ID: nht87-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John B. Walsh -- Corporate Attorney, Manager, Legal Affairs Dept., U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/21/84 letter from Frank Berndt to U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. (Std. 108)

TEXT:

John B. Walsh, Esq. Corporate Attorney Manager, Legal Affairs Dept. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. P.O. Box 1100 Brea, CA 92621

This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1986, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You cite Table IV's requirement that the minimum edge to edge distance from a motorcycle's front turn signal to the headlamp be a minimum of inches. Referring to a similar requirement for rear lamp spacing and previous agency interpretations stating that this applies only when there are single rear lamps mounted on the vertical centerline, but not when dual stop and tail lamps are mounted on either side of the centerline, you have asked for an interpretation that an exception from the minimum turn signa l spacing requirement is also permissible when a motorcycle has two headlamps rather than one.

We are unable to provide the requested interpretation because of SAE J588e, September 1970. SAE J588e is incorporated by Standard No. 108 and applies to turn signal lamps in use on passenger cars, motorcycles, and all other motor vehicles. Paragraph 4.2 of SAE J588e establishes the requirement that "the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." This requirement applies reg ardless of the number or location of motor vehicle headlamps. SAE J588e did not prevent the issuance of the earlier interpretations regarding rear lamp spacing since that SAE standard does not establish requirements for minimum separation between turn si gnals and rear lamps.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

15 August 1986

Mr. Taylor Vinson Room 5219 Office of Chief Counsel. NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Subject: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

On November 21, 1984, the Chief Counsel confirmed a 1972 agency interpretation of FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (copy of 1972 interpretation, 1984 request, and your office's 1984 response enclosed). The 1972 interpretatio n was for a motorcycle rear lighting configuration. This letter is to request confirmation that the July 1972 interpretation of FMVSS 108 could apply to a motorcycle front lighting configuration as well as the addressed rear lighting configuration.

Table IV of FMVSS 108 required that motorcycle front turn signals be separated by 16 inches or more (centerline to centerline). and that minimum edge to edge distance from the turn signal to the headlamp be 4 inches or more.

We are exploring the possibility of using a front lighting configuration essentially comparable to current practice in passenger car front lighting configurations. This proposed front lighting configuration would consist of a single lamp unit located nea r the outer edge of each side of the front of the motorcycle. The inboard part of the lamp unit would be the headlamp and the outboard part of the lamp unit would be an amber turn signal lamp. Turn signal lamp separation would be equal to or greater than the 16 inch minimum required (see sketch attached).

We would like you to confirm, as in the 1972 and 1984 interpretations, that the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between turn signals and headlamp applies when single headlamps are installed on the vertical centerline, but not when du el headlamps are installed on either side of the centerline.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.

(See 11/21/84 correspondence between Frank Berndt and Suzuki)

ID: nht87-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/15/87 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHRISTINE COTTLE -- OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR, CLASSIC AUTO ACCESSORIES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-30-87, FROM CHRISTINE COTTLE, TO ERIKA JONES-NHTSA

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry of June 30, 1987, where you ask for information "regarding any federal regulation that may apply to or restrict the use of items which might be suspended from the centered rear view mirror in an automobile or truck." In your letter, you refer specifically to "decorations" such as hanging dice and air fresheners, and express your company's wish "to avoid liability for any obstruction of vision which might occur as the result of the use of such items." Your letter does not say whether you manufacture the kinds of products you list, or install these kinds of products in motor vehicles.

First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment, n or does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applic able standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

A product would fall under our agency's jurisdiction if it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in @102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(4) defines "motor vehicle equipment" in relevant part as follows:

. . . any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor v ehicle . . . (Emphasis added.)

In determining whether an item of equipment is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordi nary users of motor vehicles. The kinds of products you list do not fall within this framework, and therefore NHTSA does not regard them as items of motor vehicle equipment subject to our regulations.

There is one section of the Safety Act that I would call to your attention. Among other things, @108 (a)(2)(A) of the Act states that:

"No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a n applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..."

If your company is among the persons or performs the kinds of operations in @ 108 (a) (2) (A), then it may not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment or designs installed in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standar d. For example, you could not install any item in a motor vehicle that would render inoperative Standard 111 (Rearview Mirrors) "field-of-view" specifications. (I enclose a copy of that Standard.)

However, @108 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to vehicle owners. Therefore, owners may install items in their own cars, even if doing so involves removal, disconnection or degradation of safety equipment or designs, without violating @ 108 (a) (2) (A). Furt her, neither the manufacture of such items nor their sale to vehicle owners violates that prohibition.

Please note that a violation of @108 or of any regulation issued under it is punishable by a civil fine of up to $ 1000 per violation, subject to a maximum fine of $ 800,000 for a related series of violations.

Finally, you may wish to consult the laws of the various States to determine whether there are any limitations in their laws on the hanging of objects from inside rearview mirrors.

I hope you find this information helpful. ENCLOSURE

ID: nht76-1.31

DATE: 04/28/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregroy; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Vance Hartke - U.S. Senate

COPYEE: BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY; FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 30, 1976, enclosing a letter from Mr. Dennis Oser concerning the effective date of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

Standard No. 119 became effective March 1, 1975, and applies to non-passenger-car tires manufactured on and after that date. From his reference to "April 1, 1976", Mr. Oser appears to be concerned with the effective dates of 49 CFR 393.75, a regulation issued by the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS). That regulation addresses the type of tires with which motor vehicles in use in interstate commerce must be equipped. Accordingly, I have forwarded your letter to the BMCS for further reply.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

United States Senate

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

March 30, 1976

James Gregory, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

I am enclosing for your review a letter that I have received from Mr. M. Dennis Oser. Mr. Oser inquired as to whether it would be feasible to amend MVSS 119 so that it will apply to new tires only as they are purchased rather than as a it now applies to all tires being used on April 1, 1976. Would you please review Mr. Oser's letter and provide me with your response.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely yours,

VANCE HARTKE, Chairman -- Surface Transportation Subcommittee

Enclosure

February 19, 1976

The Honorable Vance Hartke United States Senate

My dear Senator Hartke:

Enclosed, please find copies of letters concerning subjects of importance to this company and the trucking industry.

Any help you can give by lending your support will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

OSER LEASING COMPANY, INC.;

M. Dennis Oser -- Vice President General Manager

Enclosures

February 19, 1976

Bureau of Motor Carriers Safety -- Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

RE: MVSS119

Please consider changing the subject standard so that it will apply to new tires only as they are purchased rather than as it now applies to all tires being used on April 1, 1976, regardless of date of purchase. The following two reasons appear to be the only applicable facts in this situation:

1. Safety will not be compromised by making the requested change.

2. There will be no adverse economic impact on the industry or this company if the requested change is made.

Sincerely,

OSER LEASING COMPANY, INC.;

M. Dennis Oser -- Vice President General Manager

February 19, 1976

The Honorable Lionel Van Doerlin -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance, House of Representatives

Dear Representative Van Doerlin:

Within your jurisdiction as an oversight committee for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, please accept the enclosed copy of a letter to the Bureau of Motor Carriers Safety with regard to MVSS119.

Further, with regard to MVSS121, any priority your committee could assign in its oversight role to putting this standard high on its agenda could be of significant impact economically to the trucking industry. The confusion and frustration being felt throughout the operating segment of this industry is disastrous.

Yours very truly,

OSER LEASING COMPANY, INC.;

M. Dennis Oser -- Vice President General Manager

Enclosure

ID: nht88-3.65

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 7, 1988

FROM: George T. Miller -- Child Riding Inc.

TO: Erika Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Childing Riding, Inc.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-13-90 from P.J. Rice to R.J. Sullivan (A36; Std. 213); Also attached to letter dated 10-23-89 from R.J. Sullivan to D. Fujita (OCC 4098)

TEXT:

NHTSA held a public meeting in Washington on August 9, 1988. My presentation at the meeting was limited to a discussion of built-in restraints. I expressed concern that a super-technical construction of the new regulations might serve to deny the publi c access to this new technology.

After the meeting I spoke with Ms. Joan Tillman. She recognized my concern. However, she stated that it was not the intention of NHTSA to be super-technical in its interpretation of Standard 213. However, she made it clear that a formal interpretation of Standard 213 can be made only in response to written inquiry directed to your attention.

On January 22, 1988 Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 213, CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, was amended to permit installing built-in child restraint systems in passenger cars.

The stated purpose of the Agency was to amend 213 "only to the extent necessary to accommodate built-in restraints. In those instances where specifications would not accommodate built-in restraints, the Agency proposed creating a separate requirement fo r each kind of restraint" (see Fed. Reg. Vol. 53, No. 14 pg. 1783).

Accordingly, S4 of CFR 571.213 was amended in part, as follows:

(a) "Built-in child restraint system" means any child restraint system which is an integral part of a passenger car.

"Specific vehicle shell" means the actual vehicle model part intowhich the built-in child restraint system is fabricated, (Emphasis Added) including the complete surroundings of the built-in system. If the built-in child restraint system is manu factured as part of the rear seat, these surroundings, include the back of the front seat, the interior rear side door panels and trim, the rear seat, the floor pan, the B and C pillars, and the ceiling.

In addition, S7.3 of 49 CFR 571.213 was revised to read as follows:

S7.3 Standard test device.

(b) The standard test devices used in testing built-in child restraint systems under this standard are either a specific vehicle shell or a specific vehicle. (Emphasis Added).

We are prepared to test our built-in child restraint system in a specific vehicle shell or a specific vehicle.

We would expect to successfully test the built-in restraint in your standard small, medium and large size vehicles before offering it to the general public.

This approach would seem to be consistent with the stated purpose of NHTSA. This will mean that your typical young family (who may not be able to afford a new vehicle) can now avail itself of the convenience and safety offered through use of a built-in restraint.

However, we do have a major concern. If NHTSA makes a super-technical interpretation of Standard 213; then it could require that the built-in restraint be tested in each and every vehicle before the restraint could be properly used in any particular mod el. For example, using such reasoning, NHTSA could require that the manufacturer crash test a 1977 Ford before permitting a sale of the restraint to the owners of 1977 Fords.

I would appreciate it if I could have official confirmation from NHTSA that no such requirement was intended. I would also hope the NHTSA could publish some guide-lines on this problem.

Please understand that, absent such guidelines, the manufacturers of built-in restraints unnecessarily risk considerable financial exposure.

I plan to be in Washington next week and I would like to take the opportunity to show you the completed and installed prototype of our new seat.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter

ID: nht90-4.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 15, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: W. Marshall Rickert -- Motor Vehicle Administrator, Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-31-90 from W.M. Rickert to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 5076); Also attached to Maryland Vehicle Law, sections 22-103 and 104, page 320 (text omitted); Also attached to Maryland Vehicle Inspections procedures regarding m irrors and vehicle glazing, pages 227 and 228 (text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter seeking this agency's opinion as to whether the State of Maryland may amend its motor vehicle regulations to permit the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows, for individuals who may desire this for medica l reasons. I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe the legal principles that relate to your question.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that impose requirements for specific levels 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 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on pa ssenger 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.

This Federal prohibition is similar to that imposed by section 22-104 of the Maryland Vehicle Law, which provides:

A person may not willfully or intentionally remove or alter any safety device or equipment that has been placed on any motor vehicle . . . in compliance with any law, rule, regulation, or requirement of . . . the United States or of this State . . . unle ss the removal or alteration is permitted by rule or regulation adopted by the (Maryland Motor Vehicle) Administrator.

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 aftermarket tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, although section 22-104 appears to preclude aftermarket tinting by any person if the result would be to reduce the level of light transmittance below 70 percent, Maryland may amend its rules or regulations to permit such tinting by individuals, for medical or any other reasons deemed valid by the State. However, Maryland has no authority to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any p rovisions of Maryland law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

In adopting Standard 205, NHTSA determined that a minimum light transmittance of 70 percent is necessary to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. This is the same level of light transmittance contained in the Safety Code of the American National Stand ards Institute. If, as your letter suggests, Maryland is considering permitting vehicle owners to modify their vehicles such that their windows will have a lower level of light transmittance, we would urge you to carefully consider the safety consequenc es of such an exemption.

Please let me know if you need any further information on this subject.

ID: nht89-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: PAUL WALKER -- PRESIDENT SUNGUEST, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/17/89 FROM PAUL WALKER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 3157

TEXT: Dear Mr. Walker:

Thank you for your letter regarding your company's efforts to export a product to Saudi Arabia. The product in question is identified in your letter as "remote-controlled electronic automobile window shades." Your letter indicates that your company's to tal production for the next two years will be for export only. It is my understanding that your company must provide the Saudi Arabian Standards Organization with a statement from this agency that we would "have no objection to the product in the U.S. m arket" before "large quantities" of the product can be shipped into Saudi Arabia. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your request.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the United States does not use a certification process similar to that used by the European countries, in which a manufacturer delivers its products to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer of the product is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable U.S. safe ty standards. After the manufacturer has made the necessary certifications, the product may be sold to the public without any "approvals" or "endorsements" from this agency.

In the case of your window shades, NHTSA has no standard that establishes requirements for window shades as items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, your company is not required to make any certification of the window shades before offering them for sale . We do have two safety standards that might affect the installation of window shades in new vehicles. The first is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance requirements for glazing used in motor vehicles. These requirements in clude specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). The second is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, which sets forth flammabili ty

resistance performance requirements for window shades installed in new vehicles. No manufacturer or dealer could legally install any window shades, including the shade developed by your company, in a new vehicle unless the manufacturer or dealer cer tifies that the vehicle with the window shade installed complies with Standards No. 205 and 302, as well as any other applicable standards.

To enforce the requirements in our laws and regulations, we conduct spot checks of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment after they have been certified and/or sold to the public or otherwise introduced into interstate commerce. For these s pot checks, we purchase the vehicles or item of equipment and test it according to the procedures specified in the applicable safety standard. If the product passes the tests, no further steps are taken. If the product fails the tests and is determined not to comply with the applicable standards or if it is determined that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer of the product is required to remedy the problem, by repairing or replacing the product at no cost to the purchaser. Since your product has not yet been sold in the United States, NHTSA has not made any spot checks or other evaluations of your product.

With that explanation, we will state that the window shades developed by Sunquest, Inc. could legally be sold to the public in the United States and could legally be installed on new vehicles to be sold to the public in the United States, if the vehicle manufacturer certifies that the vehicle with the window shades installed complies with all applicable safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

ID: 20504.ztv

Mr. Don Thompson
Traffic Manager
Al-Jon, Inc.
14599 2^nd Avenue
Ottumwa, IA 52501-9281

Dear Mr. Thompson:

This is in reply to your letters of August 11 and August 12, 1999, regarding the Al-Jon Impact 5 Car Crusher and Al-Jon 400 Baler. Transport Canada has informed you that these vehicles are trailers, must comply with the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for trailers, and must demonstrate compliance before they can be imported into Canada.

You explained to Taylor Vinson of this Office on August 16 that, until recently, Al-Jon has had no problems exporting its car crusher and baler to Canada without the need to comply with Canadian standards. As Mr. Vinson explained to you, Canada is free to adopt whatever regulatory posture it deems appropriate regarding these vehicles, and is not bound by our views in this matter.

However, we will discuss the status of these vehicles under the laws that we administer. You state that these vehicles are "car crushers" and "balers," and not "trailers." We have no definitions for "car crushers" and "balers." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates "motor vehicles." In part, a "motor vehicle" is statutorily defined as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). A "trailer" is defined as a "motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

The type of equipment you produce is not easily categorized under our statutory definition of "motor vehicle." On the one hand, you state that your car crusher was made portable "to allow the scrap dealer to go on location" to crush discarded cars, and that the baler is also portable. Your literature also calls your car crusher "road legal." Both items of equipment therefore appear to be designed to be used on the highways, in the sense of being drawn by another vehicle while moving from site to site. On the other hand, the items of equipment perform their functions off the public roads.

Whether we would consider your equipment to be motor vehicles depends on their use. For example, we interpret our statutory definition not to 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 statute we administer, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Similarly, if your items of equipment typically spend extended periods at a job site, and only use the public roads infrequently to move between job sites, we would not consider them to be motor vehicles under our statute. We would instead consider the use of your devices on the public roads to be incidental and not their primary purpose. However, if your items of equipment used the roads more than on an incidental basis, they would be considered motor vehicles and subject to our standards that apply to trailers.

We note that our interpretation of the statutory definition of motor vehicle is partly based on judicial decisions. In the past, we interpreted the term more broadly.

Recently, Transport Canada informed us that the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Act, in pertinent part, defines "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle that is capable of being driven or drawn on roads by any means other than muscular power exclusively. . . ." This definition differs from ours in that it applies to all trailers, not just those manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. This statutory difference in definitions explains why Canada may regulate vehicles under its law that we do not regulate under our Federal motor vehicle safety law.

You may phone Taylor Vinson again if you have questions (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.11/5/99

ID: 2645o

Mr. Edgar G. Meyer
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Florida Department of Commerce
407 Fletcher Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2000

Dear Mr. Meyer:

This responds to your November 24, l987 letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to the manufacture of automobile seat cushions and seat backs. Specifically, you asked whether it would be permissible if the fabric (i.e., felt) from which the seat cushions and seat backs would be manufactured were made from "old clothes and rags." Standard No. 302 neither specifies nor prohibits any particular type of raw material used to manufacture seat backs and seat cushions. The felt must meet the flammability requirements of the standard if it is used for cushions and seat backs for new motor vehicles. Also, felt used to manufacture seat cushions and seat backs for new and used motor vehicles must contain no safety related defects.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations require manufacturers of new motor vehicles to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 302. Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used to manufacture seat cushions and seat backs on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. Thus, any person manufacturing a new vehicle with seat backs and seat cushions made from the felt material you described must ensure that the seat backs and cushions possess the burn resistance characteristics required by Standard No. 302. If the felt can meet those requirements, it may be used in new motor vehicles in satisfaction of Standard No. 302, regardless of the felt's raw materials.

The felt manufacturer should also be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act requires all vehicle and equipment manufacturers to ensure that their products contain no defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined by the manufacturer or this agency that the seat cushions and seat backs had a safety related defect, all purchasers of the vehicle containing the defective equipment would have to be notified and the defective item repaired or replaced without charge. If the felt material is used to manufacture items of motor vehicle equipment that are sold to vehicle owners for use in used vehicles (i.e., vehicles previously purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale), the felt need not meet Standard No. 302. In general, it would not violate Standard No. 302 to add aftermarket seat cushions to used vehicles, even if the addition of the seat cushions caused the vehicles to no longer comply with the standard.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section l08(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section specifies: "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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. Thus, any person in the aforementioned categories that installed a seat cushion which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating a section l08(a)(2)(A). Section l09 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $l,000 for each violation of section l08.

Again, the manufacturer of the aftermarket seat cushions would be obligated to recall and remedy cushions that are determined to contain a safety related defect, even if the cushions were installed by the vehicle owners themselves.

You asked about other Federal laws that might have a bearing on the manufacture of the felt material. You might wish to contact the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at (202) 523-8148 and the Environmental Protection Agency at (202) 475-8040 for information about the applicability of any of their statutes and regulations.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:302 d:1/1/88

ID: 2703y

Mr. W. Marshall Rickert
Motor Vehicle Administrator
Maryland Department of Transportation
6601 Ritchie Highway
Glen Burnie, MD 21062

Dear Mr. Rickert:

Thank you for your letter seeking this agency's opinion as to whether the State of Maryland may amend its motor vehicle regulations to permit the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows, for individuals who may desire this for medical reasons. I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe the legal principles that relate to your question.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that impose requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent 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 compliance 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 "inoperative" within the meaning of Standard 205.

This Federal prohibition is similar to that imposed by section 22-104 of the Maryland Vehicle Law, which provides: A person may not willfully or intentionally remove or alter any safety device or equipment that has been placed on any motor vehicle . . . in compliance with any law, rule, regulation, or requirement of . . . the United States or of this State . . . unless the removal or alteration is permitted by rule or regulation adopted by the [Maryland Motor Vehicle] Administrator.

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 aftermarket tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, although section 22-104 appears to preclude aftermarket tinting by any person if the result would be to reduce the level of light transmittance below 70 percent, Maryland may amend its rules or regulations to permit such tinting by individuals, for medical or any other reasons deemed valid by the State. However, Maryland has no authority to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of Maryland law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

In adopting Standard 205, NHTSA determined that a minimum light transmittance of 70 percent is necessary to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. This is the same level of light transmittance contained in the Safety Code of the American National Standards Institute. If, as your letter suggests, Maryland is considering permitting vehicle owners to modify their vehicles such that their windows will have a lower level of light transmittance, we would urge you to carefully consider the safety consequences of such an exemption.

Please let me know if you need any further information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:l0/l5/90

ID: gaskets

Mr. Kim Jensen
Commercial Affairs Officer
Royal Danish Consulate General
211 East Ontario #1800
Chicago, IL 60611





Dear Mr. Jensen:

This is in response to your October 19, 2000, fax requesting information on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations governing asbestos-containing gaskets in renovated engines for classic European cars. Specifically, you ask this office to confirm that the gaskets may contain asbestos.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30101, NHTSA has the authority to regulate motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7) defines "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; [or] (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the U.S., any motor vehicle equipment unless it complies with NHTSA standards. In addition, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Gaskets in renovated engines meet the definition of "motor vehicle equipment," and thus are under NHTSA's jurisdiction. To date, however, NHTSA has not promulgated any Federal motor vehicle safety standards on gaskets.

Nevertheless, other federal agencies do regulate asbestos and may maintain regulations governing the use of asbestos in gaskets. For example, the Department of Transportation's Research and Special Programs Administration classifies asbestos as a hazardous material and maintains regulations governing the shipment of asbestos-containing material (49 C.F.R. 172.101). Also, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulates asbestos as a hazardous substance and maintains rules governing occupational exposures to asbestos (29 C.F.R. 1910.1001 and 29 C.F.R. 1926.1101(g)(8)(iv), which governs the removal of gaskets containing asbestos). Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency maintains effluent standards for asbestos (40 C.F.R. 427.10, et seq.).

You should contact these agencies to determine the regulations an importer must follow before importing engines with asbestos-containing gaskets.

Because you ask about importing motor vehicle equipment, I direct your attention to 49 CFR Part 551, "Procedural Rules" (copy enclosed). Section 551.45 requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured motor vehicle equipment to designate a permanent resident of the U.S. as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under S551.45:

• A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;
• The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;
• Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;
• A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;
• A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and
• The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA
d.11/14/00