ID: 12008.WKM

Mr. Guy Fuoco
Vice President, MJF Corporation
5001 North Odell
Harwood Heights, IL 60656

Dear Mr. Fuoco:

This responds to your May 25, 1996, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you request NHTSA's endorsement of your product. You have developed an aftermarket reflector which is designed to be installed in the tread grooves of most automobile and truck tires.

NHTSA cannot endorse your product as you request. This agency is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. Therefore, NHTSA does not certify, endorse, approve, or give assurances of compliance of any vehicle or item of vehicle equipment.

You indicate that your reflector is an aftermarket item, but did not say whether it can be installed by the vehicle owner or whether it must be professionally installed. Section 30122 of Title 49, U.S. Code provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in accordance with a safety standard. This provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on a vehicle or item of equipment by the vehicle owner.

This agency has issued three standards that establish requirements for tires and lighting equipment for motor vehicles. If your reflector covered the treadwear indicators required by Standard Nos. 109, New pneumatic tires, and 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, so that the indicators could not be seen when the tread depth became worn to the level of the indicators, a commercial facility installing your reflector could be subject to sanctions for violation of §30122.

Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment, requires motor vehicles to be equipped with certain specified lamps and reflectors. No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment may be installed that impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. The principal inquiry with aftermarket lighting and reflecting equipment is whether it is likely to confuse or distract other motorists from the message sent by the original equipment required by Standard No. 108, such as stop lamps and back up lamps, and in that sense, make the required lighting and reflecting equipment inoperative. Your letter doesn't indicate the color of the reflectors, but we note that they may impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment if they were other than red (for the tires on the rear) or amber (for the front tires). These are the equipment colors which, with few exceptions, are specified by Standard No. 108 for rear and front lighting and reflecting equipment.

If your product does not "make inoperative" any device or element of design on the tire or if it is installed by the vehicle owner, the product may be subject to the laws of the states in which it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on state laws and recommend that you consult the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which you intend to market your reflector.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions with respect to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers (202-366-2992) for tire questions or Taylor Vinson for questions pertaining to reflective surfaces (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

Ref:108#109#119
d:7/24/96

ID: 12054A.mls

Mr. Tom Byrne
Vice President
Goodridge (USA) Inc.
20309 Gramercy
Torrance, CA 90501

Dear Mr. Byrne:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the whip test requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, "Brake Hoses."

You ask about Table II of S6.3.2, which specifies the amount of "slack" that should be introduced when mounting brake hose assemblies on the whip test apparatus. The amount of the hose indicated as slack in Table II is the difference between the projected length of the hose assembly when mounted in the whip test machine, and the free length of the hose while maintained in a straight position. Slack must be present in the hose when mounted on the whip test machine to enable the proper "whipping" movement of a brake hose assembly. Without such slack, some assemblies would be incapable of withstanding any rotation of the moveable header of the whip test apparatus described in Standard No. 106 without rupturing.

Table II specifies the amount of slack for some sizes of assemblies, and not for others. The table specifies the amount of slack for assemblies having "free length between end fittings" of between 8 inches to 24 inches, inclusive. You ask whether brake hoses that are either shorter than 8 inches or longer than 24 inches have to comply with the whip resistance test in section S6.3. The answer is no.

The agency addressed this question in a December 9, 1988 interpretation to Volvo Cars, stating, with regard to assemblies with a hose free length of a size other than 8 to 24 inches:

With regard to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Standard No. 106 compliance testing, . . .[d]ue to the absence of the slack specification, NHTSA does not require the testing of such assemblies to the whip resistance requirements of the standard. . . . With regard to your certification that the brake hose assemblies you manufacture comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 106, you are correct that hydraulic brake hose assemblies of the size you describe are not subject to the whip resistance requirements. However, the agency urges manufacturers to ensure that these assemblies perform in a safe manner while subject to environmental conditions of vehicle operations which may result in flexing of the brake hose or brake hose assembly.

You believe that safety would be best served if all brake hose assemblies had to comply with the whip resistance requirement. You are particularly concerned with the safety of assemblies that have free lengths in excess of 24 inches, because these longer assemblies "are subject to operating conditions more similar to those represented by the whip test." NHTSA would welcome any test data or information that you can provide showing a need to amend S6.3.2 to specify testing of assemblies in excess of 24 inches. Upon receipt of such additional information, NHTSA will consider initiating a rulemaking to amend Standard No. 106

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:106

d:8/5/96

ID: 19664.ztv

Mr. Ron Dawson
4224 Quince Road
Portsmouth, VA 23703

Dear Mr. Dawson:

This is in reply to your e-mail of March 3, 1999, telling us that you are preparing a business plan to produce a new kit car. You have asked about our policy regarding kit car manufacturing, and, specifically, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to a kit car manufacturer.

Under your plan, you would sell "all necessary parts required to formulate an automobile except for engine and gear box." These parts would be new. You would sell the kit of parts "in any stage of assembly from a box of unassembled parts to a completely assembled automobile minus engine and gearbox." The purchaser of the kit would provide "a previously owned or used engine and gearbox." The purchaser would assemble, or complete assembly of, the vehicle. The vehicle would be for personal use, on public roads, and not for resale.

We have no regulations that apply per se to the manufacture of kit cars. However, a seller of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the statutory requirement that the equipment item must conform to all applicable FMVSS, if any are in effect that cover the equipment item. We find that, generally, equipment manufactured in the United States is certified by its manufacturer as conforming to applicable FMVSS. The items of passenger car motor vehicle equipment that are the subject of specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards are brake hoses (FMVSS No. 106), items of lighting equipment (FMVSS No. 108), pneumatic tires (FMVSS No. 109), brake fluids (FMVSS No. 116), non-pneumatic temporary spare tires (FMVSS No. 129), glazing materials (FMVSS No. 205), and seat belt assemblies (FMVSS No. 209).

This equipment is required to be marked with a DOT symbol as a certification of compliance (alternatively, the containers of lighting equipment other than headlamps may bear a certification statement). Therefore, you may rely upon this certification, unless NHTSA or the manufacturer has determined that a noncompliance exists.

We have encountered compliance problems from time to time with equipment manufactured outside the United States, particularly lighting equipment. Were you to import noncomplying equipment for a kit, we would regard you as the manufacturer of the equipment and responsible for notifying purchasers and remedying the noncompliance through repurchase of the equipment, or replacing it with a complying item, at no expense to the owner, even if the equipment were certified. You would also be liable for civil penalties for importing and selling noncomplying equipment if it is not certified. If the noncomplying equipment is certified, you would not be liable for a penalty unless you actually knew the equipment was noncompliant.

You may assemble the vehicle up to the point of installation of its power train without becoming its manufacturer. However, if you decided to furnish an engine and transmission with the kit, we would consider you the manufacturer and responsible for the vehicle's noncompliance with all applicable FMVSS, and certifying compliance, even though the vehicle would be assembled by another person. In the situation you describe, in which you do not furnish the engine and transmission, the person installing the engine and transmission, whether the kit purchaser or a commercial entity such as a repair facility, would be regarded as the manufacturer of the vehicle, and responsible for its compliance with the FMVSS. The fact that the kit car may be equipped with a used transmission and engine is not sufficient to relieve it of the legal necessity to comply with all FMVSS that apply to motor vehicles manufactured from all new parts.

Of course, the kit car must meet all State and local requirements in order to be registered and operated.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.3/29/99

ID: 11497AWKM

Mr. Kenneth W. Obrycki
2433 Arlington Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15209

Dear Mr. Obrycki:

This responds to your January 16, 1996 letter to this agency suggesting that tire safety would be improved if we were to require a yellow line approximately 1/4 of an inch wide across the width of tires at the 3/32 of an inch tread depth level. You stated that such a requirement could enable consumers to tell when tires are unsafe and could enable state police and inspection stations to readily observe dangerous tread levels. You believe that this would enhance passenger safety because worn tires would be replaced sooner.

We have carefully reviewed your letter, but do not agree that the requirement you suggest is warranted at this time. Our decision is explained below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among other things, such standards must be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which they are prescribed. Once a vehicle or item of equipment is sold to the consumer, NHTSA's authority generally terminates and with certain exceptions, use of that vehicle or item of equipment then becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSSs and related regulations applicable to tires, the pertinent ones here being FMVSS Nos. 109, New pneumatic tires, and 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. Both standards require that all tires have treadwear indicators molded into the tread at the 2/32 of an inch tread depth level. This level was selected by NHTSA based on early studies that showed that when tread is worn to 2/32 of an inch, a tire rapidly loses its traction characteristics, thereby becoming unsafe. Although states, not NHTSA, have the authority to enforce tire removal when the tread depth becomes worn below a certain level, the agency has issued vehicle in use inspection standards at 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 570, for states to use as a guide in establishing their own vehicle inspection requirements.

You stated in your letter that Pennsylvania, and perhaps other states, has established minimum tread depth requirements at 3/32 of an inch. The state has the authority to do that, since it has jurisdiction over the use of vehicles and equipment. NHTSA has retained the 2/32 of an inch requirement for tread depth indicators, however, and recently denied a petition to raise the tread depth indicators to 3/32 of an inch because there was no proven safety need to do so. A copy of the denial notice is enclosed.

Although NHTSA has the authority to require a yellow line across the tire to highlight the tread depth indicators, the agency has no data suggesting a safety need for such action. The tread depth indicators currently required, even though unobtrusive from a distance, have been shown to be effective in alerting motorists, inspection stations, and law enforcement personnel to unsafe tire wear. Accordingly, without further data showing a safety need to do so, NHTSA does not believe that requiring yellow tread wear markings in addition to those already required would be reasonable at this time.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:109#119 ref:2/22/96

ID: 11519DRN

Mr. Michael E. Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1350 New York Avenue, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005-4797

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This responds to your letter asking three questions about NHTSA's March 14, 1995 final rule (60 FR 13639) converting English measurements in selected Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the metric system.

Your letter indicates that you believe that the March 1994 final rule's changes apply to all the standards and to Part 567, Certification. This impression is not correct. The final rule applies only to the standards specified in the final rule, not to all of NHTSA's regulations. In the future, NHTSA will undertake rulemaking to complete metrication of the standards and will provide guidance for metric conversion of the remaining standards at that time.

Your first question was: "Does this final rule in any way result in a requirement that the part 567 label have dual metric English measurements? Do current regulations allow dual measurements even if they are not yet required?"

Our answer is that the March 1995 final rule made no changes to Part 567 and dual measurements are not required on the label. If metrication is not specified for a particular safety standard or other NHTSA regulation, the manufacturer may voluntarily provide metric measurements. However, when a final rule specifying metric measurements for a NHTSA regulation is promulgated, measurements (metric or English) for that regulation must be provided in accordance with the final rule.

Your second question was: "Does the final rule require that metric measurements be listed first with the corresponding English measurement listed second?"

For the standards that were amended in the final rule, i.e., Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims; Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars; and Standard No. 126, Truck-camper loading, the metric measurements must be listed first. The requirement does not apply to other standards.

Your third question was: "What metric and English abbreviations are acceptable to NHTSA? Should the abbreviations be in the plural or singular form? Should any acceptable abbreviations be in all capital letters?" You ask about conversions made by the rule in Standard No. 126, and abbreviations used in Standard No. 120's ATruck Example@ label.

The conversions (and abbreviations) made in Standards Nos. 126 and 120 apply only to the respective standards and are not generally applicable to all the standards. In the March 1995 final rule, NHTSA made the following comment concerning Standard No. 126:

[T]here should be no ambiguity in the metric units of measurement on labels that provide safety information to consumers. If unfamiliar terms are spelled out instead of abbreviated, there is less ambiguity and confusion. Thus, NHTSA is ... specifying the units of measurement as "Liters" and "cubic meters," as proposed, rather than the abbreviations "L" and "M3." (See 60 FR at 13644).

The required use of "liters" and "cubic meters" applies only to Standard No. 126 and is not applicable to other standards.

As for the Truck Example label in S5.3 of Standard No. 120, the words "kilograms" and "pounds" should be spelled out, whereas AkiloPascals@ is abbreviated as "kPa" and Aper square inch@ is abbreviated as "psi." This requirement applies only to the Standard No. 120 label and is not applicable to other standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Harley Holt Director, Automotive Standards Recreation Vehicle Industry Association 1896 Preston White Drive Reston, VA 22090 ref:571 d:3/13/96

ID: 1985-02.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R. David Hawkins

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. David Hawkins Laboratory Technician Failure Analysis Associates 10899 Kinghyrst, Suite 245 Houston, Texas 77099

Dear Mr. Hawkins:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. You asked whether buses are excluded from the requirements of section S4.2, section S4.3, and/or the static testing procedures of section S5. You also asked whether there are any other standards which provide criteria for the testing of seating systems on buses.

Section S2 of Standard No. 207 provides that the standard applies to buses (among other vehicle types). Section S4.2, General performance requirements, provides that "(w)hen tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand" specified forces. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.2. However, the driver's seat on a bus is not excluded from the requirements of that section. The testing procedures of section S5 are only relevant to seats which are subject to the general performance requirements of section S4.2.

Similarly, section S4.5, Restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs, provides that "(e)except for a passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants, a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall" meet specified requirements. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.3. Assuming that a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back were provided for the driver, it would not be excluded from the requirements of that section unless it had a back that was adjustable only for the comfort of its occupant.

With respect to your last question, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, specifies criteria for the testing of school bus passenger seats. That standard is not applicable to buses other than school buses. The agency does not have any other standards which provide criteria for testing seating systems of buses.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Failure Analysis Associates

March 6, 1985 Mr. Steve Wood Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Our File No. HS30089

Dear Mr. Wood:

In regard to our recent phone conversation, I am sending this following list of questions pertaining to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207. This standard deals specifically with seating systems--passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. The purpose and scope of this standard is to "establish requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation to minimize the possibility of failure by forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact".

1. Am I correct in assuming that buses are excluded from: the general performance requirements (S4.2), restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs (S4.3), and also excluded from the static testing procedures outlined in (S5)?

2. If buses are indeed excluded from all of the above, are there any other standards which provide criteria for the testing (visual, static, or dynamic) of seating systems on buses?

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, R. David Hawkins Laboratory Technician RDH:cdk

ID: nht87-1.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: George Ziolo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. George Ziolo 16182 Arena Drive Ramona, CA 92005

Dear Mr. Ziolo:

This letter responds to your inquiry concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111. I apologize for the delay. As I understand your question, you are concerned with a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror apparently does not meet the fiel d-of-view specifications in S5.1 of FMVSS 111 and therefore that must have an outside passenger side mirror in order to comply with the standard. You wish to know whether the need to inscribe the convex mirror in accordance with S5.4.2 is eliminated when the passenger side of the car has both a complying mirror of unit magnification and a convex mirror.

Please understand that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that its vehicle or equipment complies with applicable standards. Therefore, this letter is an opinion based on the facts you provide in your letter.

The answer to your question is "yes." The passenger side of a new car would need an outside convex mirror inscribed in accordance with S5.4.2 only if its inside rearview mirror failed to meet the S5.1.1 field of view specifications, and the manufacturer chose to comply with the requirement of S5.3 for an outside passenger side mirror by installing a convex passenger-side mirror rather than a unit magnification passenger-side mirror. S5.4 provides that the requirements in S5.4.1 - S5.4.3 are applicable t o a convex mirror only if that mirror is used to comply with S5.3. In your example, a mirror of unit magnification is used to comply with S5.3. I should add that the manufacturer would have to ensure that installing the convex mirror does not take the mi rror of unit magnification out of compliance with FMVSS 111.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

GEORGE ZIOLO 16182 ARENA DRIVE RAMONA, CA 92065 619-789-9792

Office of the Chief Counsel US DOT/NHTSA 400 7th St SW Washington, DC 20590

Subj: FMVSS 111

A convex mirror installed in accordance with (IAW) S5.3 must meet S5.4.2 (inscription)

Mirrors installed IAW S6 must meet S6.1(a) or (b); the latter makes no mention of a convex mirror.

I have observed that vehicles falling into the category specified in S6 are sold with mirrors meeting S6.1.(b). However, in addition to mirrors of unit maginification, convex mirrors are also installed but they do not bear the inscription mentioned in S5 .4.2 (bear no inscription).

It therefore appears to me that when a mirror of unit magnification is supplemented by a convex mirror, the latter need not meet the inscription requirement of S5.4.2.

The question therefore arises whether the above would as well apply to vehicles falling into the category of S5 - passenger cars. That is to say, is the need for the inscription (S5.4.2) eliminated when there is installed a mirror of unit magnification in addition to a convex mirror.

Please advise me of your opinion in this matter.

Sincerely,

GEORGE ZIOLO DOT Paperwork Processor

ID: nht90-3.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: HANNO WESTERMANN--HELLA KG HUECK & CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-6-87 TO DR. BURGETT FROM HANNS-OUTFRIED WETERMANN; ALSO ATTACHED TO GRAPHS (INFORMATION OMITTED)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett of this agency with respect to "multi bulb devices", specifically "how the requirements for one-, two-, or three compartment lamps (lighted sections) as it is documented in FMVSS No. 108, Figure 1b have to b e interpreted. . . ." You have asked this question because "Hella would like to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices which have--opposite to conventional lamps--a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb." Your question assumes that Standard No. 108 is to be interpreted in a manner that equates the number of lighted sections with the number of bulbs providing the light. Finally, you have stated that the total area of the lamp is not larger than current one-co mpartment lamps.

We regret the delay in responding to your letter, but we have recently completed rulemaking, begun in September 1988, which is relevant to your question. On May 15, 1990, an amendment to Standard No. 108 was published, effective December 1, 1990, the ef fect of which is to restrict Figure lb to replacement equipment. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information.

Your question relates to "signalling devices" for new motor vehicles, and Figure lb shows that, specifically, you refer to turn signal lamps. Beginning December 1, 1990, Standard No. 108 will specify two different standards for turn signal lamps. If the lamp is intended for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, it must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J1395 APR85 "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width." SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps may be used on vehicles less than this width, except for passenger cars. If a motor vehicle is not equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE J1395, it must be equipped with a t urn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE Standard J588 NOV84 "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width."

In the May 1990 amendments, section S3 of Standard No. 108 was amended to add a definition for "Multiple Compartment Lamp". such a lamp is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens." The multiple bulb device that you described appears to meet this definition.

SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. New section S5. 1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamp on vehicles to which SAE J1395

applies are to made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

However, SAE J588 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three "lighted sections". Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

ID: nht90-4.57

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 9, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: W.C. Glasscock -- Sun-Cool & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from W.C. Glasscock (OCC 5237)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows. According to your letter, you have been involved in the window tinting business for many years but only recently became aware of the fact that Fede ral law prohibits businesses from adding tinting film to motor vehicle windows if it reduces the level of light transmittance below that required by the Federal standard. You expressed concern that there appears to be a conflict between Federal and stat e law in this area and that there has been a lack of enforcement of the Federal requirement.

We are pleased that you have become aware of the Federal requirement in this area and that you are apparently now complying with it. As you may have heard, we have brought suit against six tint businesses in Florida. Those cases are pending in Federal c ourt. We also plan to take appropriate steps to enforce the Federal requirement in other parts of the nation.

I will now discuss the relationship between Federal and state law in this area. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish requirements for specific level s of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 per cent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not "render inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in complianc e with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows "inoperati ve, within the meaning of Standard 205.

You stated that state laws differ from the Federal law, citing as an example an Illinois law which, according to your letter, allows tinting on the rear and sides of vehicles as long as the vehicle's owner has a letter

from a physician licensed to practice in the state of Illinois that explains the medical basis for the need.

The "render inoperative" provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which after market tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

However, no state has the authority to grant any exemptions from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of state law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor ve hicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: 23498.ztv

Harry Zembillas, Esq.
Gasparis & Zembilla
301 South Main Street
Crown Point, IN 46307





Dear Mr. Zembillas:

This is in reply to your email of July 27, 2001. You have installed aftermarket all-clear taillamps on your 1995 Nissan Maxima, and report that you have been informed by a traffic officer that the lamps are illegal. You cite two Indiana statutes and state that "any help would be greatly appreciated."

You described the original rear lamps on your car as follows: "yellow plastic on the top outer edge, red plastic on the bottom outer edge, white/clear on the upper trunk lens, and red plastic on the bottom trunk lens." You informed us that you have now "installed clear outer lenses with amber bulbs on the top outer half and red bulbs on the bottom outer half." As you informed us, the lenses you bought are shown at www.autodynamic.com as replacements for original equipment on 1995-97 Nissan Maxima passenger cars, and we have downloaded a photo of the lamps you bought (see enclosed photo).

Under Federal law, lighting equipment on motor vehicles must be designed to comply with 49 CFR 571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The manufacturer of each vehicle must certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108. The original rear lighting configuration of the 1995 Maxima consisted of a combination lamp mounted on the body, with a red and amber lens, and a backup lamp and a second red-lensed lamp (or reflex reflector) mounted on the deck lid. The original body-mounted rear lamps on your car incorporated amber and red lenses to provide the amber and red colors required by Standard No. 108 to provide turn signal and stop/taillight functions. They may also have incorporated red reflex reflectors to comply with additional requirements of Standard No. 108 that a vehicle be equipped with red rear and rear side red reflex reflectors (see enclosed photo).

Paragraph S5.8.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that "each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which [Standard No. 108] applies shall be designed to conform to this standard." This means that a replacement item must be designed to conform to the same standard to which the vehicle manufacturer certified compliance with the original equipment installed. The manufacturer of your Nissan designed its rear body-mounted lamp with a lens incorporating red reflex reflectors, a red lens, and an amber lens. You have replaced this with a lamp that is white instead of amber and red, and which does not incorporate red reflex reflectors. Therefore, the lamp fails to meet the requirement of S5.8.1 that replacement equipment be designed to conform to Standard No. 108. The sale of such a lamp or its installation by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business is prohibited by Federal law, and several importers are currently recalling these types of lamps. However, whether it is legal to use a noncomplying item of replacement equipment such as this lamp is not a matter of Federal law but of State law, that is to say, the statutes of Indiana. I am sorry, but we do not provide interpretations of State laws.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.3/1/02