ID: 2075y

Mr. David W. Raney
Environmental Activities Manager
Saab-Scania of America, Inc.
Saab Drive
P. O. Box 697
Orange, CT 06477

Dear Mr. Raney:

Thank you for your letter requesting our interpretation of 49 CFR Parts 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, and 543, Exemption from Theft Prevention Standard. I apologize for the delay in this response.

You asked two questions. Your first question concerned the scope of the exemptions granted under Part 543. You noted that the Saab 9000 car line has been determined to be a high theft car line. Accordingly, Part 541 requires that both the original equipment and the replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 be marked with certain information. Your letter states that your company marked both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 in the 1987 and 1988 model years.

For the 1989 model year, the Saab 9000 was granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, pursuant to the provisions of Part 543. Your company understands that this exemption means that the original equipment parts on the Saab 9000 are no longer required to be marked. However, the replacement parts for the Saab 9000 that are produced in 1989 and thereafter pose a more difficult problem. On the one hand, Saab could consider these parts as replacement parts for the 1989 models, which would mean these parts are exempted from the parts marking requirement. On the other hand, these parts could also be considered as replacement parts for the 1987 and 1988 Saab 9000 line, which would mean the parts have to be marked because no exemption applies for such parts.

The answer to your question is that once a high theft line is granted a Part 543 exemption in whole from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, as the Saab 9000 was, the replacement parts for that line are also exempted from the parts marking requirements even if those parts can be used as replacement parts for the high theft line during model years for which no exemption applies. NHTSA addressed this issue in the preamble to the September 8, 1987 final rule establishing Part 543 (52 FR 33821), as follows:

Section 602(d)(2)(A) of Title VI (of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act) states that the vehicle theft prevention standard can not require 'identification of any part which is not designed as a replacement for a major part required to be identified under such standard.' (Emphasis added.) As long as a manufacturer is producing a car line under an exemption granted in whole, there is no requirement to identify major parts otherwise subject to the theft standard; therefore, NHTSA can not require marking replacement parts. 52 FR 33828.

Applying this reasoning to your company's situation, Saab was free to discontinue marking both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 as soon as the Part 543 exemption took effect, provided that Saab actually installed the antitheft device described in its petition as original equipment on 1989 Saab 9000 vehicles.

Your second question asked whether the manufacturer of a high theft car lines that has been granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements, pursuant to Part 543, may discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and resume parts marking in some future model year. We addressed this issue in detail in a May 4, 1988 letter to Ms. Deborah Bakker, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. A manufacturer of a high theft line that has received an exemption under Part 543 is required to either install the antitheft device as standard equipment on every vehicle in that line produced during a model year or to mark all original equipment and replacement major parts for that line produced during the model year. As long as Saab marked all of the original equipment and replacement parts produced in a model year for the Saab 9000, your company is free to stop installing the antitheft device on those cars.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref: Parts 541, 543 d:l0/l2/89

ID: 20867.ztv

Sig. Alessandro Rotta
USA Project
Two Wheelers Platform
Vehicle Division
Piaggio & C. S.p.A.
Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 25
56025 Pontedera (Pi)
Italy

Dear Signor Rotta:

This is in reply to your fax of November 3, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You ask for a clarification of two issues related to the possibility of your company entering the American market with its motor scooters.

You first ask whether your equipment suppliers should perform tests in accredited laboratories, and, if so, which ones. You want to ensure, "if any accident occurs because of a component failure," that Piaggio "is relieved from the consequences and the supplier of the item will be considered solely responsible." You ask for suggestions in order to avoid such troubles.

Your question relates to the responsibility of a manufacturer under both the Federal law of the United States, and the separate laws of the individual states. Under Federal law, Piaggio must ensure that its motor scooters comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and certify that the scooters meet those standards. We do not tell you how to ensure compliance and to certify. Piaggio may certify on the basis of test reports from its supplier, or it may conduct its own tests, or it may certify on a basis other than testing, such as conducting engineering or computer studies. We do not characterize laboratories as "accredited," nor do we make recommendations. However, for your information, we have used the following independent laboratories to conduct compliance testing for us, for the standards indicated. For Standard No. 108 (lighting equipment): CalCoast Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 8702, Emeryville, CA 94662-0702 and Intertek Testing Service, P.O. Box 2040, Cortland, NY 13045-2040 ; Standard No. 111 (rearview mirrors): General Testing Laboratories, Route 1 Box 310, Colonial Beach, VA 22443; Standard No. 119 (tires): Smithers Scientific Services, Box 351, Ravenna, OH 44266; Standard No. 120 (rims): Veridian Engineering, Inc., 4455 Genesee Street, Buffalo, NY 14225, and General Testing Laboratories (see address above); and Standard No. 122 (motorcycle brake systems): Carter Engineering, 1134 Beech's Tavern Trail, Franklin, TN 37064. A more complete listing of independent laboratories which are conducting (or have conducted) tests for us is on our website at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/procedures/testlabs.html.

Piaggio must also ensure that the motor scooters are free of safety related defects. In the event that a noncompliance or safety related defect is deemed to exist in its vehicles, Piaggio is required to notify us and the owners of the motor scooters, and to remedy the problem, even if the noncompliant or defective component was manufactured by one of your suppliers.

Liability for accidents is a matter to be determined under the laws of the state where the accident occurred. In the event of a crash attributable to a defective component in a Piaggio, it is possible that both Piaggio and the component supplier would face action in a state court of law, even if the supplier had certified that component as complying with a Federal regulation. In short, there is no way that Piaggio can ensure that a supplier would be "solely" liable. There may be steps that Piaggio can take to reduce its exposure to liability, but that is not a matter on which we can advise you. To consider this matter further, Piaggio should consult a lawyer in the United States whose specialty is product liability law.

Your second question relates to motorcycle headlighting. You comment that S7.9 of Standard No. 108 and SAE J584 do not require any vertical or horizontal aiming mechanism for motorcycle headlamps, but that S7.8.2 does require it for "motor vehicles." You believe that this requirement does not apply to motorcycle headlamps and ask that we confirm your interpretation. You are correct. Although S7.8.2 states that "each headlamp shall be installed on a motor vehicle with a mounting and aiming mechanism ," we do not intend this paragraph to apply to motorcycle headlighting systems. These systems are covered by S7.9 and the certification requirements of S7.2(a). Although S7.9 allows motorcycles to be equipped with one half of a headlamp system used on four-wheeled motor vehicles, the headlamps need not be manufactured with aiming mechanisms if they are intended for motorcycle use (provided that these mechanisms are on the four-wheeled vehicle when such headlamps are installed). We have never required motorcycle headlighting systems to have aiming mechanisms, and we did not intend to create such a requirement when we issued S7.8.2.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.108
d.12/6/99

ID: 2653o

Mr. J.V. McFadden
President
MTD Products Inc.
P.O. Box 36900
Cleveland, Ohio 44136

Dear Mr. McFadden:

This responds to your letter concerning the applicability of Federal or State requirements to a hydraulic logsplitter mounted on a frame carriage equipped with highway high speed wheels and a trailer towing hitch. While we can not answer your question concerning applicable State requirements, we provide the following information on the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background information, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product unless, despite the exercise of due care, the manufacturer doesn't have reason to know that the noncompliance exists.

Any vehicle that falls within the statutory definition of the term "motor vehicle" must comply with all applicable safety standards. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

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

We have interpreted this language as follows. The definition does not include equipment which uses the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spends extended periods of time at a single job site. In this case, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental, and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

On the other hand, when a vehicle frequently uses the highway going to and from job sites, and stays at the job site for only a limited time, it is the agency's position that the vehicle in question is a "motor vehicle" in the statutory sense, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental".

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a vehicle is not classified as a motor vehicle if it is of such an unusual configuration that it is easily distinguished from normal traffic and it has a top speed of not more than 20 miles per hour.

A determination of whether or not a vehicle falls within the definition of motor vehicle is based upon a consideration of all of the above factors. Given the information that you have provided us, it appears that the hydraulic log-splitter is a motor vehicle. From the picture in the brochure, it is clear that the vehicle has an unusual configuration. This alone, however, is not adequate to prevent a determination that the vehicle is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the statute. More important is the fact that the vehicle may make frequent use of the highway, staying at one particular job site a limited amount of time. The provision of highway speed tires indicates the manufacturer's intention to produce a vehicle which is suitable for driving at highway speeds.

Because the tow-behind logsplitter is equipped with a trailer tow hitch, we would consider the vehicle a trailer, defined in the agency's regulations as:

a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. (See 49 CFR 571.3.)

The safety standards which apply to all trailers are Standard No. l08, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment; Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars; and Standard No. ll5, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at Part 565. In addition, if the trailer is equipped with brakes, it must meet Standard No. l06, Brake hoses, Standard No. ll6, Motor vehicle brake fluids, and applicable requirements of Standard No. l2l, Air brake systems. All of these standards are found in 49 CFR Part 57l.

We regret the delay in responding to your request. If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:VSA#571 d:2/11/88

ID: 2667y

Mr. Robert Roden
Roden & Hayes
2015 First Avenue No., Suite 400
Birmingham, AL 35203

Dear Mr. Roden:

This responds to your questions about the requirements for key-locking systems in section S4.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). As explained below, the enclosed copy of the agency's recent final rule amending this provision may be relevant to your inquiry (55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990).

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

One such Federal safety standard is Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

Your first question asked whether section S4.2(b) requires key locking systems to prevent removal of the ignition key except when the transmission is in the "park" position. Section S4.2(b) currently requires such vehicles to have a "key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent...(b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle, or both." However, the agency has recently amended section S4.2(b) to read as follows:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

You should be aware that this amendment takes effect on September 1, 1992. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) merely requires that when the key is removed, the key-locking system must prevent steering or forward self-mobility, or both. This provision does not address the issue of the transmission's position at the time of key removal. In contrast, under the recent amendment applicable to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) requires automatic transmission vehicles to prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

Your second question asked whether a replacement key-locking system is required to comply with Standard No. 114. Because Standard No. 114 applies to new motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment, the standard does not in itself require aftermarket replacement systems to comply with its requirements. However, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard.

Your third question asked how long the key locking system is required to perform under S4.2(b) of the standard. The Vehicle Safety Act only requires manufacturers to assure that vehicles and equipment comply with applicable safety standards at the time of the first consumer purchase.

However, please note that if at any time a manufacturer or the agency determines that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, which could result from the failure of a system to operate properly, the manufacturer is required to notify all product purchasers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1414.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:VSA#ll4 d:9/l9/90

ID: 2674y

Mr. Robert Roden
Roden & Hayes
2015 First Avenue No., Suite 400
Birmingham, AL 35203

Dear Mr. Roden:

This responds to your questions about the requirements for key-locking systems in section S4.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). As explained below, the enclosed copy of the agency's recent final rule amending this provision may be relevant to your inquiry (55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990).

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

One such Federal safety standard is Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

Your first question asked whether section S4.2(b) requires key locking systems to prevent removal of the ignition key except when the transmission is in the "park" position. Section S4.2(b) currently requires such vehicles to have a "key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent...(b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle, or both." However, the agency has recently amended section S4.2(b) to read as follows:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

You should be aware that this amendment takes effect on September 1, 1992. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) merely requires that when the key is removed, the key-locking system must prevent steering or forward self-mobility, or both. This provision does not address the issue of the transmission's position at the time of key removal. In contrast, under the recent amendment applicable to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) requires automatic transmission vehicles to prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

Your second question asked whether a replacement key-locking system is required to comply with Standard No. 114. Because Standard No. 114 applies to new motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment, the standard does not in itself require aftermarket replacement systems to comply with its requirements. However, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard.

Your third question asked how long the key locking system is required to perform under S4.2(b) of the standard. The Vehicle Safety Act only requires manufacturers to assure that vehicles and equipment comply with applicable safety standards at the time of the first consumer purchase.

However, please note that if at any time a manufacturer or the agency determines that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, which could result from the failure of a system to operate properly, the manufacturer is required to notify all product purchasers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1414.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:VSA#ll4 d:9/l9/90

ID: GF001689

Mr. Kenneth Reed
Product Legislation and Compliance
Jaguar Cars
555 MacArthur Boulevard
Mahwah, NJ 07430

Dear Mr. Reed:

This responds to your letter asking about S4.2.2(a) of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, in connection with Jaguars "pass key technology." The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.  The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter.

Under S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114, the key-locking system in vehicles that have an automatic transmission with a "park" position, when tested under specified procedures, must generally prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. S4.2.2(a) states (in relevant part) that notwithstanding S4.2.1, provided that steering is prevented upon the key's removal, each vehicle specified therein may permit key removal when electrical failure of the system (including battery discharge) occurs.

You asked how S4.2.2(a) applies to key-locking systems using "pass key technology," i.e., systems using electronically coded cards or other means to enter an electronic key code into the locking system. In past interpretation letters, we have stated that the electronic code itself can be considered the key. You noted that in situations of sudden and complete loss of electrical power, the electronic key code could be immediately erased from the vehicles volatile memory, before a vehicle could be stopped.

In considering your question, we believe it is helpful to note the history of the provision at issue. On January 17, 1992, we published in the Federal Register (57 FR 2039) a notice responding to petitions for reconsideration of amendments to Standard No. 114. Honda and Toyota, asking about key-locking systems using conventional keys, asked that the standard make it clear that key removal was permitted in the circumstance of electrical failure when the vehicle's transmission was not in park.

In addressing these requests, the agency stated:

NHTSA believes that there is an interpretation issue concerning whether the March 1991 amendments permit key removal after battery discharge. For example, the Honda system ordinarily prevents key removal unless the transmission is locked in park, as required by the amendments. Only under a failure condition, battery failure, is it possible to remove the key when the vehicle's transmission is not in park. It could be argued that a non-failed battery is an assumed test condition for the requirement and that Honda's system therefore meets the requirement as written. 57 FR at 2041.

As explained in that notice, however, the agency decided to resolve the issue raised by Honda and Toyota by making it clear in the text of the standard that key removal is permitted in the circumstance of electrical failure when the vehicle's transmission is not in park. To implement this decision, the agency adopted the language of S4.2.2(a) discussed earlier; i.e., specifying that "(n)otwithstanding S4.2.1, provided that steering is prevented upon the key's removal, each vehicle specified therein may permit key removal when electrical failure of the system (including battery discharge) occurs . . . ."

In considering the issues raised by your letter, it is our interpretation that the narrow provisions related to electrical failure do not apply to pass key technology where electronically coded cards or other means are used to enter an electronic key code into the locking system. These provisions were specifically crafted in the context of addressing whether (and under what circumstances) traditional keys should be permitted to be removed after battery discharge occurs, whereas, in the case of "pass key technology," electrical failure can automatically result in the immediate removal of the electronic key code. Moreover, the clause provided that steering is prevented upon the key's removal would not be appropriate in situations where sudden and complete loss of electrical power could result in immediate erasure of the electronic key code before a vehicle could be stopped, since paragraph S4.3 requires that steering be maintained in that situation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:114
d.5/27/03

ID: GF006627-2

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, NW, 5^th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in response to your letter of September 8, 2004, in which you requested interpretation of the new tire information placard requirements in S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, as amended June 3, 2004 (see 69 FR 31306).

The standard currently applicable to the vehicles described in your letter (trucks and trailers) is FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars.S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120 requires that the tire information must appear on the vehicle certification label or on a separate tire information label affixed to the vehicle in the same manner and location as the certification label (see 49 CFR 567.4).

Effective September 1, 2005, FMVSS No. 110 will apply to trucks and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.S4.3 of that standard will require that each vehicle contain either a single vehicle placard with a revised list of tire information, or a vehicle placard and a supplementary tire inflation pressure label, affixed to the drivers side B-pillar.Prior to September 1, 2005, compliance with the new requirements in S4.3 is voluntary.Thus, until September 1, 2005, the vehicles described in your letter with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less may comply with either S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120 or S4.3 of the amended version of FMVSS No. 110.

You ask whether a tire information placard, affixed to a previously certified vehicle that has been altered, may remain on that vehicle if it contains incorrect information because of the alteration.You also ask if it is permissible to remove or black out portions of the tire information placard that may contain incorrect information.Your letter does not specify whether the placard in question is one affixed pursuant to the current requirements of FMVSS No. 120 or the new requirements of FMVSS No. 110.Our answers follow.

First, irrespective of which tire information placard is affixed to the vehicle, the information on that placard must be correct. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a dealer may not sell vehicles or equipment that do not comply with applicable safety standards.Also, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits dealers, manufacturers, and certain other entities from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, a dealer must replace the tire information placard if, after the dealer installs additional equipment, the required information is no longer accurate. We note that, with respect to altered vehicles, S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid.

In the event that a vehicle contains a tire information placard affixed pursuant to S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120, and a placard affixed pursuant to the requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, at least one placard must contain accurate information and must fully comply with applicable requirements.The other placard may remain if it is accurate, or must be removed or replaced, if it is not.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has consistently stated with respect to labeling requirements that additional information may be present (unless specifically prohibited), provided that the additional information "does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose."In the case at hand, a second, voluntarily affixed placard containing incorrect tire safety information would confuse the meaning of the required information on the required placard.Accordingly, the second placard would have to be replaced, or be removed.

In sum, until September 1, 2005, the altered vehicles described in your letter must fully comply with current requirements in FMVSS No. 120 or the new requirements in FMVSS No. 110.In both instances, the tire information placard must contain accurate information.If both placards are affixed to the vehicle, neither placard may contain information that would confuse the meaning of the required contents.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.12/22/04

ID: 2171y

The Honorable John D. Dingell
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter of September 22, 1989, forwarding Representative Morella's letter inquiring about the requirements of Federal law and regulations as they apply to the tinting of motor vehicle windows for medical reasons. We recently began a rulemaking proceeding on the issue of tinting, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss the matter.

The enclosures to Ms. Morella's letter described a case in which a person suffers from a skin disease called vitiligo and was advised to avoid exposure to the sun's rays. The presumption is that this person needs more protection from the sun than that afforded by vehicle windows that conform to the Federal standard.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, establishes a minimum 70 percent light transmissibility for glazing at levels "requisite for driving visibility," which includes all windows in passenger cars. When a requirement is established in a Federal safety standard, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing a new vehicle that does not comply with that requirement. The Safety Act does not provide for individual medical exemptions.

Similarly, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" an element of design required by a safety standard, such as minimum light transmissibility. This "render inoperative" prohibition applies to vehicles after sale to purchasers. Neither this "render inoperative" provision nor any other Federal requirement would prohibit an individual vehicle owner from modifying their own vehicles, even if the modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the Federal safety standards. Thus, an individual vehicle owner can make whatever modifications he or she likes, for medical or any other reasons, without violating Federal law. However, the individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that owners may make to their vehicles, and many States have chosen to regulate window tinting. For your reference, I have enclosed copies of our July 8, 1988 letter to Representative Shumway and our November 1, 1988 letter to Representative Byron on this subject.

The minimum light transmissibility requirement in Standard No. 205 represents a balancing of legitimate competing interests. On the one hand, safety considerations dictate that drivers must be able to see and analyze the traffic situation in which the vehicle is being operated and react to that situation properly and promptly. To the extent that some of the available light is not transmitted through the vehicle glazing, the driver's ability to react to the traffic situation is potentially delayed. This is especially true under low light conditions, such as occur at night and on very overcast days.

On the other hand, there are legitimate reasons for allowing some tinting of vehicle windows. These include avoiding excessive heat for all vehicle occupants, reducing glare for the driver, preserving the vehicle interior, and helping persons with medical conditions that are sensitive to the sun's rays.

NHTSA balanced these competing interests by establishing the current 70 percent minimum light transmissibility requirement in Standard No. 205. However, the agency was asked in a petition for rulemaking to reexamine this balance and to permit darker tinting of windows, by lowering the minimum light transmissibility requirement. We decided to reexamine whether the current minimum light transmissibility requirement continues to represent the most appropriate and reasonable balance of the competing interests.

Accordingly, on July 20, 1989, this agency published a request for comments on a comprehensive review of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirement for side and rear window glazing in passenger automobiles. One of the issues raised was the light transmissibility standard's effect on those who need more protection from the sun's ultraviolet rays. The comment period for this notice closed on September 18, 1989. The agency received nearly one hundred comments on this issue and is currently reviewing those comments. We will notify you and Ms. Morella when we announce our decision.

I have placed a copy of your letter and this response in the public docket for this rulemaking action. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Acting Administrator

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Constance A. Morella

ref:205 d:ll/20/89

ID: nht79-3.7

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Shaeen, Lumberg, Callaghan and Berke

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office in a telephone conversion of July 9, 1979. Specifically, you asked whether there are any current or proposal regulations applicable to customizers who install plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tanks in Mercedes automobiles. You noted these vehicles would typically be purchased from a dealer and then brought to the customizer for installation of the auxiliary tank.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to motor vehicles and to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75), specifies performance requirements for vehicles, including passenger cars, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (This includes both gasoline and diesel fuel). Under the standard's requirements, no part of a vehicle's entire fuel system can have fuel spillage beyond certain specified amounts during barrier crash tests. Specific performance requirements for individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, are not currently included in the standard. With the advent of high density polyethlene (plastic) fuel tanks, however, the current "system" performance requirements night not be sufficient to ensure the integrity of vehicle fuel systems. For this reason, the agency recently published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the advisability of establishing performance standards for plastic tanks (44 FR 33441, June 11, 1979 copy enclosed).

Under section 108 of the Act, new motor vehicles must comply with Federal safety standards prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. Thus, the extent to which a customizer must ensure that his installation of an auxiliary tank complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75 depends upon whether the tank is installed before or after this delivery.

A customizer who installs an auxiliary fuel tank prior to the vehicle's first purchase would be a vehicle "alterer". Under the provisions of 49 CFR 567.7, he would be required to place an additional label on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 301-75. Additionally, the alterer would be responsible for any safety related defects arising from the installation of the auxiliary tank and would be required under section 151 of the Act to provide notice of and remedy for the defective installation.

If a customerizer installs an auxiliary tank in a vehicle after its delivery to the first purchaser he could be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).

If a person subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with Safety Standard No. 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). Such 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 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.

Please note that a customizer would be considered a "motor vehicle repair business" since he modifies motor vehicles for compensation.

I hope that you will find this response helpful.

ID: nht80-3.13

DATE: 06/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION

Mr. Craig Jones Mercedes-Benz One Mercedes Drive Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Jones:

This responds to the questions you raised with Stephen Oesch and John Carson on May 8, 1980, about Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. your question concerned a heating and windshield defrosting and defogging system developed by Mercedes. As requested, I have enclosed the originals of the drawing and photoqraph of the system you left with the agency.

The system consists of five controls: three rotating knobs, one of which controls the heat for the left side of the vehicle, one to control the heat on the right side, and one to control a fan. The other two controls are sliding levers, one of which directs the air flow to the windshield and the other directs air toward the floor. Your first question concerned the use of a green dot and the symbol specified by column 3 of Table 1 for identifying the defrosting and defogging system. You wish to place the symbol adjacent to the slide lever that controls air flow to the windshield and to place the green dot immediately below the symbol. The green dot would be used to identify the position on each of the other four controls that would provide the maximum defrosting or defogging of the windshield.

Section 5.2.1 provides that the identifying symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1 "shall be placed on or adjacent to the control." The section also provides that "additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity." In this case, Mercedes has properly identified the control used to defrost or defog the windshield (the slide that directs air to the windshield) with the symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1 and placed it adjacent to the control. In addition, Mercedes has used the green dot to identify the positions on the heating system needed to obtain maximum defrosting and defogging. Since the additional symbols clarify the use of the heating controls, the use of the green dot is permissible.

Your second question concerned the identification required for the heating system. Section 5.2.2 specifies that "Identification shall be provided for each function of any ...heating and air conditioning control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range." Section 5.2.2 further provides that "If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used. If color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue." The rotary knobs Mercedes uses for the heating system control a single function over a quantitative range, from no heat to maximum heat and thus the extreme positions require identification. The rotary knob shown in your drawing does not comply with section 5.2.2 because it does not identify the extreme positions of the control either in words or in the color coding system required for temperature controls.

Your final question concerned the identification necessary for the slide levers that control the air flow to the windshield or the floor. As mentioned above, section 5.2.2 specifies that "Identification shall be provided for each function of any...heating and air conditioning control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range." Section 5.2.2 further specifies that "If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used." The slide lever Mercedes uses for the air flow controls a single function over a quantitative range, from no air to maximum air, and thus the extreme positions require identification. Mercedes has used a series of geometric shapes-which are highlighted by a color (white) to indicate which direction to move the slide lever to obtain more air. That color in and of itself has no meaning and therefore, it is not part of a color coding system. Those geometric shapes must be accompanied by or replaced by words in order to identify the positions for minimum and maximum air or an appropriate color coding system should be used.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure