ID: nht81-2.11

DATE: 03/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 30 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your letter of February 13, 1981, requesting an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. The odometer/speedometer assembly that BMW wishes to use in its vehicles is built to comply with S4.2.5.2, the encapsulation requirements. The encapsulation consists of plastic "box" having the speedometer/odometer face and lens as its front. The front, top, bottom, and sides of the box are all one piece. The back of the unit is a metal plate to which the speedometer/odometer assembly is attached. The plate is attached to the rest of the unit with six screws. You ask whether the screws must be encapsulated if the unit is to comply with S4.2.5.2. You also ask whether a seal that would have to be cut or torn in order to remove the plates and gain access to the odometer can be used.

Paragraph S4.2.5.2(b) of Standard No. 127 requires that a tamperer not be able to contact the odometer wheels by use of a straight rod .5mm or more in diameter. Such contact is permissible if the contact results when the rod is inserted essentially parallel to the odometer shaft, or if it is necessary either to penetrate the encapsulation or to damage the encapsulation or other odometer components to make that contact. Since your odometer/speedometer assembly is attached to the back plate, the odometer wheels can be easily reached from all angles without damaging the encapsulation when the plate is removed. Thus the screws must be encapsulated if the odometer is to comply with S4.2.5.2(b). If the screws are encapsulated in some fashion, it would be necessary to penetrate this encapsulation in order to remove the screws and the back plate, and the requirements of paragraph S4.2.5.2(b) would be satisfied.

Paragraph S4.2.5.2(d) sets forth the requirements for the encapsulation material. The rule specifies requirements for thickness and resistance to deflection, penetration, fracture, and impacts. The agency is not concerned about the form of the encapsulation as long as these requirements are met.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 13, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 127 Speedometers and Odometers

Dear Mr. Berndt

This letter requests interpretation regarding compliance of an odometer which is part of a combination instrument unit and which BMW intends to use to meet the requirements of FMVSS 127, Speedometers and Odometers, as amended June 16, 1980, 45FR40585.

At a meeting with Messrs. Oesch, Parker and Carson on January 29, 1981, we showed subject unit and it was agreed that the odometer is totally encapsulated and falls under the requirements of S4.2.5.2(a)(1), (b), (c) and (d). The final closure technique, however, was subject to question.

As shown in the attachments 1, 2 and 3, the entire speedometer/odometer is a one-piece lens-top-bottom-sides unit, and plates are held on to the rear via screws. Based on our discussion, we request interpretation of the following questions:

1. At the meeting we showed a closure technique in which all six screws holding the rear plates are encapsulated with plastic caps, which must be broken to gain access to the screw heads (for demonstration purposes, see attached pictures showing only one screw encapsulated by the plastic cap). Accordingly, do the screws themselves holding the rear plates to the rest of the unit have to be encapsulated, such as with devices like these plastic caps?

2. In the event question 1 is answered affirmatively, we wish to know if it would be acceptable to use a seal, instead of the plastic caps discussed under question 1 (e.g. a self-destructing label) affixed to both the unit and the rear plates, in such a manner that the labels would have to be cut or torn in order to remove the plates to gain access to the odometer unit itself (see attachment 3).

Very truly yours

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

KHZ/jps

Attachments

ID: nht79-4.12

DATE: 06/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Macdonald Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 2, 1979, letter asking whether it is permissible to mount a snow plow on a vehicle when the weight of the snow plow will cause the vehicle to exceed its gross axle weight rating (GAWR). The answer to your question is no.

The GAWR of a vehicle is determined and established by a vehicle's manufacturer and represents a manufacturer's assessment of the maximum weight that each axle can safely sustain. When this weight rating is exceeded by the addition of equipment to a vehicle, the safety of a vehicle is jeopardized. Over a period of time, the excessive weight borne by the axle could result in unusual wear and eventual failure of the axle.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires manufacturers to label their vehicles with GAWR's to avoid the overload problem that you mention in your letter. The NHTSA has not granted exceptions from this requirement for snow plows. If you mount a snow plow on a new vehicle prior to first purchase, you must be sure that the vehicle continues to comply with all Federal safety standards and regulations. If the weight of the plow exceeds the GAWR of the vehicle, the vehicle would no longer comply with the certification regulation and would not comply with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Further, the compliance of other safety standards could be impacted by the addition of that weight.

In the case of used vehicles on which you mount a snow plow, a manufacturer, repair business, distributor, or dealer may not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with the safety standards. The attachment of a snow plow that exceeds the gross axle weight rating would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 120. Accordingly, whether a vehicle is new or used, the additional weight of a snow plow that would exceed the GAWR of a vehicle would not be permissible.

The NHTSA understands the budgetary constraints of municipalities. However, financial considerations must be balanced against the potential loss of life that can occur when vehicles are routinely overloaded. Accordingly, vehicles that have snow plows or other devices mounted on them should have sufficient GAWR's to carry their intended load.

Sincerely,

Macdonald Equipment Company

January 2, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We have talked with your people here in Denver as well as with Mr. Elliot in Washington concerning the mounting of snow plows on trucks and they recommended that we contact your office for an opinion.

We are a disbributor for both a snow plow manufacturer and for a snow plow truck manufacturer and in the course of business we have noticed a trend develop, which we feel needs some clarification. In recent years cities, counties and states agencies responsible for snow removal seem to be purchasing trucks with smaller front axle capacity ratings. This is the result of increased prices on trucks in recent years and the need of these agencies to stay within their budgets.

The result of this trend is that the front axle capacities of these smaller trucks will not allow us to mount a hitch and snow plow on the truck without overloading the front axle or severly limiting the Dump Body capacity to avoid overloading the front axle, which limits the units role in spreading sand on the icy roads.

We would like to know if the weight of the snow plow and hitch must be included when determining the weight on the front axle or if ther is some type of exemption for snow plows. Since snow removal is a necessity in much of our country during the winters and the snow plows are generally on the trucks only in the event of storm it would seem that if there is not an exemption for the snow plows at present, it is an area that some type arrangement needs to be worked out. If the trend to the smaller type trucks with front axles rated at 12,000 pound or less capacity continues and we feel it will, it will be impossible to mount snow plows on most trucks used by these agencies.

Since we feel that we are getting into a situation where front axle load is becoming a question, we would very much appreciate any information or instructions you can give us in this matter. If we can supply you with any further material we would be most happy to do so. Thank you.

Macdonald Equipment Company A. M. Dahm, President

ID: nht78-2.3

DATE: 12/13/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 13, 1978 NOA-30

Mr. T. F. Brown Mack Trucks, Inc. Engineering Division P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105

Dear Mr. Brown:

I regret the delay in responding to your August 31, 1978, letter requesting an interpretation of S5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. In that letter, you stated that you had been contacted by an employee of this agency's enforcement office and advised that the certification labels for Mack trucks did not comply with the requirements of that section. The reason given for this conclusion was that the labels used the word "on" between the tire and rim information instead of the comma shown in the example following S5.3.3.

S5.3 requires that the labeling information specified in S5.3.1 -S5.3.3 must appear in the format shown in the truck example following S5.3.3. This requirement does not mean that certification labels must be identical to the example in every respect. Minor variations are permitted. By "minor variations", I mean such things as a slight difference in punctuation or the substitution of a word for a punctuation mark that do not change or obscure the meaning of the label. Mack's substitution of "on" for a comma is such a minor variation and, accordingly, is permissible under the standard.

The label enclosed with your letter shows spaces to provide information for the front, rear and three intermediate axles. When this label is used on vehicles with fewer than five axles, you should stamp "Not applicable", or words of similar import, in the spaces provided for axles which do not exist on the particular vehicle which is being labelled.

Without this indication, the label could be confusing and so would fail to clearly provide the required information for that vehicle. An indication of nonapplicability would alert the reader to that fact.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

August 31, 1978

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation GAWR-Tire-Rim Labeling Requirements FMVSS 120 - Vehicle Certification Labels

Mack Trucks, Inc, a manufacturer of heavy duty diesel trucks of 26,000 pounds GVWR and greater, is requesting an interpretation of the specific GAWR-tire-rim labeling requirements of FMVSS 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

We were advised, by telephone, by a member of the NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance staff that there were several minor discrepancies found on one of our vehicle certification labels. Four items were noted as being incorrect. Three of these four items were well-taken, and steps to avoid a reoccurrence of these errors have been taken. The fourth item, however, is the reason for this letter.

Our certification labels set up the gross axle weight ratings, tire, and rim information as follows:

FRONT AXLE WITH TIRES ON RIMS AT COLD SINGLE

We were advised that we could not use the word "ON" as shown above, but should instead use a comma as is illustrated in the "Truck example" shown following Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS 120.

Paragraph S5.3 oF FMVSS 120 states that the information shall appear in the "format" set forth in the example following Section S5.3.

It is our contention that the GAWR and associated information on our certification labels, including the word "ON", does comply with the format set forth following Section S5.3 of FMVSS 120. The word "ON" actually makes the meaning of the statement clearer.

If you look closely at the attached sheet showing one of our labels and the "Truck example" from FMVSS 120, you will note that they are not exactly identical. Therefore, we wonder why only our use of the word "ON" was singled out. (NOTE: The other three items noted in the telephone conversation dealt with information that had been added to the certification label on the vehicle inspected by NHTSA.)

We believe we are presenting all the required information in a form substantially identical to that illustrated in the "Truck example", and that we are in compliance with the applicable regulations. Therefore, we are requesting an interpretation of the specific GAWR-tire-rim labeling requirements of FMVSS 120.

If further discussion of this subject is necessary, please contact the writer at 215-439-3877.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC,

T. F. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards

vy Attach.

Insert attachment here (FMVSS 120) found in card copy file.

ID: nht92-2.36

DATE: 11/10/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOHN WOMACK

TO: WILBUR D. OWENS, III, ESQUIRE -- BOUHAN, WILLIAMS & LEVY, ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-15-92 FROM WILBUR D. OWENS, III TO OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, NHTSA (OCC 7761)

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated September 15, 1992, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regarding Phelps v. General Motors, et al. Reference is also made to your telephone conversation with Mr. Walter Myers of my staff on October 15, 1992.

You stated in your letter that your firm represents defendant Grumman Olson in the Phelps lawsuit which arose out of injuries suffered by the plaintiff while operating a 14-foot Grumman Kurbmaster manufactured in 1977. After explaining the theory of the plaintiff's cause of action, you stated that you have looked at current regulations, your main areas of interest being 49 CFR 571.201 through 571.220, and requested our assistance in obtaining those regulations from 1977. You pointed out that in those regulations there are a number of exceptions for walk-in vans, and you asked whether the 14-foot Kurbmaster would be considered a truck or a walk-in van, or both.

Please find enclosed, as requested, copies of 49 CFR 571.201 through 220 that were in effect as of October 1, 1977, duly certified as official Federal government documents to make them admissible in Federal court. As Mr. Myers explained to you by telephone, the cost for these copies, as certified, is $ 30.72. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 7, this charge represents one hour of search time at a cost of $ 22.22 per hour, plus copying fee of ten cents per page x 85 pages. Please remit a check in that amount, payable to Treasurer of the United States, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Financial Management, Room 6134, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D. C. 20590. To ensure that your account will be properly credited, please annotate your check with "NCC-20."

Before responding to your question about the classification of the 14-foot Kurbmaster, a bit of background information is in order. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Motor vehicles are, and were as of 1977, classified according to six basic types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. Each type is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Each safety standard applies to specified types of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Thus, manufacturers must first classify their vehicles in order to ascertain which safety standards apply and then certify that those vehicles meet all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither classifies vehicles nor does it approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer has done so. NHTSA may, however, reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of enforcement proceedings. I note that, in the case of the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster, there have been no enforcement proceedings.

The classification given the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster by the manufacturer will be found on the certification label required by 49 CFR 567.4(a), and NHTSA has not reviewed or taken issue with that classification. Assuming it was classified as a truck, a truck was in 1977, and still is, defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

As you noted in your letter, certain of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards exclude "walk-in vans" from their coverage. See, e.g., paragraph S2, Standard 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR 571.203). The term "walk-in van" is commonly used and understood within the motor vehicle industry, and for many years the Federal motor vehicle safety standards did not include any definition of the term. I note, however, that in a recent rulemaking which extended Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, to light trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, the agency added a definition of "walk-in van" to that standard. Effective September 1, 1993, Standard No. 214 defines "walk-in van" as "a van in which a person can enter the occupant compartment in an upright position." See S2.1.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht89-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/89 EST

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

TO: JOHN D. DINGELL -- CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/22/89 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE TO JEFFREY R. MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/25/89 FROM CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE TO NORMAN Y. MINETA -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- MVA TO CONSTANCE A. MORELLA; LETT ER DATED 07/08/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO NORMAN D. SHUNWAY -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON -- HOUSE; STANDARD 205

TEXT: 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 ru lemaking 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 a fforded 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 estab lished 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 individua l 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 l onger 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 regu late modifications that owners may make to their vehicles, and

2 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 v ehicle 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. Th is 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 medic al 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 tin ting of windows, by lowering the minimum light transmissibility requirement. We decided to reexamine whether the current minimum light transmibility requirement continues to represent the most appropriate and reasonable balance of the competing interest s.

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 review ing 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,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/90

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

TO: LINDA B. KENT -- SENIOR MARKET DEVELOPMENT FASSON SPECIALTY DIVISION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/06/89 FROM LINDA B. KENT -- FASSON SPECIALTY DIVISION TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 3724

TEXT: Dear Ms. Kent:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the use of a product on motor vehicles would violate Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205). This product, called "Contra Vision," is designed to display messages or adver tising materials on windows and other clear surfaces, so that viewers on one side of the clear surface will see the message displayed, while viewers on the other side of the surface will see an essentially transparent surface without any message visible. According to your letter, this product "will be used for promotional signage in store windows, but also has application in rear taxicab windows, as well as rear and side windows of city buses." You asked for our opinion of whether this product complies with Standard No. 205.

Some background on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulation affect this product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and n ew items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify th at its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Your letter indicates that you are already aware that NHTSA has issued a safety standard that applies to the windows installed in motor vehicles. Specifically, Standard No. 205 requires that all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in moto r vehicles must comply with certain performance requirements. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A

minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and t he rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with Contra Vision installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and the Contra Vision must allow at least 70 percent light transmit tance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install Contra Vision on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with th e 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install Contra Vision if the addition of Cont ra Vision to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result i n Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install Contra Vision or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longe r comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicles window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about thi s topic, please fee free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht93-2.13

DATE: 03/11/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: THOMAS L. WRIGHT -- COORDINATOR, TECHNICAL SUPPORT UNIT, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-29-92 FROM THOMAS L. WRIGHT TO PATRICK BOYD (OCC 8210)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Patrick Boyd of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, concerning window tinting. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Your questions relate to a January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the tinting requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You ask about the status of the NPRM. The agency received a large number of comments on this rulemaking. We have reviewed the comments and are analyzing the issues raised in this rulemaking.

You also ask about a statement in the NPRM about Federal preemption of state window tinting laws. You ask whether Federal law preempts a state law that permits add-on window tinting material for medical or aesthetic reasons.

As explained below, the answer is no, provided that the state law regulates conduct other than that regulated by Federal law. Your question was addressed in the NPRM's discussion of the Federalism implications of the proposed rule (p. 2507).

By way of background, NHTSA issued Standard 205 under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Section 103(d) of the Safety Act provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Whether state law is preempted under @ 103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the manufacture of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture or sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard 205.

Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides 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 . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The effect of this is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in @ 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting - that is illegal under Federal law.

I have enclosed a copy of the Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows which you requested. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht76-4.9

DATE: 09/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul Atkinson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your June 18, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, to passenger car tires that are retreaded from bead to bead.

I understand that in this process, the labeling information molded on the sidewalls of the tire to be retreaded is buffed off prior to the application of new rubber. You have requested our assurance that "it is permissible to do bead to bead retreading, removing the present labeling and remolding all the pertinent information on the tire."

The requirements for casings to be used in retreading are set out in S5.2.3 of Standard No. 117:

Each retreaded tire shall be manufactured with a casing that bears, permanently molded at the time of its original manufacture into or onto the tire sidewall, each of the following:

(a) The symbol DOT;

(b) The size of the tire; and

(c) The actual number of plies or ply rating.

This section requires the above information to be present on the casin at the beginning of the retreading process, to ensure both that the carcass was originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, and that the retreader has reliable information on which to base the labeling of the completed tire. The section does not, however, require that this originally molded information be retained on the completed tire.

Certification and labeling requirements for completed retreaded tires are set out in S6 of the standard. The DOT symbol required by S6.1, however, is not a "remolding" of the original DOT symbol (certifying compliance with Standard No. 109) that may have been buffed off. It is a new certification by the retreading party that his product complies with Standard No. 117. Further, this new DOT symbol must be followed by the letter "R", as indicated in 49 CFR @ 574.5, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. "Remolding" of the original DOT symbol is neither required nor permitted. Finally, the information required by S6.3 to appear on the completed tire is permitted, but not required, to so appear through retention of the original labeling.

In conclusion, bead-to-bead retreading is not prohibited by Standard No. 117, provided that the casings satisfy S5.2.3 at the beginning of the retreading process, and all other requirements of the standard are met.

YOURS TRULY,

PAUL ATKINSON TIRE RETREADING CONSULTANT

June 18, 1976

Frank Berndt, acting chief council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I visited with Mr. Arturo Casanova and Mr. David Snyder on Tuesday, June 15. I brought some questions to them that they felt should be directed to you for a decision, and if necessary, a ruling.

I have a firm that I represent in Pennsylvania, that is planning to enter the passenger tire retreading field. They will be different in their operation in that they plan to retread tires from bead to bead. Both sidewalls will be buffed, and a thin venier of rubber applied. The sidewall mold plates will be engraved to contain all of the information required by your department.

I raised the question to Mssrs. Casanova and Snyder about any objections that your department might have to these plans. It was their feeling that their was no objection, other than the possible objection to the removal of the DOT certification, proving that the casing used was in fact a DOT casing.

As this process involves a very advanced cost in federal excise taxes, and advanced cost in processing, materials, and equipment, it will not be competitive with customary retreading. It will have to be sold at a very premium price.

Also, it has been eight years since the incorporation of the DOT symbol. Tires without this symbol have been for all practical purposes, have been used up, and are no longer on the casing market. I do not feel that any reputable dealer would accept a casing of this age, regardless of DOT rulings.

I am requesting a ruling from you that it is permissible to do bead to bead retreading, removing the present labeling and remolding all the pertiment information on the tire. This is with the understanding that all tires used for passenger use will be DOT casings. The DOT would be returned by molded labeling.

I would add for your consideration that this system is widely used throughout Europe. There is also a dealer in Minnesota who is advertising this type work in magazines. I am also informed that it is being done by at least one company in California.

I would appreciate your favorable ruling on this matter at your earliest convenience.

Paul Atkinson

ID: nht73-2.10

DATE: 09/25/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Sebring Vanguard Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your letter of September 7, 1973, to Mr. Vinson with its enclosures and appreciate your providing them.

In your "memo" on purchase orders you state that Sebring Vanguard "has decided that our vehicles are multi-purpose vehicles." The Vanguard, however, is not for purposes of the safety standards a multipurpose passenger vehicle, defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." (In a recent notice, copy enclosed, we have proposed a change in this definition that would make it more restrictive.)

The Vanguard as we understand it is a "passenger car", defined as a vehicle designed for carrying 10 passengers or less, other than a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer. Vehicle design, rather than actual usage, is the definitional determinant, and the fact that some purchasers of a Vanguard may use it off-road or as a replacement for MPV's does not change its category.

ENC.

SEBRING VANGUARD INC.

September 7, 1973

Taylor Vinson, Attorney NHTSA

In our continuing effort to keep N.H.T.S.A. informed of our development program concerning the VANGUARD line of electric vehicles, enclosed please find some new data.

You will note our initial vehicle, the CitiCar, does not resemble the fifty VANGUARD Sport Coupes that have been merrily humming around the nation. We will shortly petition the N.H.T.S.A. for an amendment to standards 204, 206 and 208. As I mentioned on the phone today, we also intend to petition for the commencement of the writing of new standards more appropriate for light-weight vehicles in connection with structural strength and crush distance.

You and your associates are cordially invited to our display at the National Transportation Defense Associations Conference at the Washington Hilton starting Sunday, 23 September through Noon of the 26th. We will be happy to provide you with additional new information at that time.

Sincerely, Robert G. Beaumont President

Encls.

(Graphics omitted)

September 7, 1973

TO: Taylor Vinson

FROM: Robert G. Beaumont

SUBJECT: Copies of Purchase Orders enclosed in the letter of 9/7/73

After careful determination our company has decided that our vehicles are multi-purpose vehicles.

Hawaiian Electric Co. . . This vehicle is used at the Waiau Guard House for security in and around the penal institution's site.

Smithtown High School . . . These two vehicles will be used strictly off-road by security guards for patrol at the two high school complexes.

Post Office Dept. . . . Information concerning this bid has come to us that indicates for a varity of reasons that we will be awarded it. Specific usage of these vehicles will be postal security both on-the-road and off-road, inside the Jersey City complex and outside the complex.

Department of Commerce . . . (see attached letter from Test and Evaluation) This is a reorder, clearly specified on the Purchase Order "special purpose." As the letter indicates, it is replacing a jeep which is a multi-purpose vehicle.

Modern Metal Magazine, August 1973. Please read exciting article on electric cars.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National (Illegible Word) and Atmospheric Administration

August 14, 1971

Robert C. Beaumont -- Vanguard Vehicles, Inc.

Dear Mr. Beaumont:

Here's the answer to your question on vehicle replacement:

The Vanguard electric car we purchased last December has been used in place of a jeep (4 wheel drive, 4 cylinder, (Illegible Words) He returned the jeep to our vehicle group with the recommendation it be junked.

The other two Vanguards we expect to get this month will replace (Illegible Words) from the General Services Administration. One is a Ford (Illegible Words) other is a Ford station wagon which will be (Illegible Words) special project requiring many trips on high speed highways.

I know you're aware that I can't publicly endorse a product by (Illegible Word). I can say however with no problem that your vehicle meets our requirements better than any we have found so far. For the many short trips our 35 people make around our (Illegible Words) have tried pick-up trucks, (Illegible Words) bicycles, in addition to jeeps, vans and station wagons. (Illegible Words) has come so close to meeting our need (Illegible Words) (Illegible Lines)

ID: 7761

Wilbur D. Owens, III, Esquire
Bouhan, Williams & Levy
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
The Armstrong House
Bull & Gaston Streets
Post Office Box 2139
Savannah, GA 31498-1001

Dear Mr. Owens:

This responds to your letter dated September 15, 1992, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regarding Phelps v. General Motors, et al. Reference is also made to your telephone conversation with Mr. Walter Myers of my staff on October 15, 1992.

You stated in your letter that your firm represents defendant Grumman Olson in the Phelps lawsuit which arose out of injuries suffered by the plaintiff while operating a 14-foot Grumman Kurbmaster manufactured in 1977. After explaining the theory of the plaintiff's cause of action, you stated that you have looked at current regulations, your main areas of interest being 49 CFR 571.201 through 571.220, and requested our assistance in obtaining those regulations from 1977. You pointed out that in those regulations there are a number of exceptions for walk-in vans, and you asked whether the 14-foot Kurbmaster would be considered a truck or a walk-in van, or both.

Please find enclosed, as requested, copies of 49 CFR 571.201 through 220 that were in effect as of October 1, 1977, duly certified as official Federal government documents to make them admissible in Federal court. As Mr. Myers explained to you by telephone, the cost for these copies, as certified, is $30.72. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 7, this charge represents one hour of search time at a cost of $22.22 per hour, plus copying fee of ten cents per page x 85 pages. Please remit a check in that amount, payable to Treasurer of the United States, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Financial Management, Room 6134, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D. C. 20590. To ensure that your account will be properly credited, please annotate your check with "NCC-20."

Before responding to your question about the classification of the 14-foot Kurbmaster, a bit of background information is in order. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Motor vehicles are, and were as of 1977, classified according to six basic types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. Each type is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Each safety standard applies to specified types of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Thus, manufacturers must first classify their vehicles in order to ascertain which safety standards apply and then certify that those vehicles meet all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither classifies vehicles nor does it approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer has done so. NHTSA may, however, reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of enforcement proceedings. I note that, in the case of the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster, there have been no enforcement proceedings.

The classification given the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster by the manufacturer will be found on the certification label required by 49 CFR 567.4(a), and NHTSA has not reviewed or taken issue with that classification. Assuming it was classified as a truck, a truck was in 1977, and still is, defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

As you noted in your letter, certain of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards exclude "walk-in vans" from their coverage. See, e.g., paragraph S2, Standard 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR 571.203). The term "walk-in van" is commonly used and understood within the motor vehicle industry, and for many years the Federal motor vehicle safety standards did not include any definition of the term. I note, however, that in a recent rulemaking which extended Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, to light trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, the agency added a definition of "walk-in van" to that standard. Effective September 1, 1993, Standard No. 214 defines "walk-in van" as "a van in which a person can enter the occupant compartment in an upright position." See S2.1.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:#571 d:11/10/92