ID: 1983-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Leo J. Landry; Esq.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Leo J. Landry, Esq. 5959 West Loop South Suite 464 Bellaire, Texas 77401

Dear Mr. Landry:

This is in reply to your letter of June 2, 1983, asking "whether the importation of automobiles directly into a foreign trade zone would eliminate the requirement for a bond imposed by the Department of Transportation." You have informed us that "Customs requirements for a foreign trade zone would insure that no automobile would leave the zone until conformity with Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation requirements are met."

The bond you reference is not imposed by the Department of Transportation, but is a bond required by Customs, one purpose of which is to insure that the importer produce a statement that a nonconforming vehicle has been brought into compliance with Department of Transportation safety standards. Under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) the bond is required whenever a vehicle enters the United States which was not originally manufactured to meet the safety standards and which is conformed before importation. The compliance documentation submitted at the time of importation, when the vehicle enters under bond, is forwarded to the Department of Transportation for its review. If the documentation is inadequate, the importer is notified and afforded an opportunity to complete the compliance work. Upon completion of the work and the submission of adequate documentation, the vehicle is released from bond.

Therefore, in answer to your question, the bond would still be required but would be deferred until the time the vehicle left the foreign trade zone and entered the United States.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel June 2, 1983

Administrator Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

I represent Jack's Conversion, a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. The corporation is in the business of modifying imported automobile to conform to EPA emission control standards and DOT safety standards.

My client is contemplating participating in a foreign trade zone to be established in Houston in the near future. My purpose in writing this letter is to obtain a determination from your agency as to whether the importation of automobiles directly into a foreign trade zone would eliminate the requirement for a bond imposed by DOT. Customs requirements for a foreign trade zone would insure that no automobile would leave the zone until conformity with EPA and DOT standards is met.

After you have reviewed this letter, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter with appropriate agency personnel in greater. I would appreciate a response from your agency at the earliest possible convenience.

Very truly yours,

Leo J. Landry

LL/jd

ID: 1983-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J-B Purchasing Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 25 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Charles Jayne Tire Manager J-B Purchasing Corporation P.O. Box 692 Auburn, New York 13021

Dear Mr. Jayne:

This responds to your recent letter asking about the require-ments of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. You noted that your company currently retreads tires for its own use, and that you soon plan to retread tires for sale to others. You asked if the tires you retread for your own use need to be identified with a tire identification number. The answer is no.

Section 574.5 of the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulation provides, in part, that, "Each tire retreader, except tire retreaders who retread tires for their own use, shall conspicuously label one sidewall of each tire he retreads by permanently molding or branding into or onto the sidewall, ...a tire identification number...." Your question concerns a situation in which a tire retreader retreads some tires for his own use and some tires for sale or lease to others. To answer your question, it is helpful to examine the purpose of the identification requirement.

The purpose of having the tire identification number labeled on the sidewall of retreaded tires is twofold. First, it enables this agency and the user of the retreaded tire to identify the retreader of the tire in the event of some safety problem with the tire. Second, it enables the tire retreader to accurately identify the retreaded tires it may have to recall. In the case of tires offered for sale or use outside your company, it is plain that both these purposes would be served by haviny the tire identification number on the sidewall. Therefore, part 574 requires that each such tire have a tire identification number on one sidewall.

However, with respect to tires retreaded for the retreaders own use, it is obvious who retreaded the tire, whether or not a tire identification number appears on the sidewall. Hence, the first purpose listed above would not be served by having the tire identification number on the sidewall of these tires. Further, the retreader can inspect all of the retreaded tires it uses to determine if any are subject to its recall, and assure adequate remedy for those which are within the recall, and without publicizing the identification numbers of those tires. Thus, the second purpose set forth above also would not be furthered by having the tire identification number on the sidewall of these tires. Please note, however, that any tire not marked with a tire identification number can never legally be sold or otherwise offered for use outside of your company.

Should you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 6, 1983

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

J-B Purchasing Corporation is a corporation owned by the sole owner of Red Star Express of Auburn, New York.

J-B Purchasing was formed about 15 years ago for purchasing of parts and tires for the Red Star System. Because in many cases a supplier cannot sell direct to a user, internally J-B Purchasing sells the tires and parts back to Red Star.

Currently everything we are recapping is for our own use. However, in the very near future, we plan to sell on the outside.

My question is this, do the tires recapped by J-B Purchasing and used within our own system need to be identified with the DOT identification?

Very truly yours,

J-B PURCHASING CORPORATION Charles Jayne Tire Manager CJ/rb

cc: Mr. Frank Armstrong Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

ID: 1983-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: David I. Fallk; Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

David I. Fallk, Esq. Robert W. Munley, P.C. Floor Eight, Penn Security Bank Building P.O. Box 1066 Scranton, PA 18503

Dear Mr. Fallk:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1983, concerning Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and the PACCAR case. The answers to your questions are as follows.

Your first question was whether, following PACCAR, a manufacturer was required to comply with the applicable 121 standard for trucks which had been assembled but not delivered. The answer to that question is no, for the portions of the standard that were invalidated by the court. As noted in an enclosed letter (dated March 4, 1980), NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances had been invalidated from the effective date of the standard. Therefore, after PACCAR, no manufacturer was required to comply with those invalidated portions of the standard, whether or not a vehicle had already been assembled.

Your second question concerned whether a manufacturer or anyone else if properly informed was prevented from disabling the anti-lock system, before it was put into service. The answer to that question is no. That issue is fully explained in two enclosed letters (dated September 11, 1979, and March 4, 1980). These letters explain the relationship of what your letter refers to as the section of the vehicle safety act to prevent disabling and Standard No. 121, in light of the PACCAR case.

I have also enclosed a letter (dated November 29, 1979), which discusses the nature of Standard No. 121 as a performance standard. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

July 11, 1983

Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 ATTENTION: Ed Glancy

Dear Mr. Glancy:

I am in need of certain information that I am told your office can supply. I represent a party who was severely injured in accident involving 121 air brake anti-lock failure. We have initiated a suit against the manufacturer and the Chief Judge of the District Court has continued the case, pending certain information being gathered.

The accident involves a truck which was ordered and assembled prior to the Paccar decision, but not delivered until six months after Paccar. At the time of delivery, the anti-lock system was intact and no warnings or information concerning Paccar was made available to the purchaser. It has been asserted that the manufacturer was compelled by government regulation to install the system and could do nothing, even after Paccar about it. My questions are therefore as follows:

1. Following Paccar was a manufacturer required to comply with the applicable 121 standard for trucks which had been assembled but not delivered?

2. Was the manufacturer or anyone else if properly informed prevented from disabling the anti-lock system, before it was put into service?

It is my understanding that there was a memorandum or Opinion offered to the effect that the applicable section of the vehicle safety act to prevent disabling did not apply to the air brake standards. I would like to have a copy of that document and any other opinion or document which would relate to my above questions.

As indicated above, I am under direction of the District Court and a constraint of time is upon me. Therefore, prompt attention to my request would be greatly appreciated.

If there are any questions, please do not hesistate to telephone me.

Very truly yours,

DAVID I. FALLK

DIF/rpc

ID: 1983-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Stephen D. Aarons Captain, JAGC Legal Assistance Officer Department of the Army United States Field Station Augsburg APO New York 09458

Dear Captain Aarons:

This responds to your recent letter concerning an Army jeep which was not equipped with safety belts. You ask whether Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, applies to U.S. government vehicles.

Safety Standard No. 208, effective January 1, 1968, requires all passenger vehicles to be equipped with safety belts. This standard applies to government motor vehicles, generally. However, 49 CFR 571.7(c) specifically provides the following exception:

"(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications."

This means that Safety Standard No. 208 would not be applicable to an Army jeep if the Army contract with the vehicle manufacturer did not specify that the vehicle was to be equipped with safety belts.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

LAEJA 6 June 1983

SUBJECT: Government Vehicles without Seatbelts

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Dear NHTSA

This inquiry has been written on behalf of an emergency ward nurse stationed at Fort Gordon Georgia, not to represent US government interests.

When examining a patient involved in an accident while inside a government jeep, she discovered that no seat belts had ever been installed in the vehicle. The victim's commander further alleged that his situation is not at all uncommon in the Army, Standard 208 (effective 1 July 1971), as you know, requires restraint belts for passenger vehicles. How does current guidelines effect previously manufactured vehicles, and what regulations if any, apply to US government motor vehicles?

We appreciate your guidance on the rules which apply to this dangerous condition.

STEPHEN D. AARONS Captain, JAGC Legal Assistance Officer

CF:

Director, Automotive Consumer Action Program 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, Virginia 22102

Center for Auto Safety 1233 Dupont Circle Bldg Washington, DC 20036

ID: 1983-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/27/83

FROM: PEKKA SUURONEN -- RACEMARK INTERNATIONAL INC

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/17/83 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO PEKKA SUURONEN, REDBOOK A25, STANDARD 108, NOA 30

TEXT: Gentlemen:

On behalf of our principal "Hella" (Germany), I am writing to you to find out about headlamp legality.

(1) Is a sealed headlamp with replaceable European H4 bulb considered legal (like Cibie BOBI), provided it meets with all the applicable SAE standards?

(2) As above, but with the new "Ford" bulb (6 standard sizes)?

I am looking forward to your reply.

Yours truly,

ID: 1983-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/27/83

FROM: SENATE

TITLE: SENATE BILL NO. 684; CHAPTER 410

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/28/89 FROM STEPHEN P WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM E. ALKIRE -- BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 08/24/89 FROM WILLIAM E. ALKIRE TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA, OCC 3876; SENATE BILL NO 1317, AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 8, 1982; INTRODUCED BY SENATOR JOHNSON ON 01/07/1982

TEXT: An act to amend Sections 25251, 25251.3, and 25251.5 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.

[Approved by Governor July 26, 1983. Filed with Secretary of State July 27, 1983.]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 684, Seymour. Vehicle: lighting.

(1) Existing law regulates the use of flashing lights for vehicles, but does not contain a special authorization for funeral processions.

This bill would authorize vehicles in a funeral procession to simultaneously flash turn signal lamps on both sides of the vehicle to warn other motorists of the procession. No civil liability would attach for the use or nonuse of that warning method.

(2) Under existing law, it is unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or use any device which is intended to modify the original performance of vehicle lighting equipment, unless the device has been tested and complies with requirements of the California Highway Patrol.

This bill would expressly authorize the use of stoplamps and supplemental stoplamps equipped to flash not more than 4 times within the first 4 seconds after actuation by application of the brakes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 25251 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

25251. (a) Flashing lights are permitted on vehicles as follows:

(1) To indicate an intention to turn or move to the right or left upon a roadway, turn signal lamps and turn signal exterior pilot indicator lamps and side lamps permitted under Section 25106 may be flashed on the side of a vehicle toward which the turn or movement is to be made.

(2) When disabled upon the roadway or when disabled or parked off the roadway but within 10 feet thereof, turn signal lamps may be flashed as warning lights if the front turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously and the rear turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously.

(3) To warn other motorists of accidents or hazards on a roadway, turn signal lamps may be flashed as warning lights while the vehicle is approaching, overtaking, or passing the accident or hazard on the roadway if the front turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously and the rear turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously.

(4) For use on authorized emergency vehicles.

2

(5) To warn other motorists of a funeral procession, turn signal lamps may be flashed as warning lights on all vehicles actually engaged in a funeral procession, if the front turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously and the rear turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously.

(b) Side lamps permitted under Section 25106 and used in conjunction with turn signal lamps may be flashed with the turn signal lamps as part of the warning light system, as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a).

(c) Required or permitted lamps on a trailer or semitrailer may flash when the trailer or semitrailer has broken away from the towing vehicle and the connection between the vehicles is broken.

SEC. 2. Section 25251.3 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

25251.3. No civil liability shall attach to any person for the use or nonuse of turn signal lamps in the manner permitted by paragraph (3) or (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 25251, except for such civil liability as would attach for the use or nonuse of any other device required by this article or Article 8 (commencing with Section 25300).

SEC. 3. Section 25251.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

25251.5. (a) Any motor vehicle may also be equipped with a system in which an amber light is center mounted on the rear of a vehicle to communicate a component of deceleration of the vehicle, and which light pulses in a controlled fashion at a rate which varies exponentially with a component of deceleration.

(b) Any motor vehicle may be equipped with two amber lamps on the rear of the vehicle which operate simultaneously with not more than four flashes within four seconds after the accelerator pedal is in the deceleration position and which are not lighted at any other time. The lamps shall be mounted at the same height, with one lamp located on each side of the vertical centerline of the vehicle, not higher than the bottom of the rear window, or if the vehicle has no rear window, not higher than 60 inches. The light output from each of the lamps shall not exceed 200 candlepower at any angle horizontal or above. The amber lamps may be used either separately or in combination with another lamp.

(c) Any stoplamp or supplemental stoplamp required or permitted by Section 24603 may be equipped so as to flash not more than four times within the first four seconds after actuation by application of the brakes.

ID: 1983-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/02/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harper; Robinson & Co. -- Betty Thain

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Betty Thain Harper, Robinson & Co. 9620 N.E. Colfax Portland, Oregon 97220

Dear Ms. Thain:

This responds to your recent letter to this office, asking whether a client of yours may import used tires from Japan for resale. You noted that the tires met the requirements of Japanese Industrial Standards, but do not have a DOT symbol marked on the sidewall. Such tires may not be imported into this country, except under very limited circumstances.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that "no person shall...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." You stated that your client wants to import used truck tires.

Section S6.5(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S 571.119) also requires tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars to have a DOT symbol permanently labeled on the sidewall, as a certification by the manufacturer that the tire fully complies with the standard. Without such a certification, the tires are not in conformity with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the law expressly prohibits importing such tires.

There are three very narrow exceptions to this principle. First, tires which are not in compliance with applicable safety standards may be imported if the importer posts a bond with the Customs Service, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3), to insure that any nonconforming tires would be brought into conformity with the applicable standards (in terms of meeting performance and certification requirements). This would be very difficult for the importer, because the used tires would have to conform to new tire standards. To my knowledge, no importer has ever been able to do this with used tires.

The second exception which allows tires without a DOT symbol to be imported occurs when the importer can furnish proof that the tires were manufactured before the applicable safety standard came into effect. For tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 119 became effective March 1, 1975. Based on the information enclosed with your letter, it appears that the tires your client wishes to import are more recently manufactured than this date, and so this exception will not prove useful.

The third exception involves three conditions, all of which must be satisfied for the tires to be imported. Tires without a DOT symbol on the sidewall may be imported if:

(a) they are used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars;

(b) they have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining on the tire; and

(c) the tires are imported solely for the purpose of retreading.

When these three conditions are met, the agency has interpreted the tires not to be "items of motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the law. However, your client's tires appear to meet only the first condition.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by phone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 8, 1983

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: CONFORMANCE STANDARDS & REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTATION OF USED JAPANESE TIRES FOR U.S. RESALE

DEAR SIR:

OUR CUSTOMER, CALCO MARKETING SERVICE, INC. HAS REQUESTED US TO CONTACT YOU FOR A RULING CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF USED JAPANESE TRUCK TIRES WITH 60% - 90% TREAD FOR RESALE IN THE U.S. MARKET. THE TIRES MEET JAPANESE INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS (J.I.S.), BUT WERE NOT ORIGINALLY MANUFACTURED FOR THE U.S. MARKET AND THEREFORE DO NOT HAVE A D.O.T. NUMBER. I HAVE CONTACTED YOUR SEATTLE OFFICE AND WAS ADVISED THAT THERE IS CURRENTLY NO SPECIFIC RULING ADDRESSING THIS SITUATION AND SHOULD CONTACT YOU ON IT.

ATTACHED PLEASE FIND A COPY OF THE LETTER FROM OUR CUSTOMER REQUESTING US TO CONTACT YOU. IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT ME.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR PROMPT GUIDANCE AND ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER AND LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU.

VERY TRULY YOURS, HARPER, ROBINSON & CO.

BETTY THAIN

encl-

Miss Betty Thain Mgr. Harper Robinson & CO. 9620 N.E. Colfax Portland, Oregon 97220

Dear Betty,

I would appreciate your getting me a ruling on imported Japanese used tires.

I have been importing casings from Japan for recap purposes for many years and they prove to be better in quality than our own U.S. made tires. The Japanese tires made for their own domestic use is built stronger to with stand the rough dirt and gravel roads in Japan. Japan does not have as many surfaced road and freeways as the U.S. Since the Japanese casings that we import are used for off roads logging operations we find that they hold up better as recaps than do U.S. tires that have been recapped. After the tires have been buffed they still have about 1/2 inch remaining under rubber which is ideal for recapping. The U. S Tires do not have the remaining under rubber so they do not hold the retread as well as the Japanese casing.

The people that export the Japanese casings to me have offered me some used tires with from 60% to 90% tread remaining a and at attractive prices. I would like you to get me a ruling immediately from the Dept. of transportation as to the legality of importing this shipment of used tires. I have ordered a container load of the used tires and they should be shipped within the next week or two. That is why it is imperative that we get a ruling immediately. I understand that all new tires from Japan must have a Dept. of Transportion number stamped on them but I have been told that used tires from immediate use do not fall under this ruling. Please telephone me just as soon as you have an answer to my request.

I hope to hear from you very soon.

Very truly yours

ID: 1983-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Safety Alert Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 4 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Chuck Howard President Safety Alert Co., Inc. 1667 9th Street Santa Monica, California 90404

Dear Mr. Howard:

This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1983, occasioned by what you believe is our misconception of the way your "Safety Alert" system operates. In my letter of June 17 I stated that "Safety Alert", which was intended to flash a yellow bulb installed in the backup lamp system, would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 which requires backup lamps to be white in color and steady burning when in use. You now bring to our attention that your system does not alter the normal operation of the backup lamps which are steady burning when a vehicle is in reverse, even when "Safety Alert" is installed.

We understood this when we advised you that you could use "Safety Alert" through any rear lighting system which Standard No. 108 allows to flash for signalling purposes such as the hazard warning or turn signal systems. The converse of this is that "Safety Alert" cannot be used through any rear lighting system that Standard No. 108 requires to be steady-burning when in use, such as the backup lamp system, even though when used as a backup lamp it is steady burning. I am sorry this was not clear to you.

We are unaware that any foreign manufacturer is failing to comply with Standard No. 108 by installing a backup lamp system that "reflects amber" as you have told us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

JUNE 28TH, 1983

MR. FRANK BERNDT CHIEF COUNCIL N.H.T.S.A. 400 SEVENTH STREET, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR MR. BERNDT:

I AM IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER DATED JUNE 17TH 1983. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT OPERATE AS YOU INDICATE IN PARAGRAPH TWO OF THAT LETTER.

OUR SYSTEM, SAFETY ALERT, WAS INVENTED TO SERVE THE PUBLIC AS A CAUTION LIGHT THAT WOULD FLASH FOUR TIMES IN FOUR SECONDS, INDICATING SPEED REDUCTION. ALSO IN PARAGRAPH TWO, YOU MENTION THAT THE BACK-UP LIGHTS BE STEADY BURNING IN USE. WE BELIEVE THAT SAFETY ALERT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS RULING.

SAFETY ALERT DOES NOT ALTER THE NORMAL FUNCTION OF THE BACK-UP LIGHTS. WHEN THE VEHICLE IS IN REVERSE, THE BACK-UP LAMPS ARE STEADY BURNING, NOT FLASHING.

DR. CARL CLARK, INVENTOR CONTACT, HAS ONE OF OUR DEMONSTRATION UNIT WHICH WILL SHOW THAT THE BACK-UP LIGHTS IN REVERSE ARE STEADY BURNING. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR SYSTEM AND THE FEDERAL REGULATION IS THAT IN REVERSE OUR-BACK-UP LIGHT LAMPS HAVE A TINT OF AMBER INSTEAD OF PURE WHITE.

WE HAVE SPENT HOURS IN PARKING LOTS, LOOKING AT THE BACK-UP LIGHTS AND THEIR COLOR. THE MAJORITY OF FOREIGN CARS ARE NOW FACTORY EQUIPPED WITH BACK-UP LIGHTS THAT REFLECT AMBER WHEN IN THE REVERSE POSITION, CONSEQUENTLY IT APPEARS REASONABLE THAT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE IS ALREADY ACCUSTOMED TO THIS COLOR IN THE BACK-UP LIGHT AREA.

ALTHOUGH WE ARE PLEASED TO KNOW THAT OUR DEVICE HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR USE ON THE HAZARD LIGHTS AND TURN SIGNALS, WE STILL BELIEVE THAT THE ISSUE OF SAFETY IS BEST SERVED WHEN SAFETY ALERT IS PUT ON THE BACK-UP LIGHTS, THUS AVOIDING ANY MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT SUDDEN STOPS.

WE SINCERELY ARE TRYING TO HELP THE REAR-END COLLISION PROBLEM AND WE KNOW THAT OUR ORIGINAL PREMISE IS BEST SUITED TO DO THIS WITHOUT CAUSING ANY MORE CONFUSION ON THE HIGHWAYS, I AM HOPING WITH ALL MY HEART YOU WILL AGAIN TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO LOOK AT OUR DEMO KIT TO SEE THAT WHAT I AM SAYING IS SO.

MR. BERNDT, IF MY ONLY INTEREST WAS TO GET MY PRODUCT ON THE STORE SHELVES, YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 17, 1983 WOULD SUFFICE. I AM, HOWEVER, CONCERNED ABOUT THE DRIVING SAFETY OF OTHERS AND I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT INSTALLING SAFETY ALERT ON TO THE HAZARD LIGHTS AND OR THE TURN SIGNALS MIGHT NOT CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN THEY CURE.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, I WILL BE ANXIOUSLY AWAITING YOUR REPLY TO THIS LETTER.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

CHUCK HOWARD, PRESIDENT SAFETY ALERT CO., INC.

CH:MM CC: DR. CARL CLARK

ID: 1983-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: TOPAC International Trading Company -- Robert J. Ainsworth

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert J. Ainsworth President TOPAC International Trading Company 325 N. Baldwin Park Blvd. City of Industry, California 91746

Dear Mr. Ainsworth:

This is in response to your letter of July 12, 1983, with respect to UTQGS requirements and tires you intend to import from Shanghai, China. You have asked whether it is permissible, as an interim step to cover your initial order, if the factory affixes a label stating the traction and temperature ratings assigned to its "Warrior" tires; subsequent tires will have this information molded into the sidewalls.

We understand from Mr. Vinson's phone conversation with you on July 26 that the tires have not been imported for sale previously and indeed are the product of a new factory which has recently opened. According to the UTQGS regulation, a tire need not have information molded into its sidewalls if it is "a tire of a new tire line, manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line" (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)). We interpret this time frame as meaning within six months of the initial production of the tire line for export to the United States. Therefore, your initial shipment would appear to come within the exception established by the regulation.

If you have any further questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 12, 983

USA Importation Re: "Warrior" Brand Tires

Dear Attorney Berndt,

My company has entered into negotiations with China National Chemicals Import and Export Corporation, Shanghai Branch, China toward the purchase and importation of "Warrior" brand steel belted radial tires, manufactured by TSEN TAI Rubber Factory, Shanghai, China.

My company has already signed two (2) sales contracts and issued Letters of Credit for the following quantities of tires on our initial order. These orders represent the 1st shipment (1983) of "Warrior" brand tires that will be imported into the USA market.

(1) Sales Contrart 834SA-191 - (5,284 units) Highway tread passenger steel belted tires.

(2) Sales Contract 834SA-192 - (5,000 units) Mud/Snow passenger steel radial tires.

The "Warrior" brand tires produced by Tsen Tai factory are in strict compliance with D.O.T. FMVSS No 109-119 standards. Please reference the attached letter received from Tsen Tai rubber factory for confirmation.

My question relates yo the present U.T.Q.G. requirements for labeling these "Warrior" tires specifically on the initial order/shipments to Topac International Trading Company as described above.

(1) Is it permissable for Tsen Tai factory as, an interim step only to cover our initial order, to affix a tire label clearly stating the traction and temperature ratings assigned to their "Warrior" brand tires, and effect shipment of this initial tire order to the U.S.A. market for Topac International Trading Company. The Tsen Tai rubber factory will, I understand, undertake to begin engraving their existing tire molds in order to incorporate their assigned U.T.Q.G. traction and temperature values on the "Warrior" tire sidewall and be in full compliance with the U.S.A. U.T.Q.G. requirements immediately after this initial order/shipment. Enclosed for your reference, please find the following reference documents.

(1) Two (2) Tsen Tai "Warrior" catalogs. (2) Copies of Topac Int'l Trading Co. P/D RJA-001C (3) Copies of two (2) Sales Contracts 834SA-191/192 (4) Letter from Tsen Tai Factory regarding U.S.A. D.O.T. compliance.

I would appreciate your earliest comment on this matter since the facthoy has now scheduled delivery to Topac before August 1, 1983 Very Truly yours,

Robert J. Ainsworth President

Encl.

RJA:ws

ID: 1983-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: 3M Center -- Mary Ruth Harsha, Office of General Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/30/76 letter from Frank Berndt to Mark T. Lerche (Sun Control Products of Virginia, Inc.); Also, 11/10/76 letter from Frank Berndt to M.P. McNiff (3M Company, Solar Control Products); Also, 4/18/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Charles H. Percy

TEXT:

Ms. Mary Ruth Harsha Office of General Counsel 3M Center P.O. Box 33428 St. Paul, Minnesota 55133

Dear Ms. Harsha:

This responds to your company's recent letter regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety regulations to the sale and application of sun control films on motor vehicles. You ask whether our November 10, 1976, letter to your company on this same subject is still applicable, as well as several other questions.

Our November 1976 letter is still current. Solar films themselves are not considered glazing materials under Safety Standard No. 205. As stated in that letter, however, the application of such films to motor vehicles by certain persons does give rise to responsibilities under Federal law. I am enclosing a copy of a recent letter of interpretation which discusses the pertinent Federal law on this subject.

I am also enclosing a copy of a telegram that we recently sent to the Hawaii Department of Transportation which discusses the preemptive effect of Safety Standard No. 205 over State laws governing the same aspect of motor vehicle performance, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seg.). The Hawaii legislature has passed a law which attempts to allow dealers and businesses in that State to apply solar films on motor vehicles. Those films are allowed to reduce transmittance down to 35 percent. As pointed out in the enclosed telegram, Safety Standard No. 205 preempts that State statute in certain respects. The letter of interpretation and the telegram should answer all of your questions.

Please note that under Safety Standard No. 205 all windows in a passenger car are considered requisite for driving visibility. Thus, all windows in a passenger car must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. In vehicles other than passenger cars, typically, only the windshield and front side windows are considered requisite for driving visibility. This means, for example, that a van could have solar films installed on windows behind the driver, since no transmittance requirements are specified for those windows.

I hope this has answered all your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures (4/18/83 letter from NHTSA to Charles H. Percy omitted here:)

2/17/83

TO: PAUL J PHILLIPSON STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCH BOWL STREET, 5TH FLOOR HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813

THIS LETTER RESPONDS TO YOUR FEBRUARY 11, 1983 LETTER REGARDING BILL CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED IN THE HAWAII LEGISLATURE.

THE BILL, S.B. NO. 57, RELATES TO LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE THROUGH VEHICLE GLAZING AND PRACTICE OF ATTACHING A "SUN SCREENING DEVICE" TO SUCH GLAZING. BILL PERMITS ADDITION OF SUN SCREENING DEVICE TO SIDE WINDOWS AND REAR WINDOWS IF LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE AND LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING AND SCREENING DEVICE TOGETHER ARE EACH NOT MORE THAN 35 PERCENT.

THIS BILL, IF ENACTED, WOULD BE AT LEAST PARTIALLY PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND WOULD NOT, IN ANY EVENT, ALTER PROHIBITION IN FEDERAL LAW AGAINST AFFIXING OF TINTING FILM OR OTHER MATERIALS OR DEVICES SO AS TO REDUCE LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING BELOW THAT REQUIRED IN FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS. SECTION 103(d) OF THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT, AS AMENDED 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) PROHIBITS STATE FROM HAVING SAFETY STANDARD REGULATING ASPECT OF PERFORMACE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL STANDARD UNLESS STATE STANDARD IS IDENTICAL TO FEDERAL STANDARD.

GLAZING IS AN ASPECT OF PERFORMANCE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL STANDARDS. PURSUANT TO SECTION 103(a) OF THE STANDARD ACT (15 U.S.C. 1392(a)), NHTSA HAS ESTABLISHED FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 205, GLAZING MATERIALS (49 CFR 571.205). STANDARD NO. 205 REGULATES GLAZING MATERIALS IN NEW VEHICLES AS WELL AS REPLACEMENT GLAZING TO BE INSTALLED IN USED VEHICLES. STANDARD REQUIRES THAT ALL GLAZING USED IN CARS TO HAVE LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF AT LEAST 70 PERCENT.

TO THE EXTENT THAT S.B. NO. 57 WOULD PERMIT ADDITION BY ANY PERSON, SUCH AS A DEALER, OF TINTING FILM OR OTHER DEVICE OR MATERIALS TO THE GLAZING IN NEW CARS OR TO THE GLAZING TO BE INSTALLED IN USED CARS SO THAT LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE IS REDUCED BELOW 70 PERCENT, THAT BILL WOULD NOT BE IDENTICAL TO STANDARD NO. 205. ACCORDINGLY, THE BILL WOULD, IN THAT REGARD, BE PREEMPTED UNDER SECTION 103(d).

FURTHER, PRACTICES PROHIBITED BY SAFETY ACT COULD NOT BE MADE LAWFUL BY S.B. NO. 57. ENACTMENT OF THAT BILL WOULD NOT ALTER PROHIBITION IN SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) OF SAFETY ACT AGAINST ALTERING VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT SO AS TO RENDER INOPERATIVE SAFETY FEATURES OR PERFORMANCE INCORPORATED IN THOSE VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT. PROHIBITION APPLIES TO MOTOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, DEALERS AND MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESSES, BUT NOT TO PERSONS WHO ALTERS HIS OR HER OWN VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT.

EFFECT: OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IS TO PROHIBIT ANY OF LISTED PARTIES FROM INSTALLING " SUN SCREENING DEVICE" ON CAR GLAZING, IF THAT INSTALLATION WOULD REDUCE LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING BELOW 70 PERCENT. THIS PROHIBITION APPLIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER GLAZING IS ALREADY INSTALLED ON CAR OR WHETHER CAR IS NEW OR USED. NHTSA HAS STATED IN PREVIOUS LETTER OF INTERPRETATION THAT AUTO TINT SHOPS OR ANY PERSON WHO INSTALLS SOLAR TINTING FILM ON CAR GLAZING FOR COMPENSATION WOULD BE CONSIDERED MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT DEALER OR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESS AND THUS SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITION.

PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) CAN BE SUBSTANTIAL. SECTION 109 OF SAFETY ACT PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES THAT SECTION IS SUBJECT TD CIVIL PENALTY OF UP TO $1,000 PER VIOLATION. THUS, IF PERSON VIOLATES SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IN ALTERING 10 CARS, HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY OF UP TO $10,000. SECTION 109 ALLOWS TOTAL PENALTY OF UP TO $800,000 FOR RELATED SERIES OF VIOLATIONS.

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT NHTSA INTENDS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO ENFORCE SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) PROHIBITION AGAINST IDENTIFIED PARTIES WHO ADD "SUN SCREENING DEVICES" IN VIOLATION OF THAT SECTION.

FINALLY, WE NOTE THAT IF "SUN SCREENING DEVICE" INSTALLED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IS FACTOR IN CAUSING ACCIDENT, INSTALLER MAY BE SUBJECTED TO SUBSTANTIAL LIABILITY AS RESULT OF PRIVATE LAW SUITS.

Original signed by Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 30, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Application of Sun Control Films to Motor Vehicles

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am legal counsel to the Energy Control Products Project of 3M, a division of 3M engaged in the manufacture and sale of sun control films.

On November 10, 1976 your office wrote to Mr. M. P. McNiff of 3M Company regarding the applicability of federal motor vehicle regulations to the sale and application of sun control films. A copy of this letter is attached for your reference.

As you are aware, various state laws and the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission Regulation, VESC-20, have been enacted relative to the use of sun control films since the date of your November 10, 1976 memo to Mr. McNiff, and my office has recently reviewed various inquiries regarding the applicability of these latter regulations and the federal standards. I would therefore appreciate receiving an update to your November 10th memo and a clarification from your office relative to the following matters:

1. Is either the sale or application of sun control films to motor vehicles governed by any provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act? If so, to what degree is applicability affected by the following factors:

a) whether the film is applied by a dealer specializing in film application versus a private individual;

b) whether the vehicle is a passenger automobile versus a recreational vehicle; or

c) the location of the application, i.e. to the back windshield versus the front windshield.

2. Are VESC--20 and the various state laws which have been enacted relative to sun control films preempted by federal regulations? If so, pursuant to what statutory authority and to what degree?

Your opinion relative to the foregoing matters would be greatly appreciated. Please forward your comments to my associate Mary Ruth Harsha, Division Attorney, Office of General Counsel, 3M Center, P. 0. Box 33428, St. Paul, MN 55133.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Ms. Harsha directly on 612/736-1791.

Very truly yours,

Claudia J. Davis CJD:kmm cc: Mary Ruth Harsha

Enclosure (11/10/76 letter from Frank Berndt to Solar Control Products omitted here.)