ID: 10173

Mr. C.H. Je
Doosan Corporation
Pusan Branch
5KA-50
Chungang-dong
Chungku, Pusan
KOREA

Dear Mr. Je:

This responds to your letter identifying your company as a "trading company" and asking for permission from the U.S. Department of Transportation to sell air bags in the United States. As I explain below, no such permission is necessary, but there are some requirements you should be aware of before you begin importing air bags.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or conduct pre-sale testing of any commercial products. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I note that the term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. '30102(5)(B) as "a person . . . manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment [or] importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA has exercised its authority under Chapter 301 to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR '571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Also, a phase-in of automatic crash protection requirements for light trucks is in progress. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is

determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a recent amendment of Standard No. 208 makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like.

It is unclear from your letter if the air bags you wish to import will be sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags or retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as original equipment. If the air bags are sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the air bag 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 installation of the air bag. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.)

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect the device if it were installed in a used vehicle, either as a replacement or retrofit air bag, is the "make inoperative" prohibition in U.S. Code Section 30122(b), which provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208.

You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the U.S. Code. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. You should be aware that recently the manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants ceased offering its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the manufacturer's test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. Please note the regulations concerning manufacturer identification and designation of agent.

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.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208 d:10/12/94

ID: nht94-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Je, C. H. -- Doosan Corporation, Pusan Branch, Chungku, Pusan, Korea

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 6/28/94 Letter From C. H. Je To Vehicle Safety Standards

TEXT: This responds to your letter identifying your company as a "trading company" and asking for permission from the U.S. Department of Transportation to sell air bags in the United States. As I explain below, no such permission is necessary, but there are s ome requirements you should be aware of before you begin importing air bags.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for n ew motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or conduct pre-sale testing of any commercial products. Instead, Chapter 3 01 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I note that the term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(5)(B) as "a person . . . manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment [or] importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA has exercised its authority under Chapter 301 to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Also, a phase-in of a utomatic crash protection requirements for light trucks is in progress. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requi rements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash pro tection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a recent amendment of Standard No. 208 makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" t he performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dim ensions, actuation time, and the like.

It is unclear from your letter if the air bags you wish to import will be sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags or retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as origi nal equipment. If the air bags are sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the air bag is add ed 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 wit h all of the safety standards affected by the installation of the air bag. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.)

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of St andard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect the device if it were installed in a used vehicle, either as a replacement or retrofit air bag, is the "make inoperative" prohibition in U.S. Code Section 30122(b), which provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety s tandard . . .

The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208.

You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the U.S. Code. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to m otor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. You should be aware that recently the manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide crash protec tion benefits to vehicle occupants ceased offering its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you c arefully review the manufacturer's test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. Please note the re gulations concerning manufacturer identification and designation of agent.

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: 2976yy

Ms. Vicki Haudler
4636 S. Cedar Lake Rd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416

Dear Ms. Haudler:

This responds to your letter seeking further information about a possible determination to be made by the Secretary of Transportation under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208). S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

As you noted in your letter, S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., [the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect]." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements went into effect as of September 1, 1989 for all passenger cars.

I have returned the self-addressed, stamped envelope you enclosed in your letter. Good luck in your legal career.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:5/l0/9l

ID: nht80-2.31

DATE: 05/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 3, 1980, requesting confirmation of the applicability of S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115) solely to light trucks and passenger cars.

Although Standard No. 115 applies to a variety of vehicle types, including multipurpose passenger vehicles, the location requirement in S4.4 regarding the placement of the vehicle identification number is of more limited applicability. The section expressly provides that the requirement applies to passenger cars and to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less only. Since Standard No. 115 does not contain any other VIN location requirement, manufacturers of multi-purpose passenger vehicle, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and heavy trucks are not limited by that standard in their choice of a VIN location. For definitions of these vehicle types, see 49 CFR 571.3.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

April 3, 1980

Frederic Schwartz -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: Applicability of FMVSS115, S4.4

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This letter will confirm a telephone conversation of February 13, 1980 between Mr. R. C. Hamilton and yourself regarding the applicability of FMVSS 115 paragraph S4.4 to Multi Purpose Vehicles. Mr. Hamilton was advised of the following:

S4.4 does not apply to MPV's or vans. Further, the NHTSA had not intended for MPV's or vans to meet the requirement that the VIN be readable through the windshield glass from a point outside the vehicle. As written S4.4 is applicable only to passenger cars and light trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. The above represents our understanding of the applicability of S4.4 of FMVSS 115.

Sincerely, INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY;

F. L. Krall, Manager -- Technical Legislation

ID: nht93-2.2

DATE: March 1, 1993

FROM: Peter Drymalski -- Investigator, Montgomery County Government, Office of Consumer Affairs

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Application of 15 U.S.C. Section 1403 to the "Cannibalization" of Unsold New Cars for Repair Parts

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/3/94 from John Womack to Peter Drymalski (A42; Part 567; VSA S108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing to request your office's assistance on an issue that has been brought to our office and which may involve Federal laws enforced by your agency.

A local new car dealer recently sold two 1993-model year vehicles. Shortly after the sale, both vehicles were returned for power steering pump failures. The dealer and the distributor had no power steering pumps in stock and had to order them from Japan. This resulted in a lengthy delay in completing the repairs, so much so, in fact, that the 30- day out-of-service deadline of the Maryland Lemon Law (Commercial Law Article, Section 14-1502(d)(2) was about to come into play.

According to the dealer, the distributor advised the dealer to remove two power steering pumps from other, unsold, 1993 models and install them on the two vehicles awaiting parts. The dealer refused, believing that this was illegal. Fortunately for the distributor, the parts then arrived and the repairs could be completed within the 30-day deadline. Nonetheless, the distributor has apparently insisted that the dealer prove its claim that the cannibalization of unsold vehicles is illegal.

I do not know of any Maryland law that prohibits this, although our laws would probably require the dealer to disclose the repairs when it sells the cannibalized cars as "new" after they're repaired.

However, such cannibalization may affect the cannibalized cars' certifications under 15 U.S.C. 1403 and 49 C.F.R. Part 567, or under other laws. Is such cannibalization allowed and, if so, on what conditions?

I will appreciate your office's review of and assistance on this matter.

Thank you very much.

ID: nht91-3.47

DATE: May 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vicki Haudler

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-91 from Vicki Haudler to S. Kratzke (OCC 5943)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking further information about a possible determination to be made by the Secretary of Transportation under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208). S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

As you noted in your letter, S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., (the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect)." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements went into effect as of September 1, 1989 for all passenger cars.

I have returned the self-addressed, stamped envelope you enclosed in your letter. Good luck in your legal career.

ID: Alliance.jeg

Robert S. Strassburger, Vice President
Vehicle Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your letter seeking our concurrence that "Alliance members are allowed to combine the fleets of motor vehicle manufacturing subsidiaries owned by Alliance members for purposes of determining the overall fleet compliance with the compliance percentages set forth in various safety standard phase-in requirements." As discussed below, we generally agree with your suggested interpretation.

In your letter, you note that, in our mid-1980s rulemaking establishing the phase-in requirements associated with automatic occupant protection requirements for passenger cars, we addressed the need to accommodate complex relationships among manufacturers. See NPRM proposing phase-in requirements for Standard No. 208, 50 FR 14589, 14595-97, April 12, 1985. In that rulemaking, we adopted an attribution rule that generally permits companies to agree among themselves which entity will be treated as the manufacturer for purposes of meeting the phase-in percentages when any of those companies could be considered the "manufacturer." We have adopted similar attribution rules in subsequent rulemakings involving phase-ins.

You state in your letter that "(a)s Alliance members have consistently interpreted these phase-in requirements, member companies with ownership interests in other motor vehicle manufacturers have been able to combine the fleets for reporting purposes to the agency."

You note, however, that in a recent interpretation to Mr. Nakayama of Kirkland & Ellis regarding the status of certain small volume manufacturers, we observed:

(T)he vehicles of related manufacturers are not ordinarily grouped together for purposes of determining compliance with phase-ins of new safety standards. We note that this is in contrast to determinations of compliance with fuel economy standards, where vehicles of related manufacturers are grouped together. However, the grouping of vehicles of related manufacturers for purposes of fuel economy standards is done pursuant to an explicit statutory provision.

You state that the Alliance "understands the above observation reaffirms that vehicles of related manufacturers are not ordinarily required to be grouped together by the Safety Act, unlike the contrasting situation for fuel economy." You state further, however, that because of the potential for the first sentence of the quoted paragraph to be misunderstood, particularly if it is taken out of context, the Alliance "seeks confirmation that a group of related vehicle manufacturers may continue to choose, if they so desire, to combine fleets for safety standard phase-in purposes."

In considering your letter, we note that, in interpreting the provision at issue, we have not taken the position that we would consider a particular vehicle to have been manufactured by two or more manufacturers solely based on the corporate relationships between those manufacturers.

We considered this issue to some degree in a September 18, 1987, interpretation to General Motors (GM), addressing whether it could be deemed the manufacturer of passenger cars produced by Lotus for purposes of the phase-in of the automatic occupant protection requirements.

In our interpretation, we noted that in the April 1985 NPRM proposing phase-in requirements for Standard No. 208, we had stated that we consider the statutory definition of "manufacturer" to be sufficiently broad to include "sponsors," depending on the circumstances. We stated in the NPRM that if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles, applying basic principles of agency law.

We presented the following analysis to support our conclusion that GM could be considered the manufacturer of Lotus passenger cars:

Both LCL, the actual assembler, and LPC, the actual importer, are wholly-owned subsidiaries of GM. By itself, GM's ownership of both the producer and importer of these cars might not be sufficient to establish that GM was the sponsor of these vehicles for the purposes of Standard No. 208. In addition, however, another GM wholly-owned subsidiary distributes and markets the vehicles in the United States. GM coordinates the activities of all these subsidiaries. Since GM wholly owns the actual producer of these vehicles and is actively involved in the importation, distribution, and marketing of these vehicles, we believe that GM should be considered to sponsor the importation of the Lotus vehicles. Accordingly, GM rather than LPC, may be considered the importer and manufacturer of these vehicles.

Thus, in considering whether GM could be considered a manufacturer of Lotus passenger cars, we looked to GM's overall involvement with those vehicles and not merely to the fact that it owned the producer and importer of those vehicles.

In now considering the Alliance's request for interpretation, we believe several factors are relevant.

First, we believe that the application of the manufacturer attribution provisions applicable to phase-in requirements needs to be clear, without the necessity of addressing each specific situation by interpretation.

Second, we believe that, as a practical matter, there is typically sufficient interaction among related manufacturers, and direct involvement by a "parent manufacturer" in the actions of its subsidiaries, that their fleets can reasonably be considered as a single fleet for purposes of complying with phase-in requirements.

Third, from a public policy perspective, there is little (if any) difference in the number of compliant vehicles introduced into the fleet during the phase-in years between the case in which commonly owned manufacturers are permitted to combine their fleets and the case in which commonly owned manufacturers are permitted to separate their fleets for compliance purposes.

Fourth, as a general matter, NHTSA does not have any interest under the Safety Act as to how companies choose to structure themselves, so long as Safety Act obligations are fully met. Thus, in a situation in which one manufacturer corporation buys another, NHTSA does not generally have any interest in whether the corporation that has been purchased becomes a division of the other manufacturer or is maintained as a subsidiary.

Given the above considerations, we have concluded that vehicle manufacturers may combine the fleets of motor vehicle manufacturing subsidiaries they own for purposes of determining overall fleet compliance with the compliance percentages set forth in the various safety standard phase-in requirements, subject to the agreement of those other manufacturers. Moreover, recognizing the different levels of ownership that exist in the industry and wishing to avoid further requests for interpretation in this area, we take the following further position: For purposes of complying with phase-in requirements under Federal motor vehicle safety standards, vehicle manufacturers may combine, with their fleet, the fleets of motor vehicle manufacturers that are considered to be within the same "control" relationship for purposes of the CAFE standards (and which are in fact included in the same fleets under the CAFE statute), subject to the agreement of the other manufacturers. To the extent that the fleets of more than one manufacturer are so combined, we would consider each manufacturer jointly and severally liable for any failure to meet a relevant percentage phase-in requirement.

Since this interpretation is based on specific factual determinations and policy concerns related to phase-ins of new safety requirements, it should not be considered as precedent for how we would interpret the term "manufacturer" in other contexts.

I also note that this interpretation does not overturn the one we sent to Mr. Nakayama. In that interpretation, we addressed the status of certain small volume manufacturers in the context of ownership relationships with other manufacturers. Our conclusion that the small volume manufacturers at issue qualified for the special small volume implementation schedule reflected a number of considerations, including the operational independence of the companies.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref: 208
d.10/24/02

ID: 77-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oaklahoma Department of Public Safety

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your December 16, 1976, letter concerning tires marked "Reno Farm Tire--Farm Use Only" that are appearing on some passenger cars in Oklahoma. I understand that the DOT symbol is also marked on the sidewalls of these tires, as a certification of conformity to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars.

Paragraph S6 of the standard precludes the manufacture of farm tires in passenger car tire sizes unless those tires conform to and are certified as conforming to all aspects of the standard. There is not, however, any provision in Standard No. 109 that prohibits the additional marking that you have described on a tire that is manufactured and sold for passenger car use. No safety issue appears to be presented by this situation.

You have also asked who is responsible for compliance with the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574, copy enclosed). That regulation creates various obligations for tire manufacturers, motor vehicle manufacturers, motor vehicle dealers, and others. Where a tire manufacturer sells tires to a trailer manufacturer, the presence of the "Farm Use Only" marking has no effect on those obligations.

SINCERELY,

Oklahoma Department of Public Safety

December 16, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel NHTSA

In the State of Oklahoma, there is now appearing on some passenger cars tires which were manufactured by UniRoyal, Inc. These tires are labeled "Reno Farm Tire -- Farm Use Only". Apparently, these tires meet FMVSS 109, as they do bear DOT on the side wall. While we are fully cognizant that NHTSA has allowed the labeling "Reno Farm Tire", we would like to know why a tire manufacturer has the prerogative of labeling a tire with any type labeling such as Farm Use Only, Farm Implement, etc., even though the tire presumably meets FMVSS 109.

Additionally, assuming the tire manufacturer sold this type of tire marked "Farm Use Only" to a manufacturer of trailers, who becomes responsible for complying with Part 570 of FMVSS Tire Records and Identification?

Lt. C. R. Townsend, Director Motor Vehicle Inspection Division

ID: aiam3672

Dear Senator Boren: This responds to your recent letter requesting information on behalf o one of your constituents, Mr. John H. Kiser. Mr. Kiser is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing privacy glass' or one-way plastic films' on passenger car windows. He believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents law enforcement officers and other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Mr. Kiser thinks there should be Federal laws to prevent such installations in passenger cars.; A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances precludes the practice referred to by Mr. Kiser. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such a the type referred to in Mr. Kiser's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.; After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter hi vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that 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 in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Render inoperative' means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.; The preceding discussion regarding tinting films would be equall applicable to one-way privacy glass,' if such glass did not have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent. This means that such glass could not be installed by a dealer on new passenger cars prior to their first sale, nor by the persons mentioned in section 108(a)(2)(A), on used vehicles, to replace complying glazing.; The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles b their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mr. Kiser may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing solar film on their automobile windows.; I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 205 for Mr. Kiser' information. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4941

"Dear Mr. Conway: I have been asked to respond to your letter t Administrator Curry, in which you asked about the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, to van conversions and motor homes with raised roofs. In your letter, you suggested that the currently specified roof crush resistance test procedure is inappropriate for such vehicles because of their unique physical characteristics. Additionally, referring to the greater floor to roof height of a van conversion or motor home as compared to a typical passenger car, you questioned whether the five inch roof displacement pass/fail criteria are appropriate for these vehicles. I am pleased to have the opportunity to address these issues. As you know, on April 17, 1991, NHTSA published a final rule extending the application of Standard No. 216 to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks and buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 (56 FR 15510). That rule requires that the roof of any such vehicles be moved not more than five inches when a force of one and a half times the vehicle's unloaded weight is applied to either side of the forward edge of the vehicle's roof. This is the same test procedure specified for passenger cars, with one exception. For passenger cars, the standard specifies applying a force of one and a half times the vehicle's unloaded weight or 5,000 pounds, whichever is less. As indicated above, the alternative 5,000 pound crush force limit that applies for passenger cars was not adopted for light trucks, buses, and MPVs. During the rulemaking process that led to this extension of Standard No. 216, NHTSA received comments requesting that the agency consider modifying the roof crush resistance test procedure to accommodate the particular physical characteristics of some motor homes, vans and van conversions, including those with raised roofs. More specifically, some commenters including RVIA suggested that the specified test procedures could not be used to position the test device on some vehicles with raised roofs. Other commenters, especially Ford, questioned the need for a five-inch roof crush limitation for vehicles with full standing headroom and suggested that NHTSA consider relating the maximum roof crush requirement to the available occupant headroom. After carefully evaluating these comments, NHTSA concluded that, based upon the available information, the roof crush resistance test procedure was practicable, met the need for motor vehicle safety, and was appropriate for MPVs, trucks, and buses, if those vehicles had a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. The issues identified by the commenters were significant primarily for such vehicles with a GVWR of more than 6,000 pounds. NHTSA acknowledged that it was possible that there could be some light trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less that would experience the same problems with the specified roof crush resistance test procedure as larger vehicles would. However, the agency had no information showing that those difficulties would actually be experienced by particular light trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. See 56 FR 15514, April 17, 1991. In your letter, you raised the same issues that had previously been raised in these comments, that is, you suggested that the test device could not be positioned properly on vehicles with a raised roof and that the five inch crush displacement limit was inappropriate for vehicles with a raised roof. As was the case with those comments, your letter did not provide any specific information identifying particular vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less whose physical characteristics would cause it to experience some particular compliance difficulties or testing difficulties. If you have some information showing compliance or testing difficulties for actual light truck models with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, we would appreciate it if you would forward that information to the agency. At this time, NHTSA is not aware of any compliance or testing difficulties for light trucks subject to the extended requirements of Standard No. 216. Absent such information, NHTSA has no basis for changing its previous conclusion about the specified test procedures and requirements. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";