ID: nht89-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LES SCHREINER -- FRESIA ENGINEERING INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/01/89 FROM LES SCHREINER TO NHTSA, OCC 3193

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schreiner:

This responds to your letter asking whether some vehicles you plan to import into the United States are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. These vehicles consist of snow removal vehicles and aircraft towi ng vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, Fresia's vehicles are subject to the safety standards only if those vehicles are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

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

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles design ed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public

2

roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statement that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public road s.

NHTSA has also stated that in many prior interpretation that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public road will not be considered "motor vehicles" for the purpose of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 mil es per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

Applying these principles to the vehicles shown in the brochures enclosed with our letter yields the following tentative conclusions.

1. The vehicles identified as "aircraft towing tractors" would not appear to be motor vehicles, assuming that these vehicles are designed and sold solely for use off the public roads.

2. The vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment" appear to fall into two categories.

a. One of the categories consists of the models identified as the "F10 NF" and the "Vomero TO-TB-TA-TR," "Fresa Laterale," and "Fresa Integrale HP 200-170" models. These vehicles would not appear to be motor vehicles, because their maximum speed app ears to be 20 mph or less and they have a configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

b. The second category consists of all the other vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment." All the vehicles in this category look like conventional trucks with either snowplow blades or snowblowers attached to the front of the truck and appear capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. We have consistently stated that trucks with snow blowers or snowplow blades on the front end are motor vehicles, and are subject to all of our safety standards applicable to trucks. For your information, I have enclosed an April 7, 1983 letter to Mr. Takeo Shimizu on this subject.

I have identified our conclusions as tentative for several reasons. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying any particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any ve hicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified the vehicle. HNTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classifications in the course of any enforcement actions. The agency does, however, tentatively state how it believes vehicles shoul d be classified for the purpose of the safety standards.

Additionally, the tentative opinions expressed in this letter are based on the literature enclosed with your letter. We may change the tentative opinions expressed in this letter if we have occasion to examine the vehicles themselves or otherwise acquir e additional information about the vehicles.

Since you are considering importing some vehicles that would appear to be "motor vehicles" into the United States, I have enclosed some additional

3

materials for your information. One is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles, which highlights the relevant statutes and regulations that apply to such manufacturers and explains how the manufacturer can get copies of the relevant statues and regulations. The other item is a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This booklet summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to trucks.

Your letter also indicated that your company would be interested in any "approval procedure or testing process NHTSA would administer" to get your company's vehicles on a qualified products list. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse any motor ve hicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is itself responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA peri odically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-1.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: KARL H. MAYER -- RULES AND REGULATIONS, DR. ING.H.C.F.PORSCHE AG STUTTGART

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: CONFIDENTIAL LETTER DATED 06/28/88 FROM KARL H. MAYER TO ERIKA Z. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION -- CLARIFICATION FMVSS 101 AND FMVSS 102; LETTER DATED 06/28/88 FROM KARL H. MAYER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMEN T; LETTER DATED 08/15/88 FROM DEAN HANSELL TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA, RE PORTCHE'S JUNE 28 REQUEST FOR REGULATORY INTERPRETATION FMVSS 101 AND 102

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mayer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, Controls and Displays, and No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the standar ds in connection with a new transmission and related gear shift mechanism that you are considering producing. I note that your accompanying request for confidentiality was withdrawn by an August 15, 1988 letter signed by your attorney, effective Septemb er 30, 1988.

You stated that the new transmission is characterized by two functions, a manual gear shift and an automatic gear shift, combined in a single unit. A motor vehicle incorporating the transmission does not have a clutch pedal. Operation of the transmissi on is entirely dependent on the position selected for the gear shift lever. The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventional automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 1. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The right slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping t he shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the "M" position after being tapped. You plan to provide two shift displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel.

You stated that you believe that a dual function transmission of the type described in your letter is permitted if it meets the various requirements of Standards No. 101 and 102 and asked whether we agree with

your interpretation. You also asked three questions related to certain aspects of the transmission and related gear shift lever and shift displays. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, as noted in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

I agree with your basic contention that a dual function transmission of the type described in your letter is permitted if it, and the accompanying gear shift lever and shift displays, meet the various requirements of Standards No. 101 and 102. The perfo rmance requirements specified in the two standards do not prohibit dual function transmissions.

I have one primary comment concerning how you should evaluate Standards No. 101 and 102 with respect to the compliance of a vehicle equipped with the transmission. In some instances, these standards specify different requirements depending on whether a vehicle is equipped with a manual transmission or an automatic transmission. Thus, a critical issue is which of these requirements would need to be met by a vehicle equipped with your planned transmission. While you characterize the transmission as havi ng two functions, a manual gear shift and an automatic gear shift, combined in a single unit, it is our opinion that the transmission is an automatic transmission for purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It is possible, of course, to manu ally control most conventional automatic transmission, at least to some extent, by means of the gear shift lever, e.g., by shifting the lever from D to L. Your transmission would differ from a conventional automatic transmission primarily in having an a dditional means of manual control. However, the transmission would still be an automatic transmission. Vehicles equipped with the transmission would thus need to meet the requirements specified by Standards No. 101 and 102 for vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, and not the requirements specified for vehicles equipped with a manual transmission.

I will not address your three specific questions. You stated that it appears to you that when the shift lever is in the manual slot, it is permissible to have the lever, after tapping to shift up or down, return to the original middle position, and aske d for our interpretation on this point. We agree that this basic design is permitted under Standards No. 101 and No. 102.

Your second and third questions, which I will address together, concern the shift displays. You stated that you believe that it is permissible for both of the dual shift pattern displays, i.e., the one on the middle console and the one on the instrument al panel, to be constantly visible so that the driver can simultaneously see the currently used shift mode and also the alternative, and asked for our evaluation of the point. You

also asked about he permissibility of two alternative instrument panel displays.

I will begin my discussion of these questions by identifying the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and 102. Section S3.2 of Standard No. 102 states that the "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions . . . shall be pe rmanently displayed in view of the driver." NHTSA has previously interpreted "position" to mean the shift lever positions in relation to each other and the position that the driver has selected at the time of selection. Therefore, the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator is required for automobiles equipped with automatic transmissions. NHTSA has previously interpreted the requirement for permanent display as requiring a display that can be seen regardless of the operating mo de of the engine. Thus, it is not permissible for the required display to be visible (e.g., in the case of an electronic display, be activated) only when the key is in the ignition switch. (I note that on August 25, 1988, NHTSA published a notice of pr oposed rulemaking to amend the requirement for permanent display. A copy is enclosed.)

Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays. Section S5.1 requires that gear position displays must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S6 provide s that the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Section S5.3.1 and Table 2 of the standard together r equire that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. 102.

Your design includes the following ten shift lever positions: P R N D 3 1 2 + M -. Under section S3.2 of Standard No. 102, all of these positions must be permanently displayed, i.e., there must be a display of the 10 positions in relation to each other and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. As indicated above, Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays.

The fact that your design would include more than one gear position display raises several issues, including (1) whether more than one display is permitted, (2) whether each display (where multiple displays are provided) must meet all of the requirements specified by Standards No. 101 and No. 102, and (3) whether multiple displays can be used to meet the requirements of the standards for gear position displays where no single display meet the requirements. It is our opinion that more than one display i s permitted. It is also our opinion that if one display meets all of the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102, the additional display(s) provided voluntarily by the manufacturer need not meet any particular requirements (except for section S5.3 .5. of Standard No. 101, which specifies requirements for sources of

illumination not otherwise regulated by that standard). We have not previously found it necessary to address the issue of whether multiple displays can be used to meed the requirements of the standards for gear position displays where no single display meets the requirements. However, one commenter on the August 25, 1988 notice cited above asked whether two displays could be used together to demonstrate compliance with section S3.2 of Standard No. 102. We plan to address that specific issue in the co ntext of that rulemaking.

While is is not entirely clear from you letter, the display on the middle console may provide permanent display (including items when the ignition is not on) of the shift lever positions, i.e., a display of the 10 positions in relation to each other and an indication of the position selected by the driver. It appears, however, that illumination is not provided for this display. Given the reference in Standard No. 101 to Standard No. 102, it is our opinion that where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. 102 and others do not, the requirements of Standard No. 101 must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. 102.

If the display on the console fully met the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102, it would be unnecessary for the additional display on the instrument panel to also meet the standards (with the exception of section S5.3.5 of the Standard No. 101 , as noted above). I note that either of the alternative instrument panel displays shown in your letter show all of the shift lever positions. While the displays do show P R N D 3 2 1, they show either 4 3 2 1 or 4 3 M 2 1 instead of + M -. If the ins trument panel display, rather than the console display, was to be used to meet the requirements of section S3.2 of Standard No. 101, it would be necessary for the display to show the 10 actual shift lever positions, including + M -. I also assume that t he instrument panel display is not activated when the ignition is not on and thus does not provide a permanent display.

I would like to note that the discussion in the preceding paragraph should not be read as a suggestion that you change the instrument panel display to show + M - instead of 4 3 2 1 or 4 3 M 2 1. One consequence of your design is that, in the manual mode , the driver would not know what gear the car was in from either observing the location of the gear shift lever or by knowing the shift lever position (+ M or -). Your design takes care of this, however, by providing an indication of actual gear positio n on the instrument panel display. Assuming that you can meet the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 by means of the console display, we believe that it would be a desirable feature of your design to indicate actual gear position on the volun tarily provided instrument panel display.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact me.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD -- AGAPS PLASTICS INC

TO: NHTSA CHIEF CONSEL

TITLE: REF: FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 - HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS FOR VEHICLES DRIVEN IN WINTER WEATHER.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/16/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/11/89 FROM STEPHEN WOOD TO GEORGE VANSTRATEN

TEXT: PER MY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR. TAYLOR VINSON ON FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 1989, PLEASE FIND LITERATURE, SAMPLES AND SPECS OF OUR NEW HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS/LENSES.

FOR THOSE WHO DRIVE IN THE SNOW STATES IT OFTEN BECOMES DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THE LIGHTS OF VEHICLES AHEAD AND BEHIND. THE HEATED SAFETY LIGHT ELIMINATES THE ICE AND SNOW BUILD-UP FORMING THE CRUST THAT BLOCKS OUT VEHICLE LIGHTS.

AT THIS POINT, HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE STATE OF MICHIGAN FOR USE ON HEAVY SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT, SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR SCHOOL BUS LIGHTS, AND OTHER PURCHASES BY SEMI TRAILER REPLACEMENT PARTS DEALERS. THE HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS HAVE PROVED VIABLE AND ARE PERFORMING AS ADVERTISED IN THE ENCLOSED BROCHURE. THE LIGHTS ARE REORDERING AND NEW ORDERS ARE COMING IN FROM A SMALL AD PLACED IN A TRUCK MAGAZINE.

AGAP'E PLASTICS HAS BEEN APPROACHED BY VAN STRATEN TO TAKE OVER THE ASSEMBLYING OF THIS LIGHT TO INCREASE THE PRODUCTION NUMBERS AND SALES. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP A MULTIPLE PRODUCTION SYSTEM, AND ARE WORKING ON A NATIONAL MARKETING PROG RAM THAT WILL PUT US IN TOUCH WITH CUSTOMERS IN TWO DIFFERENT SEGMENTS OF SALES.

ALL LIGHTS, LENSES, AND MATERIALS TO ASSEMBLE THE HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CERTIFIED AND PASSED THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION THAT THERE IS NO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. FOR HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS. IN ORDER FOR US TO DO BUSINESS AT THE O.E.M. LEVEL WE REQUIRE A LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM YOU TO US THAT WE MAY PASS ON TO OUR CUSTOMERS SO THEY MAY START ORDERING AND WE MAY START PRODUCING.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT TOM GRAVENGOOD OR TOM ALT. AT AGAP'E PLASTICS, 616/363-1191. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. THANK YOU.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht89-1.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/89

FROM: NANCY L. BRUCE -- OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TO: CHESTER ATKINS -- MEMBER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BLANCHE KOZAK; REDBOOK A33 [2]; VSA 108 [A] [1] [A]; LETTER DATED 03/29/89 FROM CHESTER G. ATKINS -- HOUSE TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT, RE MRS. BLANCHE KOZAK; LETTER DATED 09/26/88 FR OM BLANCHE KOZAK TO BERRY FELRICE; LETTER DATED 10/16/79 FROM EDWIN P. RIEDEL; REPORT UNDATED; LETTER DATED 08/09/88 FROM BLANCHE G. KOZAK TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Atkins:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mrs. Blanche Kozak.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/89

FROM: CARLOS CHAVEZ -- FHASA - WAGNER

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/17/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO CARLOS CHAVEZ R -- FHASA-WAGNER; REDBOOK A34; PART 566

TEXT: Gentlemen:

Our company FHASACV is manufacturing automotive parts as brake fluid, hydraulic brake rubber cups & boots, brake hose and flashers in Mexico.

We would like to get a registration on U.S. DOT, but do not know which paper work and samples we must submitt with our application and also would like to get information on their cost.

We know our products fill DOT requirements but anyway we would want to update our information on them.

Please inform us the best way to obtain your last specs.

Thanking in advance for your prompt repply.

Sincerely,

P.S. FHASA is a Licensee of Wagner Division Cooper Industries, Inc.

ID: nht89-1.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/05/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JAMES L. OBERSTAR -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/07/89 FROM JAMES L. OBERSTAR TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Oberstar:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of Mr. Joseph Mikoll regarding occupant protection devices for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. You indicated that you had read my November 3, 1988 letter to Mr. Mikoll. In that letter, I explained that Mr. Mikoll's "safety bar" devices could not be installed in small school buses in place of safety belts at every seating position, but that "safety bars" could be installed in addition to the required safety belts. I a m pleased to have this opportunity to answer your two additional questions on this subject.

Question 1: Is there a procedure that [Mr. Mikoll's company] could follow to request a waiver of the provisions of Standard No. 222 which would allow its safety bar devices to be the sole passive restraint on small buses?

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains only one provision that would allow this agency to exempt vehicles from compliance with Standard No. 222 or any other applicable Federal motor vehicle Federal safety standard. Under the condition s specified in section 123 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410), a motor vehicle manufacturer could file a petition asking this agency to temporarily exempt a group of motor vehicles from compliance with a safety standard or standards. Thus, a school bus manufacturer that wishes to install "safety bars" in some of its buses in lieu of the safety belts required by Standard No. 222 could seek a temporary exemption from Standard No. 222 for some of its buses.

It is my understanding that, while Mr. Mikoll's company manufactures the "safety bars" and other motor vehicle equipment, it does not manufacture any motor vehicles. If this understanding is correct, Mr. Mikoll's company is not eligible to file for a temporary exemption.

Question 2: Are DOT funds available to firms such as [Mr. Mikoll's company] to do rigorous testing and R&D on passive restraint systems?

This agency generally does not provide research and development support for unsolicited proposals, although we may solicit research proposals and award such contracts on a competitive basis. In addition, the Department has a Small Business Innovation Re search Program that Mr. Mikoll may wish to learn more about. I have enclosed a guide on submitting proposals. This program is administered by the Transportation Systems Center, Kendall Square, MA 02142. Dr. George Kovatch is the Program Coordinator. H owever, Mr. Mikoll should be aware that funds for unsolicited proposals and small business development are extremely limited right now.

I hope you find this information helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/05/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: MILTON GURNY -- HEIN, SMITH, BEREZIN, MALOOF & SPINELLA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/16/88 FROM MILTON GURNEY TO JOAN CLAYBROOK -- NHTSA, RE SCHWANEWEDE VS MARBELL INC. ET AL, FILE NO 34577, OCC 2936

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gurny:

This responds to your letter asking whether a 1975 Chevrolet Impala was required to have lap and shoulder belts installed in it. I regret the delay in responding.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to es tablish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Standard No. 208 required all 1975 model year cars to either be equipped with:

a. an automatic occupant protection system, such as air bags or automatic safety belts, or

b. lap and shoulder belts at both front outboard seating positions and either lap belts or lap and shoulder belts at all other seating positions.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehic le . . . manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section." This language prohibited any pers on from manufacturing, delivering, selling or importing any 1975 Chevrolet Impala that did not have lap and shoulder belts or an automatic occupant protection system installed at both front outboard seating positions.

However, section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) "shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it is in good faith for purposes other than resale." In other

words, once the 1975 Impala was sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle was no longer required by Federal law to comply with Standard No. 208.

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that refers to a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety A ct (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). 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 veh icle safety standard, . . .

This section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing a lap and shoulder belt that was originally installed in the motor vehicle, unless the business replaced the safety belt with another lap and shoulder bel t. Please note that this statutory language does not impose any obligations on individual vehicle owners to avoid "rendering inoperative" their vehicle's compliance with a safety standard. Thus, any person may remove the safety belts from his or her ow n vehicle without violating Federal law.

Further, the "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on the listed commercial entities to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else. Thus, if a car dealer purchases, as a used car, a 1975 Chevrolet Impala t hat was originally equipped with lap and shoulder belts and if those belts are not present at the time of such purchase, Federal law does not require the dealer to install safety belts in the care before reselling it.

The individual States have authority to regulate the modifications that can be made to vehicles by individual owners and to require that used cars have certain equipment installed when they are sold. You may wish to contact the appropriate State Departm ent of Motor Vehicles to learn if any applicable laws or regulations were violated in this instance.

I hope this information is useful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions on this topic.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/11/89

FROM: EDWARD P. KIRBY -- MASSACHUSETTS SENATE

TO: BARRY FELRICHE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULE MAKING NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/16/89 ESTIMATED FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO EDWARD P. KIRBY -- SENATE; REDBOOK A33[4][B]; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Felriche:

I enclose herewith a copy of a bill which I filed in the Massachusetts General Court and which has been referred to our Committee for Public Safety concerning the use of amber colored rear directional signals.

Obviously my legislation can only be a gesture since such matters are reserved for the Federal government under the Interstate clause of the United States Constitution. I filed it to make a point to have a forum in which to discuss it. As a result, I have learned that your department is considering a change in Section 571.108 of 47 CFR V regarding just that point.

In my experience as a driver I have seen numerous cases in which the lack of amber colored directional signals has led to confusion, when someone is pumping the brakes rhythmically on a vehicle equipped only with red signal lights on the rear. This l eads to the transmission of ambiguous indications of the driver's intent.

As a lawyer I have had two occasions to see the ambiguity resulting from brake pumping in cases in which some of the red rear signal bulbs were not working. At least when one yellow turn signal is not working one is not led to believe that the preced ing driver is planning a turn when he is not. He may be planning a turn that you cannot detect but you are not led to believe he will turn right when he is actually planning to turn left.

I hope that the regulations will be changed so that American manufacturers will place safety above their misguided application of aesthetic considerations. Frankly, I even think that amber signals' are themselves more attractive because they make sens e.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this letter.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure: Senate Bill No. 1217

By Mr. Kirby, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1217) of Edward P. Kirby for legislation relative to the use of amber-colored directional signals on new motor vehicles. Public Safety.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

In the Year 1989

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Notwithstanding any general or special law, rule or regulation to the contrary, all new motor vehicles made or sold in the Commonwealth shall have amber-colored directional signals. this act shall take effect as of January 1, 1990.

ID: nht89-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/25/89

FROM: GARRY O. MCCABE

TO: MIKE TRENTACOSTE -- DIRECTOR -- OFFICE OF MOTOR CARRIER STANDARDS HCA -- 10

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO GARRY O. MCCABE; REDBOOK A33(2); STANDARD 301 LETTER DATED 06/06/89 FROM MICHAEL F. TRENTACOSTE TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FHWA AND NHTSA REGULAT IONS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Trentacoste:

The Wiggins Connectors Division of IMO Delaval is working with the Automation R&D Group of United Parcel Service to develop a rapid fueling system for their truck fleet.

The concept is to retrofit the existing fuel tanks to accommodate a dry break quick disconnect fitting. The mating half of this fitting is attached to a standard dispensing nozzle. The vacuum sensing line runs coaxilly through the entire assembly.

At this point it is agreed that we should proceed with a test installation at a small UPS distribution center. The question that arises is what do we need in the way of approvals or sanctions to run a testing program.

We realize that later once the design has been groomed and before it is marketed formal testing and approval is required.

I have discussed this situation briefly with Bob Hagen and as suggested I am enclosing some system drawings of what we are proposing.

After you have had an opportunity to review this information I would appreciate your advice as to what steps should be taken to proceed.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/13/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: MABEL Y. BULLOCK -- ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM MABEL Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINTING, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATING WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THORNBURG A ND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DATED 05/06/88 FROM DAIRL BRAGG TO WILLIAM S. HIATT; LETTER DATED 10/28/82 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA, NOA-30; LETTER DATED 04/04/8 5 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO ARMOND CARDARELLI; REGULATIONS DATED 07/01/85 EST, FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING.

TEXT: Dear Ms. Bullock:

Thank you for your letter to Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff, regarding North Carolina General Statute 20-127, Windshields must be unobstructed. I regret the delay in responding. You enclosed a copy of the statute, the regulations implementing it, a copy of a December 18, 1987 legal memorandum prepared by your department concluding that a State statute or regulation allowing 35% light transmittance through windows in motor vehicles would be preempted by current Federal safety laws and standards regulati ng this same subject matter, and a copy of a May 6, 1988 letter from the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) to Mr. William S. Hiatt, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles for North Carolina, asserting that the North Carolina statute was no t preempted by Federal laws and regulations. You asked for my opinion as to whether the North Carolina statute conflicts with any provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.) or with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR 571.1 et seq.).

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehic les and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor v ehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or

import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Because of this statutory requirement, any manufacturer, importer, or dealer that installs solar films or other sun screen devices on new glazing materials or the glazing installed in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with th e light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. See section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). Both before and after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including tinting, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative " any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or win dow tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, n o provision of a Federal statute or this agency's regulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles.

The authority of States to regulate glazing is affected by section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)). This section provides that:

[whenever] a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title 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 ite m 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. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from en forcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard.

The effect of this provision of the Safety Act, with respect to the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205, is to expressly prohibit any State from specifying some level of light transmittance other than than 70 percent specified in Standar d No. 205 for new motor vehicles and

new glazing for the use in motor vehicles. Each of the individual States has authority to enforce identical standards (i.e., a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance) for new motor vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Additionally, eac h of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in that State.

Having provided this background, we want to turn now to the results of our review of the North Carolina statute and regulations, along with your office's memorandum concluding that the statue is preempted by Federal law.

1. New vehicles and new glazing for use in vehicles. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum that the North Carolina statute would be preempted if it specifies any requirements other than the requirements of Standard No. 205 (minimum of 70 per cent light transmittance) for new vehicles or few new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act and Standard No. 205 require all new vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles to be delivered to the first purchaser w ith a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Section 103(d) of the Safety Act expressly preempts any non-identical State standard on the subject of window tinting. Section 20-127(d) of the North Carolina statute appears to permit a single applicat ion of tinted film with a light transmittance of as little as 35 percent to be applied to vehicle glazing after factory delivery, but before sale to the public. This provision is preempted by Federal law, as is any other provision of North Carolina law which specifies that new glazing and glazing in new vehicles shall have some level of light transmittance other than the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement specified in Standard No. 205.

2. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum tha t the North Carolina statute would be preempted by Federal law if it permits the commercial installation of sunscreen materials so that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing no longer meet the 70 percent light transmittance r equirement specified in Standard No. 205. This conclusion is based on the conflict between the North Carolina statute and the "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That provision prohibits any manufacturer, distributor , dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or an item of glazing with any of the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

Apart from the issue of preemption, I want to note that the provisions of State law cannot alter the effect of the "render inoperative" prohibition in Federal law. Regardless of how North Carolina law treats the combination of the glazing and the tintin g, if it results in less than 70

percent light transmittance, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on a vehicle would be liable for the Federal civil penalty discussed above.

3. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by individual owners themselves after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. As noted above, Federal law does not regulate modifications that individual owners themselves make to their vehicles or glazing after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, even if those modifications result in the vehicles or glazing on longer complying with the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance. The State of North Carolina is free to establish whatever restrictions, if any, it deems appropriate on individual owner modifications, without regard to the requirements of Standard No. 205. To the extent that the North Carolina statute seeks to address these individual owner modifications, it would not be preempted by Federal law.

$4. Requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State of North Carolina. An individual State is free to establish whatever requirements it deems appropriate for vehicles to be registered in the State, provided that those State requirements would n ot prohibit the registration of vehicles that complied with the requirements of the Federal safety standards. Thus, the State of North Carolina is free to permit vehicles that do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 to be registered in N orth Carolina. To the extent that the North Carolina window tinting statute seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, it would not be preempted by Federal law.

We have also reviewed the May 6, 1988 letter from MEMA to Mr. Hiatt, in which MEMA discusses why it believes North Carolina's statute would not be preempted by Federal law. The MEMA discussion does not address the "render inoperative" provision in secti on 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits commercial businesses from adversely affecting the compliance of elements of design installed in a vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with a safety standards, regardless of whether the vehicle is new or used. As was previously stated, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from ever installing window tinting material for the owner of a car if the combination of the original glazing and the tinting materi al results in less than 70 percent light transmittance through any window of the car.

To summarize, the North Carolina statute would be preempted to the extent that it seeks to permit some level of light transmittance other than that specified in Standard No. 205 for glazing in vehicles prior to the first purchase of the vehicles in good faith for purposes other than resale. Similarly, the statute would be preempted to the extent it seeks to permit the commercial installation of sunscreen materials with the result that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing n o longer complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. However, the North Carolina statute would not be preempted to the extent that it seeks to regulate the modifications that owners themselves can make to

their vehicles or to the extent that it seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, even if those requirements differ from those specified in Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,