ID: nht93-3.34

DATE: May 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Bob Dittert -- Trooper, Texas Department of Public Safety

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-14-93 from Bob Dittert to NHTSA (OCC 8240)

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about how the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affect State laws applicable to the same aspect of performance. You were particularly interested in our requirements for window tinting. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. After providing background information, I will answer the specific questions raised in your letter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Standard 205, "Glazing Materials," issued under the Safety Act, has requirements that limit the amount of tinting that can be placed on windows in new vehicles. 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.

Under S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, no person shall manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not meet all applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces.

The prohibition in S108(a)(1)(A) against selling complying vehicles and items of equipment does not apply to a vehicle or item of equipment after its first sale to a consumer. However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Act applies to modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. That section 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.

Please note that the "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

I would now like to apply this background to the particular questions raised in

your letter.

QUESTION ONE:

"Are the CFRs law and enforceable only by federal agents?"

NHTSA's regulations and safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations and standards apply without State ratification to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces these regulations and safety standards.

QUESTION TWO:

"Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?"

The FMVSS's apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, and not to used vehicles or equipment. NHTSA may bring enforcement actions against manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of equipment that do not comply with applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA also enforces the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act against commercial entities that modify new or used vehicles in a manner that violates the "render inoperative" provision. We also note that NHTSA can investigate safety defects in new or used vehicles or items of equipment.

QUESTION THREE:

"Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFRs?"

We understand you to ask this in the context of window tinting requirements, since elsewhere in your letter you ask whether a Texas law that allows light transmittance of 35 percent violates Federal law.

Your question relates to S103(d) of the Safety Act, which states:

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 S103(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.

As stated above, Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses (SlO8(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act). The effect of S108(a)(2)(A) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in S108(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.

QUESTION 4:

"Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp 'black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?"

You are correct that S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act regulates the modifications of only the commercial entities listed in that section of the Act, and that the Safety Act does not prohibit an individual from modifying his or her vehicle such that it no longer complies with the FMVSS's. The States may have requirements governing the modification of a vehicle by individual owners.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht74-3.7

DATE: 12/11/74

FROM: GERHARD P. RIECHEL -- ATTORNEY VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA INC

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- OFFICE OF THE CHEIF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: STANDARD 105 - FAILURE INDICATOR LAMP

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/28/75 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA TO GERHARD P. RIECHEL, RED BOOK (-); STANDARD 105-75

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

This is in reference to our meeting of Friday, November 22, and previous telephone conversations concerning the permissibility of Volkswagen's brake failure indicator configuration for use in connection with 1976 model vehicles.

We have understood Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS 105-75 read in conjunction with S5.3.1(a)(1) to permit deactivation of the failure indicator lamp whenever the brake system is not under pressure, that is whenever brake activation terminates. Mr. Bloom informed us that this understanding did not accurately reflect the intent of the language of the Standard nor the purpose that its authors sought to achieve.

While we appreciate the difficulty of drafting regulations dealing with complex technical subjects, we believe that the language of the rule should be accorded priority where a contrary intent and purpose are not readily apparent. We have closely examined each notice issued by the NHTSA in the course of the lengthy rulemaking process relating to Standard 105 and find nothing that would have aided us in ascertaining the claimed intent of the rule.

It should also be noted that unlike certification, recall and record keeping regulations promulgated by the NHTSA, its safety standards are addressed to design engineers, who are accustomed to working with measurable and ascertainable values and conditions. A "gross loss of pressure," an engineer would justly maintain, simply cannot exist in the absence of any pressure in the brake system. One could argue that had the rule's authors intended the indicator lamp to remain activated as long as the brake system was so grossly defective that it was incapable of building up pressure, terms similar to "inability to build up pressure" or other such language would have been chosen. There is little doubt that our engineers chose that meaning, which most closley conforms to the letter of the standard, and totally unaware of the subsequently disclosed "intent" of the rule, acted responsibly in designing and developing a brake failure warning and indicator lamp configuration, which now is ready for production and use in connection with 1976 model cars.

Description of the Volkswagen Brake Failure Warning System and its Advantages Over Other Systems

Volkswagen uses a dual chamber master cylinder, which provides operating pressure to both brake circuits. The system is so designed that leaks in one circuit will not affect the performance of the other circuit. An electrical warning system, which is actuated by a pressure switch in each of the two brake circuits, which is located in the master cylinder, causes a red indicator lamp on the instrument panel to light up whenever a gross loss of pressure occurs in one of the two circuits upon application of the brake pedal with a control force of not more than fifty (50) pounds. The two pressure switches perform dual functions. Under normal operating conditions, they operate the tail brake lights. Both pressure switches are actuated simultaneously as the result of pressure built up in each circuit. In the case of a gross loss of pressure in one of the circuits, the pressure switch for the other circuit is actuated and in turn illuminates the tail brake lights and the warning indicator lamp upon application of the brake pedal. When the brake pedal is released, the warning and tail lights are deactuated.

This type of pressure failure warning system has certain advantages and, we believe, is superior to warning systems incorporating latching relay components, which allow the warning lamp to remain activated even if the brake pedal is released. Latching relay components have the disadvantage that they operate only in the event that a failure occurs. Unused, they may become increasingly unreliable as the vehicle ages. There is no way of checking, short of dis-assembly, whether or not they are operative. With the increasing age of the vehicle, possible malfunctions due to corrosion and other causes remain undetected until such time as the actual pressure loss occurs. Volkswagen's warning system offers a means of checking and assuring continuous operation throughout the life of the vehicle.

Additionally, since the Volkswagen pressure switch does not only sense a pressure loss but also any malfunction in the switch itself, which, if it occurs, would activate the indicator lamp, the driver is made aware of any deficiency in his braking system.

The Volkswagen warning system also enables the vehicle operator to distinguish between a pressure failure signaled by the warning light being deactivated upon release of the brake pedal, and a loss of brake fluid. In the latter instance, the warning light will remain activated independent of any brake pedal activation.

Notwithstanding the unpublished intent of the rule, which was unknown to us until recently, we believe there is ample support for our claim that the Volkswagen design falls squarely within the interpretive parameters of the Standard's language. We therefore believe that our design is permissible under the law without further rulemaking.

In the event that the NHTSA should disagree with this view, we respectfully request that the effectiveness date of Paragraph S5.3.3 to the extent that it makes reference to Paragraph S5.3.1(a)(1) be postponed until September 1, 1976.

Volkswagen is currently committed to produce the system described above and in more detail in Attachments 1, 2, and 3.

In order to meet the alleged intent of the rule, it will be necessary to redesign our current warning system in several respects. Attachment 4 shows the circuit diagram of the new system, and Attachment 3, the changes that are necessary in the lamp housing in order to accommodate the additional components. The changes are marked in red pencil.

Enclosed as Attachment 5 is an estimate of the cost that we anticipate in acquiring new tooling and in tool modifications for the purpose of incorporating latching relay components into the warning system of each of the models offered for sale in the United States. Note in particular the high costs that will be incurred for our two new models, the Rabbit and Scirocco. The single largest cost factor in this case involves major changes on the dashboard support structures on these models to receive the larger components of the new lamp assembly. The dashboard changes as well as the modifications of the instrument panel insert are marked in red pencil in the drawing enclosed as Attachment 6. The total cost for new tooling is estimated to be approximately $400,000. The cost to the manufacturer of the additional components that must be installed in 1977 vehicles is approximately $4 per car.

Redesign and preparation for production including development of the additional tooling is estimated to require approximately 20 months.

Your favorable consideration of our request is appreciated.

Sincerely,

ENCS

ID: nht75-3.10

DATE: 06/02/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Tiger Tanks; Division of Faull Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1975, concerning the manufacture and installation of replacement tanks for Dodge, Ford, and Chevrolet vans.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated no motor vehicle safety standard relating to replacement fuel tanks. There is, however, a safety standard which imposes performance requirements upon motor vehicles with regard to their fuel systems (Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity). Thus, if installation of your replacement tank is accomplished prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale causing the vehicle's fuel system not to be in compliance with the applicable safety standard, the person installing the tank or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of @ 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563). That would make the installer or seller subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Recent amendments to the Traffic Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492) prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard (@ 108(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, even if installation of your replacement tank occurred after the first purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle's compliance with the fuel system integrity standard would still be mandatory where one of the above named persons performed the installation. If the replacement tank caused the fuel system to no longer comply with the safety standard, the installer would have rendered inoperative a system installed in compliance with Standard 301.

The Traffic Safety Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make determinations as to whether items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects which relate to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that a safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer to remedy the defect and notify purchasers of the hazard. Therefore, even though replacement fuel tanks are not the subject of a standard, they still must be designed for safety.

In addition, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulates interstate carriers, including fuel systems for operational and auxiliary equipment. These regulations might be of interest to you and are enclosed. Your attention is directed to the section concerning fuel systems, pages 51 through 54.

SINCERELY,

April 28, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

We wish to be informed as to what information is required of us to obtain your approval on our replacement fuel tank for Dodge, Ford and Chevy vans.

We are currently approved by the State of California Air Resources Board for the manufacturing installation and distribution of our fuel tank. (enclosure)

Our replacement fuel tank does not alter or change any standard fuel system or structual entities of the vehicle.

We are only adding an additional fuel capacity.

We are currently negotiating a contract with a company who is placing quite a large order and they are requesting that we have your approval.

We have checked with Ford Motor Company, Chrysler Corporation and General Motors Corporation and they have informed us that we do not need any approvals from them.

Thanking you in advance.

Alfred H. Faull President

Tiger Tanks Division of Faull Enterprises, Inc.

A Division of Faull Enterprises, Inc.

REPLACEMENT FUEL TANKS FOR DODGE, FORD, CHEVY VANS AND MINI MOTOR HOMES

* Construction of long ternes steel-lead coated inside and out.

* Made of the same metal as the Ford Motor Company. The Chrysler Corporation and General Motors Corporation use on all original fuel tanks.

* Construction of heavy duty 16 guage steel.

* Seam welded.

* New sending unit and mounting hardware included.

* Connects back to original equipment.

* Pressure tested.

* No inside oil coating to dissolve.

* No plastic lining to peel and clog fuel lines and carburetors.

* No rusting to clog carburetors.

* No exterior paint to peel and cause rusting.

* Approved by the California Air Resourse Board. MODEL WHEELBASE YEAR APPROX. CAPACITY - DODGE ALL WHEELBASE 70-75 48 gallons net FORD ALL WHEELBASE 68-75 46 gallons net CHEVY/GMC ALL WHEELBASE 71-75 45 gallons nets

O.E.M. SUGGESTED RETAIL $ 79.00 not installed $ 125.00 not installed $ 105.00 installed $ 150.00 installed

F.O.B. Carson, Calif. Terms are C.O.D.

Prices subject to change without notice.

Orders of 10 or more units - $ 69.95 per unit.

State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD

EXECUTIVE ORDER F-39 Relating to the Accreditation of Auxiliary Gasoline Fuel Tank Evaporative Loss Control System

TIGER TANKS DIVISION OF FAULL ENTERPRISES INC.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Air Resources Board by Sections 39106.5 and 39175 of the Health and Safety Code; and

Pursuant to the authority vested in the undersigned by Section 39023 of the Health and Safety Code;

IT IS ORDERED AND RESOLVED: That Tiger Tanks auxiliary gasoline fuel tank evaporative loss control system is accredited for installation on vehicles subject to evaporative emission control requirements and originally equipped with activated carbon canister type control systems.

This accreditation is for systems serving up to 100 gallons of total fuel storage. For each 50 gallons of fuel storage capacity the vapors shall be vented to a 500 to 625 gram capacity activated carbon vapor storage canister.

This Executive Order shall, without further action by the Executive Officer, cease to be of effect if fuel evaporative loss emission standards more stringent than those in effect on the date of this Order are established and made applicable to any vehicle for which the manufacturer's system is hereby accredited, unless prior thereto the manufacturer applies for and obtains from the Executive Officer, based upon a showing that its system complies with such more stringent standards, an appropriate amendment to this Order or a new Executive Order.

The manufacturer must obtain prior approval from the Air Resources Board before any production changes are made on the gasoline fuel evaporative loss control system that would affect evaporative emissions, or before the system is sold, offered for sale, or advertised under a different name, whether by the manufacturer or any other person.

The Department of Motor Vehicles, the California Highway Patrol, and the Bureau of Automotive Repair will be notified by copy of this order and attachment.

Executed at Sacramento, California, this 10th day of December, 1974.

GEORGE J. TAYLOR

WILLIAM SIMMONS FOR Executive Officer

NET GALLONS 48

(Graphics omitted)

NET GALLONS 46

LONG WHEEL BASE ONLY

NET GALLONS 45

ID: nht94-1.85

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carl Haywood -- Operations Manager, Emergency Response Specialists (Morris, Alabama)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/21/93 from Carl Haywood to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 21, 1993, requesting information about seating requirements for emergency response units you are designing to respond to chemical spills. The response units are tractor trailer combinations which can be driven in and out of the cargo bay of C-130 Hercules aircraft which are used to transport the units to the site. You further describe the response units as follows:

Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. D uring air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation. This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases.

You requested information on the regulation of the seating in the response units. You have already contacted several Department of Transportation agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

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.

If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable safety standards, including those related to seating and occupant restraint. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, the n the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Applying this definition to the response units, NHTSA believes the response units are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether a vehicle which has both on-road and off-road uses is a motor vehicle, the agency looks at whether the vehicle uses public roads on a necessary and

recurring basis. Applying this criteria to the response units, we believe that the response units have a primary function of highway transportation of personnel and equipment to the chemical spill site.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to determine the occupant seating requirements for the response units, it is necessary to determine how these vehicles are classified unde r our regulations. NHTSA he fines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The tractor portion of the response unit has seating capacity for at least three passengers, but its primary use appears to be to draw the trailer. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." NHTSA believes the trailer portion of the response units would be considered trailers fo r the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to issue four safety standards relevant to occupant seating and restraint: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facin g seats. Therefore, all "occupant seats" in tractor portion of the response units must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers, therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not subj ect to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, trucks are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position. As with Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the trail er portion of the response units are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Vehicle manufacturers have a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after September 1 , 1990. Option 1 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor.

Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if seat belts are voluntarily installed at the seats in the trailer portion of the response units, the seat belts would be required to comply with Standard No. 209.

Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages installed in vehicles, where seat belts are required by Standard No. 208. Therefore, anchorages are required for the lap belts in the tractor, but are not required in the trailer.

Although all of the safety standards cited in this letter do not apply to each seating position in your proposed emergency response unit, the agency nevertheless encourages additional consideration and application of those performance requirements that a re appropriate to a safe design.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202)366-2992.

ID: nht68-3.2

DATE: 02/20/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H.M. Jacklin, Jr; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Company, Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 30, 1968 (your reference No. CSAI-25) requesting information to a number of questions related to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. I(Illegible Word) that we did not receive your October 5, 1968 letter and that the(Illegible Word) of work has delayed my answer to your most recent letter.

I am glad to send you the following information:

a.(Illegible Word) No. 112 - Headlight Concealment Devices.

1. It is stipulated in 3.4.5 that "each headlamp concealment device shall, within an ambient temperature range of -70 to +120 degrees F., be capable of being fully opened in not(Illegible Line) described in S.4.3." With regard to the temperature condition at the time of a test, if only the(Illegible Word) temperature satisfied the cold temperature conditions, is it all right to try no regard to other conditions, such as the sticking of frost, ice, etc.?

ANSWER: It is only necessary that the ambient temperature conditions (-20 to +120 degrees F.) be(Illegible Word) at the time of the test.

b.(Illegible Word) No. 114 - Thoft Protection.

1. With regard to the regulation in s.4.2 that "The prime cause for deactivating the csr's engine or other main source of motive power shall not activate the(Illegible Word) required by S4.11(b)," we have provided the ignition switch with four stages as shown in the batch below; our key-locking system is of the(Illegible Word) that the system does not activate(Illegible Line)(Illegible Line)

ANSWER: The system as you describe it appears to conform to(Illegible Line)(Illegible Line) with this requirement to the responsibility of the individual manufacturer.

2. With reference to the stipulation in S.4.1. "Each passenger car shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent ----.", we would like to know whether or not we must provide such a mechanism as the key can be removed only at the stage "Lock" and cannot at the stage "Off".

ANSWER: A locking system having such a position that the key may be removed without activating either the cars' steering lock or its self-mobility lock would not conform to the standard in its present form, since paragraph S4.1 of the standard requires each car to have a key locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent either steering or self-mobility of the car, or both.

c. MVSS No. 201 - Occupant Protection in Interior Impact 1. With regard to the interpretation of the stipulation in S.3.1 " , the deceleration of the head form shall not exceed 80 g for more than 3 milliseconds," when the deceleration wave -- shown in the chart below -- is obtained.

in case DELTA t[1] < 3 milliseconds, we interpret that the standard is satisfied even when delta t[1] +="Sigma" t[2] t[3] t[i] milliseconds.

Is our interpretation correct? (Illustration omitted)

ANSWER: Your interpretation is correct. The standard permits more than one peak that exceed 80g which, cumulatively, may add to more than 3 milliseconds. No single peak may continuously exceed 80g for more than a 3 millisecond duration.

2. When the areas stipulated in S.3.1.1.(d) -- "Areas outboard of any point of tangency on the instrument panel of a 6.5 inch diameter head form tangent to an inboard of vertical longitudinal plane tangent to the inboard edge of the steering wheel," -- are illustrated, which of the following hatched portions in the figures below is in conformity to the stipulation? (Illustration omitted)

ANSWER: Figure (a) is correct for the inboard side. Present requirements do not apply to the area outboard of the steering wheel on the instrument panel.

d. MVSS No. 207 - Anchorage of Seats.

S.3.3 Folding and hinged seats. Except for folding auxiliary seats and seats with backs which are adjustable for occupant confort only.

1. Is it correct to interpret that the underlined part is referring to seats with backs reclining mechanism enabling to adjust the angle of the back?

ANSWER: Yes.

2. Or, should we interpret that the seats with reclinable backs come under the hinged seats?

ANSWER: No.

3. a. In the case of car with four doors, if the front seats are those with reclinable backs, these are presumed to be the ones corresponding to (1). Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

b. In the case of a car with two doors, we would like to interpret that only the reclinable seat backs with folding mechanism enabling the passenger on the rear seat to get in and out are in conformity to (2). Is our interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

S.3.3.1 The release control shall be readily accessible to the occupant of that seat and to the occupant of any seat immediately behind that seat.

1. The above stipulation is presumed to be laid down for the egress of the passengers on the rear seat. Therefore, when the reclining seats are installed in a four-door car, we would like to consider it unncessary to pay regard to the underlined part. Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

2. In the case of a two-door car, if the control which can be easily operated by passengers on the rear seat is installed only on one side (the right side), the passengers on the rear seat can operate the control by moving to the right side. Consequently, we consider it sufficient to install only on the right side the control which is easily accessible to the passengers on the rear seat. Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: In the case of a two-door car, for a split back or bucket seat arrangement, where both seat backs fold, a release control should be provided on the outboard side of each folding seat back. If the seat back is split and only one seat back folds, only one release control is required on the outboard side.

e. MVSS No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

1. We judge that the fastening strength of the seat belt anchorage will change, depending on the shape of the eye bolt attaching the seat belt to the seat belt anchorage point.

If an anchorage is tested by using our designed seat belt assembly and the strength of the anchorage can be assured, we understand that the anchorage fully conforms to the standard, and also understand that it is not necessary to guarantee the owners of Mazda vehicles if they attach a seat belt assembly other than the one designated by us. Is our interpretation correct?

We, of course, will specify in our Operation Manual that the seat belt assembly designated by our company must be used.

ANSWER: Under Paragraph S.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages are to be tested by using a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly as defined in FMVSS No. 209. If you follow this procedure, using a belt which complies to No. 209, and your anchorages meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, then you are in compliance with this standard.

I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of equipment or on vehicle designs. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the Standards.

ID: nht71-1.20

DATE: 06/26/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: D.C. Transit System, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1971, to Mr. Roy J. Dennison, concerning the use of Abcite coated acrylics in side windows of D.C. Transit buses.

Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials-Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses presently allows the use of AS-4 or AS-5 rigid plastics in the side wiodows of buses when the side windows are readily removable. Readily removable windows are defined in ANSX Standards ZZ6.1-1966 as "windows that can be quickly and completely removed from the motor vehicle without tools."

If this provision of the Standard is not adequate to satisfy your needs, we will be pleased to meet with you to discuss the matter further.

Office of the General Counsel D.C. Transit System. Inc.

June 15, 1971

Roy A. Dennison,

Safety Standards Engineer

Code 41-42

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dennison:

Pursuant to our conversations regarding the use of acrylic coated with Aboite, I enclose herewith for your consideration two letters from the Dupont Company relative to certain tests made.

I wish to request that you give this matter your prompt consideration for the reason that this organization would like to be able to use this material in certain new buses that it intends to order as part of its fleet together with the use of same in windows on our used buses. I am arranging for a sample of the material to be sent to you under separate cover.

What we hope to obtain from you is a statement to the effect that the material does meet the safety standards of your department and in turn this would allow us to take this matter up with the District of Columbia authorities in order to be able to use this material as windows in our fleet.

I will await your reply after your investigation of this matter.

Very truly yours,

May 28, 1971

R. Dennison, Office of Crash Injury Reduction, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Safety Bureau,

Dear Mr. Dennison,

I have been having difficulty trying to contact you over the last two weeks, probably because of your vacation, but hope that you can give me a very quick answer to two questions arising out of the proposed modifications to Standard 205.

The first question concerns the date when the marking modifications become effective. My own reading of the Standard is that, since it is a Standard for glazing materials, then the effective date applies to the manufacture of the glazing material and not to the fitting of the glazing material into the automobile. If I am wrong in my assumption, then we have to bring our whole modification process very much more forward, because a glass to be, fitted in January must have been made by September, because of the large number of glasses already in the pipe line.

The second problem concerns the actual form in which the DOT certification appears. Triplex has been allocated symbol DOT 17 and that is the symbol which we put on the glass. The proposed modification to 205 calls for a hyphen to be placed between DOT and the number (17 in our case). Will you accept the marking DOT 17 without the hyphen, because all our stencils and master plates have been made in this form and we should be put to both considerable expense and delay in getting all the master plates modified.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Clue to Mr. D. Ferguson in case you are still on vacation, as I am urgently needing advice.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

A. J. HOLLAND--TRIPLEX SAFETY GLASS CO. LTD.

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company

PLASTICS DEPARTMENT

May 7, 1971

H. T. Smyth

Vice President Purchasing - Contracts

D. C. Transit System, Inc.

Dear Mr. Smyth:

In your letter of March 25, 1971, you asked me to certify to the following:

Du Pont Abcite abrasion resistant sheet - acrylic satisfies the requirements of Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the ASA Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for glazing motor vehicles operating on land highways - Z26.1 - 1966.

I am pleased to advise that our tests and investigations are now completed to an extent where we certify our material (Abcite abrasion resistant sheet - acrylic) does meet all of the ASA Z26.1 - 1966 requirements for the above items.

I hope this certification is in time for you to specify Abcite for your new coaches, and you will now proceed with additional usage on your current fleet.

If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Russell H. Berry, Jr.--

Development Specialist

Abcite Venture

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company

PLASTICS DEPARTMENT

March 29, 1971

H. T. Smyth

Vice President, Purchasing - Contracts

D. C. Transit System, Inc.

Dear Mr. Smyth:

Thank you for your letter of March 25, and we are pleased to hear of the satisfactory results of your tests with windows of acrylic coated with Abcite (Registered). Your decision to convert your fleet to Abcite (Registered) pending governmental approval is also exciting news.

You asked for a letter "stating that this material satisfies the requirements of: Items 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the ASA Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for glazing motor vehicles operating on land highways - Z26.1 - 1966".

All our data indicate that acrylic coated with Abcite (Registered) abrasion resistant coating satisfies all of the requirements in the above items of the ASA Code. We are submitting sample material to an outside testing laboratory for certification to verify our data. Tests run by an independent testing laboratory at the request of the Department of Transportation show a non-compliance in the weathering tests with which we seriously disagree. All our weathering data, both in lab tests and outside weathering tests, show essentially no change in optical quality, light transmission and haze levels. (See Page 3 of attached product bulletin.) However, as I stated, we are having these tests run at our request for certification.

I hope the above satisfies your requirements but if there are any questions or if you need additional information, please contact me. My telephone number is 302//4-4639.

Sincerely,

Russell H. Berry, Jr. --

Development Specialist

Abcite (Registered) Venture

Enclosure

ID: nht88-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/13/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Busch Transportation Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dan Moore Engineer - Car Design Busch Transportation Services 5901 State Route 15 Belleville, IL. 62223

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning a step-van design. You indicated that you propose to attach a step-van to a truck chassis with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds, and sought information about applicable Federal requirements. Specifically, you asked which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to the finished step-van, what other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations would apply, and which of the safety standards require a ctual testing of a prototype. While I apologize for the delay in responding to your requests, I hope that the following information is useful to you.

First, by way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Th e Safety Act specifies that it is the manufacturer itself that must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacturer. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not "approv e" any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.

In certifying compliance with the safety standards, the manufacturer must do so consistent with the agency's definitions of motor vehicle types, found in S571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. From the information in your letter, it appea rs that your vehicle would be classified as a truck. (Our regulations define "truck" as a "motor vehicle, with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.") I am enclosing with this letter a table which lists each standard that applies to each basic vehicle type. From this list you should be able to determine which safety standards apply to your vehicle. In addition, I am enclosing a fact sheet for new manufacturers, which describes all pertinent areas of regulation of motor vehicles, as well as a booklet for complying with regulations on importing motor vehicles. While you are not importing vehicles, the booklet does contain summary statements for each of the standards, which may be helpful to you.

You indicate that you will be attaching a step-van to a truck chassis, and thus request information concerning your responsibilities as a final stage manufacturer. The agency's requirements for final stage manufacturers are set forth in Parts 567 and 568 of the agency's regulations. I have enclosed copies of both of these regulations. Briefly, these requirements can be explained as follows.

Under S568.6, a final stage manufacturer must complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all safety standards for the applicable vehicle type (in this case we presume a truck) in effect on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of t he incomplete vehicle (in this case, the chassis), and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture (in this case, the attachment of the body to the chassis). In addition, you must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordan ce with the certification requirements set forth in S567.5. Requirements For Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

To reduce the certification burdens on final stage manufacturers, NHTSA has imposed some regulatory requirements on incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Under S568.4, an incomplete vehicle manufacturer must list by number each standard that applies to its v ehicle at the time of manufacture, and make one of the following three statements for each standard:

1. That the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components:

2. That if the vehicle is completed under specific conditions of final manufacture set out in the compliance document, it will conform to the standard: or

3. That conformity with the standards is not substantially affected by the incomplete vehicle design, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard. (49 CFR 568.4(a)(7))

I would like to point out one circumstance that may affect your certification as final stage manufacturer and reliance on representations made by the incomplete manufacturer. It is possible that, in the course of your attaching the step-van to the truck chassis, you will change the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. If this occurs, you much certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at this new GVWR. Some of the standards which are likely to be affected by an increase in the GVWR are Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

With regard to your question about actual field testing, the agency does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests, or any tests at all. Instead, we only require that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of due care, as specified in the Safety Act. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the saf ety standards.

I hope the information in this letter is useful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 18, 1987

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

PETITION: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Gentleman:

We here at Busch Transportation Services (BTS) are considering entering our design for a step-van into the market. Although we are a part of the Transportation Group of Anheuser-Busch, we are very new to the industry of new trailer/truck body design and manufacture.

In accordance with CFR 49, Part 552, we respectfully request your interpretation regarding the applicability of CFR 49, Part 571, "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" to our proposed design. The step-van we propose would be for attachment (by BTS) to truck chassis of 10,000 pound GVWR. Specifically, we would like to know which of the FMVSS's would apply to us as the final stage manufacturer, as well as any other CFR 49 requirements we would have to meet.

Additionally, we would like to know which of the applicable FMVSS's would require actual field testing to be performed on a prototype of our proposed design. We would appreciate guidelines as to whom would be able to perform such tests for us.

We want to work with your Administration so that we will have a fully NHTSA-certified vehicle and will look forward to finding out exactly how to do so. Please call if we can provide any other information.

Sincerely,

Dan Moore Engineer-Car Design

ID: nht88-1.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/01/88

FROM: MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TO: CARL KAPLAN -- EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT M. S. GOLDKLANG & COMPANY, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/07/88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- EPA TO ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, RE ACCEPTABILITY OF ADVANCED BRAKE LIGHT DEVICE AS AN AFTERMARKET UNIT; LETTER DATED 11/30/81, FROM FRANK BERNDT, TO KENNETH G. MOYER; LE TTER DATED 05/02/84, FROM FRANK BERNDT TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kaplan:

We enjoyed our meeting with you, Mr. Shapira and Mr. Eckstein, and the demonstration of the Advanced Brake Light Device (ABLD).

The ABLD appears to have some potential for reducing the incidence of rear-end crashes, and it appears that you are addressing the problem of false indications of braking action with some success. As noted during the discussions, the choice of the pedal release speed threshold for early activation of the braking signal does present an interesting problem in setting the trade between reducing false alarms and maximizing the number of early indications of braking. Too, there is the question of how much incremental benefit is obtainable beyond that provided by the current stoplamp system including the Center High Mounted Stoplamp.

We would be interested in seeing data which may bear on the question of the effectiveness of the ABLD. The testing you have commissioned the UMTRI staff to perform appears to be a step toward the goal of obtaining such data. If the results of the work at UMTRI staff to perform appears to be a step toward the goal of obtaining such data. If the results of the work at UMTRI confirm your representations the next step would be a serious fleet study.

There is always the possibility of NHTSA funding of a project to test a concept such as you propose, however, our research budget is now particularly constrained because of recent cuts in funding levels, and the process of developing a particular project as part of an agency accepted plan of research can be lengthy. Data obtained through privately funded research performed by competent, recognized, objective investigators is accepted for review in the evaluation of a concept by the agency.

The required magnitude of a fleet study to demonstrate the effectiveness of a concept such as the ABLD depends upon several

factors which include, for example, the pretest crash rate of the fleet to be used in the study, the amount of change or difference which is to be detected, the desired degree of assurance that an observed change or difference is not a chance event and t he desired degree of assurance that a real difference would be detected in the study. As an example, you suggest that the use of the ABLD would reduce annual rear-end crashes in the U.S. from approximately 2.6 million to 1.1 million. Assuming your data to be for the year 1984, and a figure of 1,716,768 million vehicle miles of travel for that year, this is a reduction of approximately 58% from a calculated crash rate of 1.55 to .65 crashes per million miles. If it is desired to be fairly sure that an y difference observed in the study would occur by chance only 5% of the time and that a real difference would be detected 95% of the time, a sample of 41.35 crashes is required for each of the experimental and control groups of cars. Consequently, at 1. 55 crashes per million vehicle miles, a sample of 26.73 million vehicle miles would be required. Assuming that the vehicles travel 10,000 miles per year, 2673 vehicles equipped with the ABLD, and a similar number of control vehicles without the device, would be required for a 1 year study.

If any of the values chosen for the computations are changed, of course, the result may be radically different. In this context I would like to note that it appears that your estimate of the effectiveness of the ABLD may be overly optimistic and the bas eline crash rate too high. You should note that 5400 vehicles, half with and half without CHMSL, were included in the second fleet test of the CHMSL. This number was selected on the basis of estimates of crash rate and effectiveness lower than those yo u presented. To demonstrate the effect of changes in such assumptions, the required sample size was recalculated with the assumption that the ABLD would reduce crashes by 20% rather than 58%. In addition, the stringency of the statistical criteria was r educed to allow the possibility that a difference would be observed in the study would occur by chance 20% of the time when there was no real difference and that a real difference would be detected 80% of the time. In this case 5897 vehicles equipped wi th the ABLD and the same number of control vehicles would be required for a one year study.

I am enclosing copies of several documents in response to your requests during our meetings at the NHTSA and with Pat McCann in Senator Lautenberg's office. The SAE paper will provide you with an overview of the technical history of the Center High Mount ed Stoplamp (CHMSL). The two technical reports of the fleet tests of the CHMSL will give you an idea of the sample size and exposure needed to establish the effectiveness of the device. In addition, I have enclosed copies of some pages from

a report which describe statistical considerations in defining the size of sample required in a defined project. The Regulatory Impact Analysis will give you some idea of the rational background prepared before taking regulatory action. Cost/benefi t analysis of a device to be used in addition to the current stoplamp system would be based on incremental effectiveness beyond that provided by the currently required system. The pages from the Code of Federal Regulations will give you the information about the petitioning process as well as current requirements for stoplamps.

During our meetings we briefly discussed the issue of the use of your device as an aftermarket system. We asked for an interpretation of the pertinent regulations by the Chief Counsel and a copy of her response is enclosed. As you can see from the memo randum, her opinion is that the device is illegal as either original or replacement equipment. You or any other individual or group, of course, can petition the agency to change the regulations to permit the use of the device. A more immediate problem for you, however, is that this opinion limits your options for the conduct of fleet tests to evaluate the ABLD.

One option is to equip a fleet to be operated outside the United States. In this case you would have to conform to any relevant regulations of the country in which you conducted the fleet test. A second option would be to identify a vehicle manufacture r interested in the use of the device, who could petition the agency for a temporary exemption from the regulations on the grounds that it would promote the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Such an exemption would cover 2 500 vehicles a year. This approach would lengthen the probable time required to conduct a fleet test, but appears to be necessary if you desire to conduct a fleet test in this country.

I hope I have provided you with the information you need. If we can be of further help, please don't hesitate to call me or Dr. Bishop.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: RIBILL23454

Mr. Charles F. Dolan
Administration
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
Division of Motor Vehicles
286 Main Street
Pawtucket, RI 02860

Dear Mr. Dolan:

This responds to your letter, and to telephone calls from John DiTomasso of your staff, asking whether a Rhode Island state law would be preempted by Federal law, in light of a possible inconsistency with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205. Your correspondence attached a copy of the law, and expressed concern regarding a subsection that allows the ownership and operation of motor vehicles with a light transmittance of less than 70 percent by persons with a physical condition that "makes it necessary to equip the vehicle with a sunscreening device." Based on our understanding of your correspondence, we believe that the legislation would not be preempted.

BACKGROUND

According to your correspondence, Section 31-23.3-2 of the Rhode Island General Laws prohibits persons from owning and operating any motor vehicle with nontransparent or sunscreen material to cover the front windshield, the side windows immediately adjacent to the right and left of the driver's seat, and other windows in a vehicle, unless the material has a total visible light transmittance of not less than seventy percent. ⁽¹⁾

Subsection (7) of Section 31-23.3-4 exempts from the 70 percent light transmittance for tinting material requirement "a motor vehicle registered in this state in the name of a person, or the person's legal guardian, who has an affidavit signed by a physician or an optometrist licensed to practice in this state indicating that the person has a physical condition that makes it necessary to equip the motor vehicle with a sunscreening device which may exceed federal standards."

The State law pertains to the light transmittance of glazing in motor vehicles, which is an aspect of performance regulated by FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). The standard incorporates by reference an industry standard, the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26), and specifies performance requirements and permissible locations for the types of glazing that may be installed in motor vehicles. The standard requires some glazing to allow at least 70 percent of the incident light to pass through. For passenger cars, the standard specifies the 70 percent light transmittance requirement for all glazing at levels requisite for driving visibility. For buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), the standard specifies the 70 percent light transmittance requirement for glazing installed in the windshield, the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility.

ANALYSIS

The provision of our statute referring to Federal preemption is section 30103(b) of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, which states in part:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) safety standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30112.) Thus, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), State laws that apply to the manufacture and sale of new vehicles, and to the same aspect of performance, must be identical to the FMVSS. Thus, if the Rhode Island provision applied to the sale of vehicles in Rhode Island, it would be preempted since it would purport to allow the sale of vehicles with light transmittance below that required by FMVSS No. 205.

However, NHTSA does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the States. Section 30103(b) does not require Rhode Island to set operational requirements that are "identical" to the FMVSS. Nonetheless, there are limits on State operational requirements, in that general principles of preemption law apply. These principles preclude States from adopting operational requirements that are more stringent than the requirements applicable to new vehicles under the FMVSS, because more stringent State requirements would have the effect of precluding the use of a Federally compliant vehicle in that State. The proposed Rhode Island law appears to be less stringent than the FMVSS, in that it would allow a light transmittance of less than 70 percent in certain areas of glazing where the Federal requirement is 70 percent. As such, the proposed State law would not preclude the use of vehicles certified to FMVSS No. 205, and thus would not be invalid under general principles of preemption. This conclusion is consistent with a 1996 letter to Betsy Dittmore, in which we stated that Iowa legislation allowing drivers with "light-sensitive disorders permits" to have darkened windows generally would not conflict with Federal laws. (See enclosed letter, dated November 18, 1996.)

Note, however, that a State law could not permit a modification that is prohibited by Federal law. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that 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. A State law that purported to permit the installation of dark tinting material by entities listed in 30122 where the tinting material results in a light transmittance through the glazing of less than 70 percent would not undermine the validity and enforceability of section 30122. ⁽²⁾ Nonetheless, in situations where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. In situations qualifying for exemption under your statute, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that applies the tinting material to the vehicle to accommodate the condition warranting the exemption.

In closing, we understand your safety concerns about decreased visibility through dark tinting material and concur with them. We ask States to limit use of the tint material to the extent necessary and to ensure that their operational requirements are commensurate with the safe operation of vehicles.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205#VSA
d.2/14/02





---

¹ As we read Section 31-23.3-4(3), it allows the "use" of tinting material that has at least 70 percent light transmittance. Therefore, when this material is placed on an original equipment manufacturer window that is already at 70 percent light transmittance, the combined transmittance of the glazing and tinting material could be down to 49 percent. This ambiguity, however, does not affect the outcome of our analysis.

² The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles.

ID: TransportCanada_000262

Mr. Wayne Duff
Importation and Audit Inspection
Transport Canada
ASFABA
Place de Ville, 300 Sparks St.
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5
Canada

Dear Mr. Duff:

This is in response to your e-mail inquiry, in which you ask several questions concerning the application of vehicle identification numbers (VINs) and World Manufacturer Identifiers (WMIs) to imported "scooters" and off-road vehicles. Our response to each of your questions is set forth below.

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates "motor vehicles." That term is defined by our statute as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."49 U.S.C.

30102(a)(6). NHTSA does not regulate vehicles manufactured primarily for off-road use (e.g., ATVs, snowmobiles). Instead, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has jurisdiction over the safety of such vehicles.

Our regulation governing VIN requirements, 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, is limited in applicability to motor vehicles. The regulation defines the term "VIN" as "a series of Arabic numbers and Roman letters that is assigned to a motor vehicle for identification purposes." 49 CFR 565.3(o) (emphasis added).

In implementing Part 565, NHTSA contracts with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to generate and assign WMIs, which are required under the VIN regulation, to motor vehicle manufacturers. The SAE is the designated U.S. organization representing the International Standards Organization (ISO) for vehicle-related identification matters.

In your e-mail you provided photos of stand-up scooters, which Transport Canada classifies as restricted use motorcycles (RUMs), representative of the small gas and electric "scooters" currently being imported into Canada. The first photo depicts a "skate-board style" scooter. The scooter is basically a platform on two wheels with a handle bar and small motor, but no seat. The second photo depicts a scooter with a step through body design. The second scooter appears to have foldable handle bars and a removable seat. Information was not provided on the dimensions, power, or speed capacities of the scooters.

Your first question asked if U.S. manufacturers are required to affix a valid, 17 digit VIN to the type of vehicles depicted in the photographs you submitted. The short answer is that all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (including trailer kits), incomplete vehicles and motorcycles are required to be assigned and equipped with a VIN. 49 CFR 565.2. Regarding the vehicles depicted in the photos, it would first have to be determined if they were "motor vehicles." If these vehicles were "motor vehicles," and were categorized as one of the above vehicle classifications, then they would be required to be affixed with a VIN.

As previously noted, "motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

When determining if a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, NHTSA will first look to see if the vehicle has on-road capabilities. Historically, if a vehicle has on-road capabilities, the agency has used a maximum speed capability of 20 mph, along with other vehicle characteristics, to divide motor vehicles from non-motor vehicles. [1] While a speed capability of 20 mph or less has not by itself meant that a vehicle is not considered a motor vehicle, a speed capability greater than 20 mph makes it much likelier that a vehicle will be used on the public highways and considered a motor vehicle.

Regarding a motorized scooter without any seat, such as the one in the first photo you submitted, the agency has in the past concluded that this type of vehicle is not a "motor vehicle." [2] As to the second scooter, the agency would rely on the vehicles characteristics (e.g., dimensions, speed capabilities) along with its intended use in order to make a determination. We note that in the upcoming months, the agency intends to further address the classification of two and three wheeled vehicles as motor vehicles through a notice in the Federal Register.

Once a vehicle is determined to be a "motor vehicle" and it falls within one of the vehicle classifications listed in Part 565, then a manufacturer is required to assign and affix a VIN to that vehicle. Part 565 is limited in applicability to motor vehicles, regardless of whether they are manufactured in the U.S. or abroad. Thus the SAE should only generate and assign WMIs to motor vehicle manufacturers. [3]

Approximately six months ago, NHTSAs Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) discovered that the SAE had been issuing WMIs to companies that were not manufacturers of motor vehicles but instead manufacturers of off-road vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, such as motorcycle frames, etc. [4]

This has created a number of problems. Under the existing, ISO-compatible system, there is only a finite and rapidly diminishing number of WMIs available for assignment to motor vehicle manufacturers producing 500 or more vehicles per year. Our current count shows only 604 WMIs available for assignment, and these could be exhausted within the next several years, if current trends continue.

In light of the above, OVSC directed the SAE to cease issuing new WMIs to off-road vehicle manufacturers and to begin to rescind the WMIs erroneously issued to off-road vehicle manufacturers and off-road vehicle equipment manufacturers, as those errors were discovered. OVSC took this action to assure the proper functioning of the VIN system for its intended purpose.

However, manufacturers of off-road vehicles raised the issue of State law provisions that require reporting of a "vehicle identification number" for off-road vehicles. While State regulations generally do not reference Part 565, some States are insisting on VINs that comply with that regulation, and in some cases, manufacturers who do not have such VINs have been fined.

To provide time for manufacturers of off-road vehicles to resolve these issues, we instructed the SAE to stay the rescission of WMIs previously issued to off-road vehicle manufacturers until January 1, 2005. SAE is currently working with off-road vehicle manufacturers to develop a system for WMIs issued to such manufacturers. However, we also instructed the SAE not to issue any new Part 565 WMIs to off-road vehicle manufacturers, so as to not exacerbate the existing problem.

If you have any further questions concerning these matters, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:565#595#571.3
d.3/9/04





---

[1] See letter to Mr. Dan Strauser; September 5, 2001 (enclosed).

[2] See letter to Mr. Andrew Grubb, June 12, 1995 (enclosed). "A motorcycle is defined as a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground [49 CFR 571.3]."

[3] Importers are required to use the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer. 49 CFR 565.5.

[4] See letter to Kathy R. Van Kleeck, May 21, 2003 (enclosed).