ID: Carlsson.1

Mr. Erik Carlsson
A & C Automotive consulting
Chester, NJ 07930-2637

Dear Mr. Carlsson:

This responds to your august 28, 2004, and september 4, 2004, letters in which you seek clarification as to whether a three-wheeled vehicle equipped with a "dump basket" would be classified as a truck or a motorcycle under our federal motor vehicle safety standards (fmvsss).Your letter stated that this vehicle is intended for on-road application, and you expressed your belief that the vehicle is "obviously designed for transport of cargo, specifically (household) garbage". Your letter also asked questions about the impact of the vehicles classification on certain requirements under fmvss no. 122, motorcycle brake systems, and fmvss no. 102, transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions related to our regulations.

By way of background, the national highway traffic safety administration (nhtsa) is authorized to issue fmvsss that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.If a manufacturer determines that its product is covered by one or more of our safety standards, it must certify compliance of the product with all applicable fmvsss prior to offering such product for sale.

Pursuant to the definition of "motorcycle" set forth in 49 cfr 571.3, all three-wheeled motor vehicles are classified as motorcycles, regardless of their nature.Tthe pertinent portion of that section reads as follows:

Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

Any three-wheeled vehicle that conforms to the above definition must meet all standards applicable to motorcycles.

Because the vehicle in question appears to conform to the definition of a "motorcycle" under our regulations, we believe that it would be classified as a motorcycle and would be subject to all fmvsss applicable to motorcycles.We note that this definition of "motorcycle" is broader in scope than the everyday usage of that term.Accordingly, it would be expected to cover a variety of vehicle designs that look and are employed differently.

As your letter suggests, the classification of a vehicle is important because it affects the fmvsss with which the vehicle must comply.Once classified as a motorcycle, we look to the fmvsss to determine requirements applicable to the vehicle in question.In terms of the specific safety standards mentioned in your letter, the requirements of fmvss no. 102 would not apply, because that standard is limited to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.However, the vehicle would need to comply with the requirements of fmvss no. 122, including those in paragraph s6.1 specifying that the vehicle be tested at its unloaded vehicle weight plus 200 pounds.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact eric stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.10/26/04

ID: aiam3072

Dear Mr. Champagne: This is in response to your telephone conversations of July 13, 1979 with Mr. Steve Wood of my office, in which you requested a general explanation of the Federal law concerning auxiliary gasoline tanks and the conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles to propane-powered vehicles.; The following discussion sets forth the implications of thes activities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. The discussion first looks at the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to fuel systems and then at the defect responsibilities that might be involved. Next, a brief mention is made of the possibility of product liability suits.; Before getting into the legalities of these installations an conversions, I want to stress my concern about the danger which these practices may pose to the occupants of vehicles which are altered and even to occupants of other vehicles. These practices may seriously increase the risk of fire if these altered vehicles are involved in accidents. Even where there are no legal liabilities, this threat to safety may be present.; The Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) to issue FMVSS's applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. The only standard relevant to this discussion, FMVSS 301-75, is a vehicle standard. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) schoolbuses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. If the need were found, a standard could also be issued for fuel systems designed for installation in new or used vehicles.; Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate customer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. In addition, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration or purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 CFR 567.7 and Preamble to 37 F.R. 22800, October 25, 1972). The only alterations that a person may make prior to the first sale of a vehicle without being considered a manufacturer subject to the recertification requirements are minor finishing operations or the addition, substitution or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors, tires, or rim assemblies. (49 CFR 567.7).; Should a noncompliance be discovered in a recertified vehicle, as result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act). The civil penalty imposed could be up to $1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act).; With respect to FMVSS 301, the effect of the alterer provisions is tha not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary or replacement tank added by an alterer must meet them also.; If the alterer converts the gasoline fuel system to a propane fue system, the vehicle must still be recertified. However, FMVSS 301-75 would cease to be a factor since the standard would no longer apply to the vehicle. Propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles using fuel with a higher boiling point. Finally, if the alterer converts a gasoline- powered vehicle so that it is both gasoline-powered and propane- powered, he must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable standards, including FMVSS 301-75.; After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale tampering with the vehicle is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). That section in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:; >>>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 standard ...<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).; If a tamperer adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufacture in accordance with FMVSS 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974) (sic). Such a reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.; If a tamperer removes the original gasoline tank and installs replacement one, section 108(a)(2)(A) is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicle structures. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.; There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection wit FMVSS 301-75 if the tamperer converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane-powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another would not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems complied with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a 1978 gasoline-powered car to a propane-powered car, the converter would not be governed by FMVSS 301-75 since that standard did not apply to 1978 propane-powered cars.; The case of a tamperer who modifies a used gasoline-powered vehicle s that is has a dual gasoline/propane system would be essentially the same as that of the person who adds an auxiliary gasoline tank. If the tamperer knowingly reduces the performance of the gasoline system in adding the propane system, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A).; As to safety defect responsibilities under sections 151 *et seq.* o the Act, persons who alter new vehicles by installing auxiliary or replacement gas tanks or by converting a gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system as well (sic) persons who produce the equipment being installed are fully subject to those responsibilities. Sections 151 *et seq.* provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. As explained earlier the term 'manufacturer' includes persons who alter new vehicles by doing more than simply adding, substituting, or removing readily attachable components or performing minor finishing operations. Since alterations involving installation of auxiliary replacement gas tanks or conversion of gasoline systems to propane systems are more substantial, persons who make those alterations are manufacturers.; Thus the alterer who installs auxiliary or replacement tanks or make propane conversions is responsible for safety defects in the installation of the tanks and propane systems. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation.; Under 49 CFR Part 579, the auxiliary and replacement tanks and th propane systems would all be treated as 'replacement equipment.' Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in the performance, construction components, or materials, of replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer who produces auxiliary or replacement tanks or propane systems, as distinct from the alterer who installs such equipment, would be subject to these responsibilities for production defects. A person who both produces such equipment and installs it in new vehicles prior to their delivery to the ultimate consumer would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both production and installation of the equipment.; Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a), any person who fails to provid notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1000 per violation.; Tamperers have no safety defect responsibilities for their tampering As noted above, only manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are subject to sections 151 *et seq.* Since the term 'manufacturer' is interpreted to refer to those who produce, assemble, or import *new* vehicles or equipment and since tamperers, by definition, deal with used vehicles only, tamperers are not manufacturers.; Finally, there is the larger and more far reaching question of th liability of the alterers, tamperers, and manufacturers in tort. Whether or not these parties are liable under the Act for their actions, they may well be liable in tort. Both alterers and tamperers may be liable for the manner and location in which they install auxiliary of replacement gasoline tanks or propane systems in vehicles. Likewise, the manufacturers of these items of motor vehicle equipment may be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. These persons may wish to consult a local lawyer on their liability in tort.; I hope that you will find this discussion helpful. If you have an further questions I will be happy to answer them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 04-006678drn

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your request of August 26, 2004 that we extend the date at which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will begin enforcing a May 6, 2003 interpretation letter, addressed to Jaguar Cars, on the meaning of "daylight opening" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. As explained below, we have decided to grant your request.

In our letter to you of March 31, 2004, in which we denied your request for reconsideration of the May 6, 2003, interpretation, we acknowledged that there has been some confusion in industry regarding the proper interpretation of the term "daylight opening". We stated that we would begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003 interpretation letter beginning with motor vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2005.

In your letter of August 26, 2004, you stated that "substantial work" will be needed on some vehicle models to meet the May 6, 2003 interpretation letter. You stated that some wiper systems may have to be redesigned to increase the wiped area and that windshield redesign may be required. You indicated "substantial costs can be avoided" if, for those models that need reworking, the wiper system and windshield redesigns can be accomplished at the same time as scheduled platform changes. You asked that the agency provide manufacturers until September 1, 2007, to permit an orderly transition to designs that comply with the interpretation.

Two vehicle manufacturers subsequently submitted additional information in support of your organizations request. They focused on the work that will be needed for some vehicle models to meet FMVSS No. 104s requirement that windshield wiping systems wipe at least 94% of "Area B".

One manufacturer indicated that, taking account of the agencys May 6, 2003 interpretation letter, seven of its vehicles will not meet the 94% requirement. The other manufacturer indicated that five of its vehicles will be below 94% (but at or above 93.2%) for the wiped Area B. That manufacturer stated that it is not easy to increase the 93.2% area because the wiped areas have already been optimized to maximize the wiped surfaces. Even the small increases required to bring the wiped Area B to meet 94% cannot be done with simple changes in the wiper system. The manufacturer stated that some vehicles will require a complete redesign of the wiper geometry, including changes to the sheet metal stampings. Such changes are normally only done when a complete redesign of a model is scheduled because changes to the stamping tools are always expensive.

After carefully considering your request and the additional information provided by the two manufacturers, and to minimize the costs of compliance, we agree to provide the requested additional time. While we believe the original date of September 1, 2005 was sufficient to enable manufacturers to make simple changes in wiper systems, we are persuaded that more significant design changes will be needed for a number of vehicles. Therefore, we will begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003 interpretation letter beginning with motor vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2007.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.1/7/05

ID: 05-002791drn

Cesar H. Cozzi Gainza, Esq.
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores
Comercio Internatcional y Culto
Direccion General de Asuntos Jurisdicos
Esmeralda 1212. 4 piso (1007)
Buenos Aires, Argentina

RE: "Miranda Guillermo Jorge y otros c/Centro Naval y otros s/daos y perjuicios" (expte. No. 13.445/02)

Dear Seor Gainza:

This responds to your request for our legal opinion concerning any United States "safety standard or legal, ruling or administrative provisions in force to compel the manufacturers and/or importers of automobiles with manual transmission to include a mechanism to block the ignition and thus avoid accidents".It is our understanding that that there is civil lawsuit before your court resulting from a car crash which is described as follows:

In Olivos, Province of Buenos Aires, on January first, two thousand, when the automobile of the Plaintiff, occupied by a minor child and a dog fell into the River Plate.The Plaintiff states that the cause of the casualty was due to the fact that the vehicle has no ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear, because the automobile which was involved in the accident was activated when the minor child started the ignition while the vehicle was in gear.The Defendant states that it is not compulsory to provide vehicles with said systems, and the lack thereof implies no design error.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs), which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into, the United States of America.(See Title 49 of the United States Code Section 30112.)NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

There is nothing in the FMVSSs that require new motor vehicles with manual transmissions to have an "ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear".The FMVSS most relevant to your case is FMVSS No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, which specifies requirements for the transmission shift lever sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, starter engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 kilometers per hour. FMVSS No. 102 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. A copy of FMVSS No. 102 is enclosed for your information.

FMVSS No. 102 has only the following requirement for motor vehicles with manual transmissions:

S3.2 Manual transmissions.Identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, except three forward speed manual transmissions having the standard "H" pattern, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the drivers seating position.

As you can see, S3.2 does not require new motor vehicles with manual transmissions to have an "ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear."

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

Enclosure

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure

ref:102#VSA
d.6/23/05

ID: 10906

Mr. Ron Hooker
Missouri Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 630
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0630

Dear Mr. Hooker:

This responds to your question about whether the 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

ref:VSA d:6/8/95

ID: 06-003795as

ID: 18167.ztv

Mr. Mitch L. Williams
President & CEO
Hella, Inc.
P.O. Box 2665
Peachtree City, GA 30269

Dear Mr. Williams:

I am replying to your letter of June 9, 1998, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You write about Hella's new green rear lamp assemblies that do not conform to SAE standards. These lamps are "available in several colors," and "illuminate in the normal stop, tail, and turn signal lamp colors." You would like to sell the product for "show cars" and label the lamp "For Off-road use only. Not for use on public highways. This product does not conform to any U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard." You believe that this situation is legal "assuming that no car dealer, vehicle manufacturer or repair shop installs these lamps."

You also write that "this is a standard Hella accessory product in other parts of the world" and that they meet Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) requirements. You have furnished Mr. Van Iderstine with a unit intended for installation on a Volkswagen Golf passenger car. This is a sufficient basis for us to conclude that the rear lamp assemblies that meet ECE passenger car requirements are intended as replacement equipment for original equipment rear lamp assemblies, and are "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of regulation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Under the laws that we administer, it is illegal to import into the United States motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We note that a statement indicating that the lamps "are not for use on public highways" is not sufficient to exclude them from the standard's applicability if they are, in fact, capable of being used as replacement lamps. The two primary exceptions provided by statute are if the equipment is intended solely for export and so labeled (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(3)) or if the equipment requires further manufacturing (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(8)). Neither of these exceptions apply here. This means that Hella may not import or sell this item of motor vehicle equipment in the United States in the replacement market until such time as Hella certifies compliance of the lamp assembly's functions with all relevant requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 . A civil penalty of up to $1,100 per violation may be imposed for violation of these requirements, up to a total of $880,000 for any related series of violations.

Under the third exception, noncomplying motor vehicle equipment may be temporarily imported for purposes of research, investigation, demonstrations, training, or competitive racing event. (49 U.S.C. 30114). This has been implemented by 49 CFR 591.6(j). Congress recently amended Sec. 30114 to allow importation of nonconforming vehicles and equipment for show and display as well. We are in the process of amending Sec. 591(6)(j) to reflect the amendment.

Under the amendment, Hella, with NHTSA' permission ( Sec. 591.6(j)(2)) might be permitted to import some vehicles with green taillamps for show or display, even though sale of the vehicle or the lamps is not permitted. We would be disinclined to permit importation of the lamps alone since they are shown or displayed to best advantage only when they are installed on motor vehicles.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/17/98
ref:591

ID: 193761-2.pja

The Honorable Bob Graham
Member, United States Senate
2252 Killearn Center Boulevard, Third Floor
Tallahassee, FL 32308

Re: Mr. Gary Issod

Dear Senator Graham:

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

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

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

We do not regulate or limit owners tinting their vehicle windows, although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than that allowed by Standard No. 205 for new vehicles. Moreover,

NHTSA does not regulate the use of vehicles. Instead, the operation or use of vehicles is under the jurisdiction of the States.

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

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

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

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

ID: 1651y

Mr. Wendell D. Kegg
Tire/Wheel Consultants
12190 Hoover Avenue, OH 44685

Dear Mr. Kegg:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. You were uncertain about section S4.3.1's requirements related to the inflation pressure for spare tires specified on vehicle placards. You asked whether a vehicle manufacturer can specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on the tire's sidewall.

As you know, FMVSS 110 sets forth requirements related to vehicle placards in passenger cars. Section S4.3 requires that the placard be "permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location" and display the vehicle capacity weight; the designated seating capacity; the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure for maximum loaded weight and, subject to the limitations of S4.3.1, for any other manufacturer-specified vehicle loading condition; and the vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation. FMVSS 110 does not have any provision requiring the inclusion of information on the placard related to spare tires or air pressure related to spare tires. Accordingly, a passenger car manufacturer may, but is not required to, specify information related to spare tires on the placard.

In response to your question whether a passenger car manufacturer can specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on the spare tire's sidewall, section S4.3.1 of FMVSS 110 states that the vehicle placard must not specify an "inflation pressure other than the maximum permissible inflation pressure" required to be molded on the tire itself by section S4.3 of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, unless the alternative inflation pressure satisfies the three conditions set forth in S4.3.1. The first condition requires that the alternative inflation pressure be less than the maximum permissible inflation pressure. The second condition requires that the vehicle loading condition be specified for the alternative reduced pressure. The third condition requires that the tire load rating be specified by an individual manufacturer for the tire size at that inflation pressure that is not less than the vehicle load on the tire for that vehicle loading condition. Accordingly, a vehicle manufacturer could not specify on its placard an inflation pressure that exceeds the maximum permissible inflation pressure.

I am enclosing a December 13, 1984 letter to Mr. Alberto Negro of Fiat, which explains the agency's position concerning a manufacturer's specification on the placard of an inflation pressure that exceeds the maximum inflation pressure molded on the tire. As that letter indicates, a manufacturer would have to meet each of the conditions specified in section S4.3.1, including that the alternative inflation pressure must be less than the maximum permissible inflation pressure. Because spare tires are subject to these requirements like any other pneumatic tire, a vehicle manufacturer could not specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on that tire.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:109#110 d:l/l8/89

ID: 1982-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the identification requirements of FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether it is permissible for a manufacturer to identify a certain manual control with the symbol specified by the European Economic Community (EEC) for the cold start control. According to your letter, the control resets injection timing and actuates cylinder warming.

By way of background information, the agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The Vehicle Safety Act requires that each manufacturer assure that its products are in compliance with all applicable standards. The following only represents the agency's opinion based on the specific facts provided in your letter.

The answer to your question is yes, since Standard No. 101 does not include any identification requirements applicable to that specific type of control.

Section S5 of Standard No. 101 requires each passenger car manufactured with any control listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table I to meet the requirements of the standard for the location, identification and illumination of such control.

Neither section S5.1 nor column 1 of Table I list or include a single control which operates the two functions noted above.

Since Standard No. 101 does not include any identification requirements applicable to that type of control, identification is at the discretion of the manufacturer. It is therefore permissible, under that standard, to identify that type of control with the symbol specified by the EEC.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS OF AMERICA, INC.

May 27, 1982

Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

One of our member companies would like an interpretation of FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays, as it applies to a specific design.

This passenger car is equipped with a diesel engine but the cold-starting control is not an automatic device linked to the ignition switch as are many designs. This particular model uses a manual control which resets injection timing and actuates cylinder warning.

European authorities require that the cold-start control symbol (Figure 19 of EEC Directive 78/316) be used to identify this control for those vehicles sold in Europe. Is it permissible for this symbol to be used for vehicles sold in the United States?

FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays, calls for any control item which is listed in Table I of the standard to be identified as shown in that Table. The diesel cold start control is not listed in Table I; the only similar controls required to be labeled are an engine choke and hand throttle, neither of which pertain to this device.

Does this mean that this device is not required to be identified by words and that the symbol control identification may be used on U.S. cars? If this is the case, the manufacturer will be able to commonize controls with European models and save unnecessary expense.

Bruce Henderson