ID: 12423-2.pja

Betsy Dittemore
Legislative Liaison
Iowa Department of Public Safety
Commissioner's Office
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0040

Dear Ms. Dittemore:

This responds to your letter asking whether the proposed Iowa legislation to allow light transmittance levels of 35 percent or lower on vehicle windows complies with Federal regulations (i.e., Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials). You also asked "does the federal government currently pursue action in states that have adopted standards that are not in compliance with federal regulations?"

As explained below, while the Iowa legislation generally would not conflict with Federal laws, the provision allowing drivers with "light-sensitive disorder permits" to have darkened windows may conflict with Federal law. Regarding your question on NHTSA's enforcement of its light transmittance requirements, NHTSA currently has no open cases on the subject. However, if it became an enforcement priority, NHTSA could enforce the 70 percent transmittance requirement in Standard No. 205 without regard to lower thresholds set by State laws.

NHTSA has the authority under 49 USC 30111 to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to all new motor vehicles at time of first sale to the consumer. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing, and includes a requirement that all windows "requisite for driving visibility" (including all windows in passenger cars) have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Although the standard itself does not apply after the first sale of the vehicle, 49 USC 30122(b) prohibits a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed

on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." The act of tinting regulated vehicle windows to transmittance levels darker than 70 percent is a violation of this section.

Note however, that NHTSA's regulations do not apply to certain parties or actions. Vehicle owners are not restricted by Federal law in the modifications that they make to their vehicles, and could tint their windows as dark as they like without violating Federal law (although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than Standard No. 205 allows). Federal law also does not regulate the operation or use of vehicles, which is under the jurisdiction of the States.

Under certain circumstances, State laws would be preempted by Federal law. 49 USC 30103(b)(1) states "[w]hen a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect . . . a State . . . may prescribe . . . a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance . . . only if the standard is identical to the [federal standard]." The State laws would be preempted by the Federal law to the extent that they regulate the same aspect of performance in a different way, or permit something that is prohibited by the Federal regulations. We explained in a July 30, 1990 response to a similar inquiry from you (enclosed) that, as long as the State legislation restricts itself to regulating the operation or use (as opposed to sale or modification) of vehicles, it would not be preempted by Federal law. By merely regulating the degree of tint in vehicles registered in the State or used on its roads, some States specify a lower transmittance level than the Federally required 70 percent.

I would summarize the legislation you sent us as prohibiting a person from operating on Iowa highways a motor vehicle requiring Iowa registration if: (1) any sunscreening device or transparent material (hereafter referred to as tinting material) is applied to the vehicle's windshield below five inches from the top of the windshield or the AS-1 line, (2) tinting material applied to any other window reduces the light transmittance of the glazing below 30 percent (accounting for the 5 percent tolerance), or is reflective, or is red, amber, or yellow in color, (3) tinting material is applied to any window to the rear of the driver and the vehicle is not equipped with left and right side rearview mirrors. The above restrictions do not apply to windows behind the driver of a "motor truck," bus, recreational vehicle, multipurpose vehicle, or any motor vehicle with a light-sensitive disorder permit affixed.

All of these provisions mentioned in the summary above only regulate the operation of vehicles, or the applicability of Iowa's law, so there is no explicit conflict with the Federal law. However, as we stated in our previous letter, we do not understand why the State of Iowa would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance in new vehicles is satisfied by allowing light transmittance levels as low as 30 percent in vehicles to be operated in the State.

There is one aspect of the proposed legislation that we believe could cause confusion and lead tint film installers to violate Federal law. The legislation states "[a] person suffering from a light sensitive disorder may operate a motor vehicle equipped with windows with less than thirty-five percent light transmittance on the side and rear windows, if that person has a light-sensitive disorder permit [issued by the State]." (Emphasis added). Taken literally, this language is not preempted because it restricts itself to the issue of operation, without addressing how the windows got so dark in the first place. However, most State laws prohibit certain behaviors, while the word "may" in your proposed legislation is permissive.

People reading the permissive language in this proposal may assume that there are no restrictions on installing very dark tinting material so long as a State permit has been issued. However, if a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installs such dark tinting material, they would violate the Federal prohibition against "mak[ing] inoperative" a piece of motor vehicle equipment. We suggest that, before the proposal becomes law, you add some language expressly stating the permissive language does not permit installation of tinting material by these parties.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205

d:11/18/96

ID: 16-002814 Chrysler_VIN_interp_clean_1

ID: 1985-01.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Control Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for a clarification of certain terminology relating to the definition of a standardized replaceable light source in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

We are aware of the problem underlying your question, i.e., that the standard contemplates testing of the bulb with its base but the photometrics specified are appropriate for the capsule portion alone. Our Rulemaking staff is reviewing this issue. The agency will inform you of the results of that review. If appropriate, the issue will be addressed through an appropriate interpretation or amendment of the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 11, 1985

Attn: Mr. Taylor Vinson Lawyer

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

Dear Mr. Vinson,

We are a little bit confused with your wordings in a current FMVSS 108 particularly on S3 "Definition" of specifying "Standardized Replaceable Light Source".

By the S3, Definition of Standardized Replaceable Light Source, it specifies that it is an assembly of a headlamp bulb, base and terminals as described in Fig. 3.

From the above S3 Definition, it can also be interpreted that the means a halogen capsule alone without base as described in Fig. 3 -5.

The lumen values specified in a (b) (1), the general specification of the bulb shall be: for standardized replaceable light source required in S4.1.1.38 of FMVSS 108, can we take that values measured from a halogen capsule alone, without base? Because the wordings are very ambiguous. Please refer the wordings and words underline in the attached.

What is more, at the (b) in S4.1.1.38 says, the bulb portion of the standardized replaceable light source, this bulb portion and the bulb in the (b) (1), the general specification of the bulb shall be: you are talking the same thing, Bulb only (means capsule) without base, we presume.

We would appreciate it very much if you would clarify the each meaning of the word, "Bulb" colored in blue and assembly, light source and the relation between the above words and standardized replaceable light source in the attached.

Sincerely,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

Encl. Copies of FMVSS 108 (5) KW/es

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.108

Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment

S1. Purpose and scope

This standard specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment necessary for signaling and for the safe operation of motor vehicles during darkness and other conditions of reduced visibility.

S2. Application

This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), and motorcycles, and to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies.

S3. Definitions

"Headlamp test fixture" means a device designed to support a replaceable bulb headlamp in the test position specified in the laboratory tests in S4.1.1.36(d), and whose mounting hardware and components are those necessary to operate the headlamp as installed in a motor vehicle.

"Replaceable bulb headlamp" means a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly, and a standardized replaceable light source.

"Seasoning" means a process of energizing the filament of a headlamp, at design voltage, for a period of time equal to 1 percent of average rated laboratory life.

"Standardized replaceable light source" means an assembly of a headlamp bulb, base, and terminals, as described in Figure 3.

S4. Requirements S4.1 Required motor vehicle lighting equipment

S4.1.1.38 Each standardized replaceable light source shall conform to the following requirements: (a) A silicone O-ring shall be provided. (b) The bulb portion of the standardized replaceable light source shall meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section.

(1) The general specifications of the bulb shall be:

Low beam High beam Maximum power, watts at 2.8V (design voltage) 50 70

Lumens (without black cap) at 12.8 V design voltage 1.067 + 10% 1.738 + 10%

Average life at 14.0 V rated voltage (life testing 320 hrs 150 hrs as conducted in a finished headlamp assembly placed in the normal operating attitude)

(2) The bulb filaments shall be subject to seasoning prior to wattage and lumens measurement. (3) Wattage and lumens measurements shall be made with the direct current test voltage regulated within one quarter of one percent. (4) Except for reference dimensions, and unless otherwise specified, a general tolerance of +0.004 in. (0.10 mm) shall apply to all linear dimensions and +1o.00' shall apply to all angular dimensions. (5) Bulb, lead wires and/or terminals shall be installed in the base so as to provide an airtight seal. (6) After a bulb deflection test conducted in accordance with S7, the permanent deflection of the glass envelope of each standardized replaceable light source shall not exceed 0.005 inch (0.13 mm) in the direction of the

ID: 1985-02.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Nakaya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Branch Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

Please forgive our delay in responding to your letter of May 30, 1984, asking for interpretations of Standard No. 108 as it applies to center high-mounted stoplamps.

In your letter you stated that the preamble to the final rule discussed the definition of "window opening" and concluded that the rear window opening shall be the perimeter of the rear glazing that is unobstructed and free of opaqueness. You have presented two rear window designs in which (1) ceramic opaque dots descend in increasing size to the bottom of the glazing and in which (2) shaded material becomes progressively darker as it descends, though the material is translucent, not opaque. You also show a design with an interior-mounted windshield wiper, including motor and cover, placed on the rear vertical centerline above the bottom of the glazing. In each instance you have asked at what point would the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) consider an "obstruction" exists for purposes of defining the bottom of the window.

The phrase "window opening" does not appear in Standard No. 108. The preamble discussion appears to be irrelevant with respect to the final rule, and was intended as a clarification of proposed location requirements which, in fact, were not adopted. The notice of proposed rulemaking of January 8, 1981, proposed a definition of "daylight opening" as "the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface...," relating to three alternative locations proposed for the lamp in which the term "daylight opening" was used as a locational reference. For instance, in Alternative 1, proposed paragraph S4.3.1.9(a) would have placed "the center of the lamp within 3 inches of the outside bottom edge of the rear window daylight opening." When the final rule was adopted in October 1983, none of the three alternatives was judged acceptable and a requirement allowing more design freedom was adopted omitting all reference to "daylight opening." Paragraph S4.3.1.8 simply specified that "no portion of the lens shall be higher than the top of the back window or lower than three inches below the bottom of the back window." The requirement was even further relaxed in the May 1984 response to petitions for reconsideration in which paragraph S4.3.1.8 was amended to allow mounting "at any position on the centerline" (note, no limitation on upper mounting height relative to the rear window) and if "mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars" The preamble also clarified that, if the lamp were mounted on the interior, photometric compliance would be judged with the glazing in place.

Thus, whether glazing is opaque or obstructed is not the question a manufacturer must ask in determining the location of the lamp with respect to the lower edge of the window. If the lamp is mounted on the interior, it must meet photometric and visibility requirements with the glazing in place, taking into account any graduated dots on or opaqueness of that glazing, and any wiper motor. If the lamp is mounted on the outside, its upper permissible height is determined by the height of the car and not by the window. The question of opaqueness or obstruction is irrelevant to the lower permissible height of 3 inches below the window. The window is the perimeter of its glazing, and 3 inches is measured from the lower edge.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 108; Lamps, Reflective devices and Associated Equipment - High Mounted Stoplamp

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The recent final rule amending Standard No. 108 addresses many issues raised by manufacturers, including the definition of "window opening". The preamble of the final rule discussed this definition and concluded that the rear window opening shall be the perimeter of the rear glazing that is unobstructed and free of opaqueness. Applying this definition to the bottom rear window opening boundry, certain aspects of the final rule establishing this boundry as the reference for the mounting location are still not clear. Our questions are as follows:

1. In Figure 1, two examples are shown (out of many possible designs) that are aimed at minimizing the visibility of objects in the passenger compartment by means of a graduated shade. Design A employees a series of ceramic, opaque dots forming an array that become progressively larger (and allow less light transmittance) as they descend toward the glazing/body interface. Also, Design B utilizes a material that becomes progressively darker (and allows less light transmittance) as it approaches the bottom of the rear window glazing. However, the material is translucent, not opaque. For purposes of defining the bottom of the rear window opening, please consider individually each graduated shade design and identify the point (A, B or C) at which the NHTSA would consider the bottom rear window opening obstructed (should reference point B be identified, please quantify).

2. Contained in Figure 2 is a depiction of a rear window wiper motor, cover and blade. The motor and motor cover are mounted inside the vehicle along the vehicle centerline for reasons of symmetry. Although a small obstruction is projected onto the rear glazing, the device does not contact the glazing and is limited to only a narrow portion of the bottom rear window opening. Again, for purposes of defining the bottom of the rear window opening, please consider this design and identify the point at which the NHTSA would consider the bottom window opening obstructed. Further, does availability of such a device as a factory option or as standard equipment have any bearing on this matter?

We would appreciate your interpretation of these aspects of FMVSS 108 at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Branch Manager

NH/mls

enclosures

ID: Lapinskas.1

Mr. Cesar Lapinskas
Mr. Christofer Lapinskas
Lapinskas and Associates, Inc.
d/b/a Road Aire North America
P.O. Box 26077
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33320-6077

Dear Messrs. Lapinskas:

This responds to your October 14, 2003, letter in which you ask whether it is necessary to obtain a permit or other approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) prior to marketing your companys tire inflation systems for sale in the United States. Your letter and attached materials state that the system, which is designed for installation on commercial trucks and buses weighing over 15,000 pounds, contains both a tire pressure monitoring component and an electropneumatic inflation component. Through a series of hoses and tubes tied to the vehicles air brake system, your product allows a driver to supply air to any tire(s) that become under-inflated. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations and to discuss how they may affect your product.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

The agency does not have any regulations covering tire inflation/tire pressure monitoring systems for heavy vehicles. [1] However, because your system would be tied into a vehicles braking system, it may affect compliance with other safety standards.

If your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle, prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Thus, these entities could not install your tire inflation system if it would take the vehicle out of compliance with any existing safety standard. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles.

In order to determine how installation of your tire inflation system could affect a vehicles compliance with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard contained in 49 CFR Part 571. However, there are certain standards (discussed below) of which you should be particularly aware.

One standard that may have implications for your product is FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, if your device is an integral part of the brake system. A related issue is whether certain parts of the device are considered brake hoses and are, therefore, subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses.

We do not have sufficient information about your device to specifically address these issues. I can advise you, however, that your device would not be considered part of the braking system if it were separated from the vehicles main braking system by a pressure protection valve in such a way that the main braking system would not be affected by a leakage failure in the device. Moreover, if your device is not considered to be part of the braking system, it would not be subject to Standard No. 106.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify NHTSA and purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the Department of Transportations Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You should contact FMCSA for further information about any FMCSA regulations that may apply to your system. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:138
d.1/21/04





---

[1]NHTSA is currently in the process of rulemaking to establish FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMSs), which will set forth requirements for TPMSs that are installed in new passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, except those vehicles with dual wheels on an axle. To the extent that your systems are installed only on vehicles with a higher GVWR, the standard would not apply. However, should your product be installed on a new light vehicle covered by FMVSS No. 138, vehicle manufacturers would need to certify that the vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

ID: nht76-1.5

DATE: 02/18/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 3, 1976, letter pointing out an error in the publication of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, in Supplement 109 to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

While the Federal Register is, of course, the official source of the law, we share your concern for the accuracy of the supplements. The error in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 was discovered immediately upon its publication and steps were taken to correct it. We expect the correction to appear in the supplement to be mailed on February 25, 1976.

YOURS TRULY,

Ford Motor Company

February 3, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" - Supplement 109, dated December 3, 1975

In the subject publication, the technical reproduction of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101, "Control Location, Identification and Illumination, Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses" is in error. Columns 3 and 4 of Table I are incorrect, and page 3 was revised without a change in the revision date.

Attachments I through IV show Table I:

* as it appears in the December 3 supplement,

* before the latest amendment,

* amendments published in Docket 1-18; Notice 11 (40 FR 31770-71) July 29, 1975,

* as it should appear.

We appreciate the fact that the Federal Register is the official source for information related to amendments to the rules. Howeve, the value of the supplement lies in the fact that the revisions and pagination provide for a complete and up-to-date reference that is of continued use. Mistakes in this document may lead to unnecessary confusion.

Because of the importance of this document in our daily work and because the source of the information originates with your staff, we would like to request that you look into this matter to correct the current mistake and, if possible, have some member of your staff included in a galley proof review procedure to ensure that supplements are complete and accurate.

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office

Table 1 -- Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Permissible Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Word or Abbreviation Symbol Engine Start Engine Start (Illeg.) None Engine Stop Engine Stop (Illeg.) None Manual Choke Choke None Head Throttle Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control Headlamps and Taillamps Lights (Illegi.) (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Hazard (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps Clearance Lamps or CL (Illeg.) Identification Lamps Identification Lamps or ID LPS None Windshield Wiping System Wiper or Wipe (Illeg.) Windshield Washing System Washer or Wash (Illeg.) Windshield Defrosting and Defrost or Def None Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None System

(Graphics omitted) COLUMN 1 COLUMN 4 COLUMN 5 Alternate Motor Vehicle Equipment Control (Illeg.) Illumination Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Washing System Yes Windshield Defrosting and None Yes Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None Yes System

n1 Use when engine control is separate from the key locking system.

n2 Use also when clearance, identification lamps and/or side marker lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch.

n3 Use also when clearance lamps, identification Lamps and/or side marker lamps are controlled with one switch other than the headlamp switch.

n4 Framed areas may (Illegible Words).

(Graphics omitted)

TABLE 1 - Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Word or Abbreviation Engine Start Engine Start (Illeg.) Engine Stop Engine Stop (Illeg.) Manual Choke Choke Hand Throttle Throttle Automatic Vehicle Speed Control Headlamps and Taillamps Lights (Illeg.) Vehiclular Hazard Warning Signal Hazard Clearance Lamps Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) or CL LPS Identification Lamps Identification Lamps or ID LPS Windshield Wiping System Wiper or Wipe Windshield Washing System Washer or Wash Windshield Defrosting and Defrost or Def Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning System

(Graphics omitted) COLUMN 1 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 Permissible Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Illumination Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes (Illeg.) Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal (Illeg.) Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Washing System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Defrosting and None Yes Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None Yes System

(Illegible Lines)

(Graphics omitted) Column 1 Column 4 Alternate Permissible Symbol . None None None None None Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) None Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Windshield Washing System (Illeg.) None None (Illegible Word) areas may be filled.

(Graphics omitted)

TABLE I - Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Motor Vehicle Equipment Word or Permissible Control Abbreviation Symbol Engine Start ENGINE START n1 None Engine Stop ENGINE STOP n1 None Manual Choke CHOKE None Hand Throttle THROTTLE None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Headlamps and Taillamps LIGHTS n2 (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal HAZARD (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps CLEARANCE LAMPS n3 or CL LPS (Illeg.) Identification Lamps IDENTIFICATION LAMPS or ID LPS None Windshield Wiping WIPER or System (Illeg.) (Illeg.) Windshield Washing WASHER or WASH (Illeg.) System Windshield Defrosting DEFROST or DEF None and Defrosting System Heating and Air None Conditioning System

COLUMN 1 COLUMN 4 n3 COLUMN 5 Motor Vehicle Equipment Alternate Illumination Control Permissible Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes n1 Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and (Illeg.) n4 Taillamps Vehicular Hazard (Illeg.) n4 Warning Signal Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) n4 Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping (Illeg.) System Yes Windshield Washing (Illeg.) System Yes Windshield Defrosting None Yes and Defrosting System Heating and Air None Yes Conditioning System

n1 Use when (Illegible Word) control is separate from the key locking system.

n2 Use also when clearance, identification lamps and/or side maker lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch.

n3 Use also when clearance lamps, identification lamps and/or side market lamps are controlled with one switch other than the headlamp switch.

n4 Heated areas may be filled.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-3.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Betsy Dittemore -- Legislative Liaison, Iowa Department of Public Safety, Office of the Commissioner

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-14-89 to NHTSA from B. Dittemore; (OCC 3633); and NHTSA bulletin dated 8-85 re Federal Auto Safety Laws and Motor Vehicle Window Tinting

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter regarding a bill introduced in the Iowa Senate that, among other features, would establish light transmittance limits for "sunscreening devices" that may be applied to the windows of motor vehicles operated in Iowa. I apologize for the delay in this response. You requested our office's interpretation about whether provisions of this bill would violate or be preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205).

As you are aware, this agency is authorized by section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standard s that we have issued under this authority is standard No. 205, which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of ligh t transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that no person may manufacture, import, or sell any vehicle in the United States unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)), this prohibition no longer applies after the vehicle is sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that "No manufacturer, d istributor, 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 moto r vehicle safety standard . . . ."

In the case of windows on a passenger car, this provision of Federal law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any wind ow of the car, because such action would "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 205. This same provision of Federal law prohibits a service station from permanently removing safety belts or permanently disconnecting brake lines on motor vehicles.

Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle

owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of a Federal statute or this agency's reg ulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles.

The individual States, however, have the authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles and to establish requirements for vehicles operated or registered in that State. The Iowa Senate bill enclosed with your l etter appears to be an attempted exercise of this inherent authority.

You asked for comments on whether this bill, if adopted as law in Iowa, would be preempted by Standard No. 205. I assume you were referring to the provision in this Iowa bill that would prohibit the operation of motor vehicles required to be registered in the State of Iowa if the vehicle has a "sunscreening device" on the front side windows with light transmittance of less than 35 percent or on the rear window and side windows behind the driver with light transmittance of less than 20 percent. Since t he original glazing on the vehicle could have had light transmittance of as little as 70 percent, this provision would permit overall light transmittance levels of as low as 25 percent for the front side windows and 14 percent for the rear windows.

This provision in the Iowa bill, and similar provisions in statutes adopted by other States, does not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittance of less than 70 percent on any window of a passenger car would have violated the "render inoperative" provision in Federal law, even if Iowa had in place a statute that would per mit persons to operate and register vehicles whose windows had light transmittance that was far lower. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifications commercial enterprises ca n make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Iowa from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in the State of Iowa.

Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and this Iowa bill, and Iowa would be free to enforce the provisions of this bill if it is enacted into law. We would, however, urge the State of Iowa to carefully consider the adv erse safety consequences that would result from enacting this bill into law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety. Your letter indicated that Iowa ha d also adopted this 70 percent light transmittance minimum as a State requirement for new vehicles. It is not clear why the State of Iowa would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance in new ve hicles is satisfied by allowing light transmittance levels as low as 25 and 14 percent in vehicles to be operated in the State.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further

questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht89-1.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/89

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

TO: BLANCHE KOZAK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/04/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO CHESTER ATKINS -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 03/29/89 FROM CHESTER G. ATKINS -- HOUSE TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT, RE MRS. BLANCHE KOZAK; LETTER DATED 09/26/88 FROM BLANCHE KOZAK TO BERRY FELRICE; LETTER D ATED 10/16/79 FROM EDWIN P. RIEDEL; REPORT UNDATED; LETTER DATED 08/09/88 FROM BLANCHE G. KOZAK TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Mrs. Kozak:

Thank you for your letter concerning the applicable classification and regulation of a three-wheeled vehicle manufactured by Cushman. I was saddened to learn that your husband died while operating such a vehicle at his job.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information about this agency's laws and regulations. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized by the National Traffi c and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." The Safety Act 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.

According to your letters, there are two different models of the three-wheeled Cushman vehicle. One of these models is intended solely for off-road use. This model would not be a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act, so NHTSA has no aut hority to regulate this model. The other model is intended for use on the public roads. According to your letter, your husband was operating the on-road model at his job. The on-road model plainly appears to be a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of th e Safety Act.

Cushman and every other manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards. Both eighteen-wheel tractor trailers and motor scooters are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act, but the safety standards specify different requirements for those two types of vehicles. To determine the applicable requirements in the safety standards, one must determine into which of several vehicle classes the vehicle in question will fall. As our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking explained in his July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio, the on-road model of the

2 Cushman three-wheeled vehicle would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle" for the purposes of our safety standards.

NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The Safety Act also required Cushman to certify that each of its on road three-wheeled vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1403. Additionally, the Safety Act requires Cus hman to recall and repair those vehicles if either Cushman or this agency determine that the vehicles contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1419. It is the individual State, Massachusetts in this case, that has authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles in that State.

I would now like to respond to the particular statements and concerns expressed in your letters.

Statement One: You said: "I feel a determination should be made as to what agency should regulate the use of this vehicle on the Public Highways and the person required to operate should be warned of the hazards inherent in the unit." (emphasis added)

Response: As explained above, NHTSA cannot regulate the operation or use of these vehicles. That is a question that is entirely within the authority of the State of Massachusetts. You may wish to express to the appropriate persons in the State of Massa chusetts your belief that the State ought to regulate the operation and use of these vehicles.

Statement Two: You then noted that "similar units are presently being used in the Commonwealth without a seat belt despite the fact that the Registry of Motor Vehicles considers them to be motor vehicles and not motorcycles."

Response: This statement suggests that you may have some uncertainties about the relationship of the vehicles called "motorcycles" to the larger vehicle group called "motor vehicles." As explained above, for the purposes of Federal law, "motorcycle" is a subset within the broad category of "motor vehicles." Other subsets of "motor vehicles" include "passenger car," "truck," and "bus." Thus, for Federal purposes, all motorcycles are motor vehicles.

Our July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio indicated that the on-road version of the Cushman three-wheeled vehicle is a motor vehicle that would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle." Our safety standard that requires most motor vehicles to be equip ped with safety belts or other types of occupant crash protection is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). However, this standard does not apply to vehicles classified as motorcycles. Accordingly, none of our safety standards requ ire Cushman to install safety belts on these vehicles.

Statement Three: You noted that this vehicle "does not have a solid door, only a canvas one."

3 Response: Our safety standard that specifies requirements for side doors on vehicles is Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR 571.214). Standard No. 214 currently applies only to passenger cars. Since the vehicle in question is a "motorcycle," our safety standards do not require the manufacturer to provide doors on it.

Statement Four: You suggested that the hospital and its employees "were possibly subjected to a fraudulent act," because the vehicle did not indicate a helmet is required when operating the Cushman vehicle.

Response: You are correct in assuming that the State of Massachusetts has a motorcycle helmet use law for all riders. If you are interested in learning more details about that law, you may wish to contact the appropriate persons in the Massachusetts sta te government.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: 2252y

Mr. Allen R. Andrlik
Australian Trade Commission
Australian Consulate General
Suite 2930
321 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60610

Dear Mr. Andrlik:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal regulations that would apply to the "Milford Cargo Barrier" that Milford Industries, an Australian company, manufactures. Your enclosure indicates that the barrier is a type of wire screen that is generally anchored to the sides and floor of a vehicle directly behind the front seat(s). The barrier is intended to protect occupants in a crash from impact with objects carried in the rear of cars, trucks and vans.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you describe. Our standard for glazing materials (Standard No. 205) applies only to interior barriers or partitions that contain glazing, and not to wire screens.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of Milford's barriers. If the barrier were installed as original equipment on a new motor vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Installation of the barrier could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, installation of the barrier could affect compliance with Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, which sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat, to protect occupants in the rear seat who may be thrown forward in a crash. The barrier could also affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (safety belts and other restraint systems), and Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (driver field of view). Copies of each of these standards are enclosed.

If the barrier were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle (e.g., a completed van) prior to the vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an "alterer" under 49 CFR /567.7. This would occur if the installation of the barrier constituted something other than a "readily attachable" component (such as tires or rim assemblies). To determine whether installation of the barrier involves a readily attachable component, the agency considers factors such as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise in installing the barrier.

The advertising brochure you enclosed states: "Expert installation available Australia wide." It also indicates that the barriers are "designed...to the individual dimensions" of the consumer's motor vehicle and are "load rated" (which we understand to mean that the barrier and its attachment are capable of withstanding a rated load). These factors appear to indicate that a degree of special expertise and analysis are needed to install the barrier so that it will perform in the manner intended. In light of these considerations, the barrier appears to be something other than a readily attachable component under /567.7. (If Milford would like to send us information indicating otherwise, we would be happy to review it.)

If the cargo barrier were installed in a new or used vehicle by a commercial business such as a motor vehicle dealer or repair shop, the installer would be subject to Safety Act considerations affecting the installation. Section l08(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...." Thus, the commercial installer would have to make sure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards (such as Standards 111, 201 and 208). Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108.

In addition to the FMVSS considerations, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment should also be aware that they are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed a copy of our regulation for defect responsibility of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers (49 CFR Part 579) for your information. Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

In addition to the regulations described above, we also bring to your attention a procedural rule which applies to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. Subpart D of 49 CFR Part 55l, Procedural Rules, requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

l. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States Corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:VSA#201#567 d:l/9/90

ID: 86-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/86 EST

FROM: SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: The school bus industry is quite possibly the most safety conscious industry in the nation, and properly so. Newspaper accounts of school bus accidents evoke a greater sense of tragic loss amongst readers -- no matter how far away the accident -- than most disasters involving greater numbers. Our culture assigns greater priority to the lives of its children than to the rest of us. Thus, any measures that enhance the safety of school bus passengers deserve serious attention, and they usually get it.

That was the case with the transportation director of a school district in Iowa when he happened on some literature which described a bizarre-sounding, after-purchase procedure for slashing tires. Jerry Williams puzzled about the procedure (called "siping") for a while, checked around with other companies which slashed their tires, and persuaded the business manager of the Linn-Mar Community School District to buy a siping machine.

That was in 1978. Williams says, "we've been very happy with it ever since."

The siping machine Jerry Williams uses can put any cut in virtually any kind of tire siped, new or used, as long as it has 5/32" tread left. Anyone can be trained to use the machine in 10 or 15 minutes, and the machine allows an operator to make cuts of different depths, as required by the amount of tread left on tire. Cuts may be on the diagonal or straight across the tire, and the width between them may be varied. The cutting blades on this particular sipe are cooled by a spray-miser which cost about five dollars, and are good for 80 or 90 tires. Williams sharpens his blades after 20 tires -- "I touch them up," as he puts it.

Siping has been around for a long time, but only in the last decade or so has there been a machine which makes the tiny cuts quickly, effectively and inexpensively. Williams reports that "it takes two hours to sipe the six tires on my buses, from the time the bus comes in until it's turned loose. That's with a crew of two people."

The Linn-Mar School District's siping machine is manufactured by the Saf-Tee Siping & Grooving Company of Minnetonka, Minnesota.

In Missoula, Montana, in the mountainous western part of the state, Bob Beach's school bus fleet of 70 buses travels 800,000 miles per year, all on siped tires. Before the Saf-Tee Siper was invented, Beach used to cut his tires by hand, with a knife, but it was a costly and ragged procedure.

With the machine-made cuts, according to Beach, the hundreds of sharp little edges created by siping make the footprint of a tire spread, and "this means the tire grips the road surface better, making braking and steering on snow or ice much more effective." He adds, "you also get much better traction spin for starts."

The Linn-Mar School District used to stud their tires for winter road conditions, but siping has eliminated the need for studs and double tire inventories.

According to Williams, Linn-Mar first siped its school bus tires in the dead winter. Roads were covered with snow and ice. As an experiment, he mentioned to some drivers that their tires had been siped, but said nothing to the others. "When the latter came back in the afternoon," he continued, "the drivers said "What did you do to his bus? The front end didn't slide around the corners like it did in the past, and the stopping distance is shorter. And it's getting better traction on take-off."

In Montana, Bob Beach used to run his siped tire only in the winter, but when he began using them year-round, he discovered that siped tires are very effective in Montana's June and September rains.

"The siped tread-elements open up and the sharp edges penetrate the lubricating film of water in what might be called a squeegee action, and the openings between the tire elements created by the sipes channel water away. This minimizes hydroplaning. In fact, it usually eliminates hydroplaning altogether."

Bill Dufor, who operates a fleet of 165 school buses in Prospect, Connecticut, and Pittsfield, Massachusetts, agrees with Beach. "One of the reasons we've got a siping machine is because of wet roads. We feel a lot more comfortable with them, especially with some re-caps which are noted for being a little bit slick on wet roads. Siped tires give you that much more comfort and reliability. We think it does a good job on wet roads."

You might reasonably think that tire life would be reduced by siping; tire engineers though so too, a couple of decades ago. To their surprise, however, they found that tire life increased, and for a very simple reason: siped tires run cooler. The cuts help dissipate heat. Siped tires are used by school bus fleets, highway patrol cars, over-the-road truckers, transit companies and thousands of passenger car owners. In all cases, tires run cooler, and some users report increases in tire life from 15 to 20 percent. That reduces operating costs, and is of obvious significance for public sector fleet owners, like school districts.

The Linn-Mar School District runs siped highway tires on the front end and siped traction tires on the rear -- "Michelins, Goodyears, Fire-stones," according to Williams. The bottom line about siping tires? In Jerry Williams' words, "Everybody feels safer."

That is the case with Bob Beach and Paul Dufour, as well. Siped tires are not only safer on roads that are icy, snow-packed or filmed with water, they are also cost-effective even on dry roads. They run cooler and dissipate heat.

As Bob Beach puts it, "increased safety and reduced operating costs don't always go together, but with machine-siped tires, they do. There's no way I'd go back to running without them."