisdiction.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel