ID: 21065.ztv

Mr. John Newton
Pajant UK Ltd.
8 Danesleigh Gardens
Leigh-on-Sea
Essex SS9 4NL
England

Dear Mr. Newton:

This is in reply to your fax of December 9, 1999, to Barbara Rhea of this agency, enclosing information on a "progressive brake light" system. We are providing our views as to the acceptability of the system under the Federal motor vehicle lighting laws of the United States which this agency establishes and administers.

As you describe it, "the device will consist of a single unit containing four banks of lights which would sequentially illuminate depending upon the vehicle deceleration. It is intended that the device would replace the third high mounted central brake light currently in use." Specifically, the outer lamps would illuminate each time the brake pedal is pressed. The additional lights would illuminate towards the center depending on deceleration. "If maximum deceleration were detected the entire cluster would become illuminated, with the two centre banks pulsing."

I am sorry to inform you that this device would not be permitted by our laws, either as original or replacement equipment. The device could not substitute for the center high mounted stop lamp because it does not meet performance specifications we have adopted for stop lamps including the center lamp. To cite two examples: we require all stop lamps to be activated when the brake pedal is depressed, and not sequentially. Further, the stop lamps must be steady burning, and may not pulse.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/29/2000

ID: 21066.ztv

Mr. Jay C. Ackerman
Vice President - Operations
G & C, Inc.
500 W. Southgate
Enid, OK 73701

Dear Mr. Ackerman:

This is in response to your e-mail of December 10, 1999, to Steve Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking.

You describe a parking brake system you wish to install on a low-speed vehicle that you intend to manufacture, and have asked whether the system is allowable under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500, Low Speed Vehicles.

At the present time, Standard No. 500 simply requires a low-speed vehicle to be equipped with a parking brake (S5(b)(7)). We have adopted no performance specifications for a parking brake on a low-speed vehicle. We define "parking brake" as "a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle" (Sec. 571.3(b)). Therefore, any device or mechanism installed on a low-speed vehicle that performs the function stated in the definition would be acceptable as a parking brake.

If we decide that specific parking brake performance requirements should be adopted for low-speed vehicles, we will first publish a notice of a proposed rule so that you and other interested persons may comment on it. We anticipate that parking brake performance requirements for low-speed vehicles would be similar to those specified in Standards Nos. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, and 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems, for faster motor vehicles. These standards specify a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement. Your hydraulic-type parking brake system would not be acceptable if we propose and adopt the same type of parking-brake specification for low-speed vehicles. We do not favor hydraulic-type parking brake systems because, if a leak in the system caused the pressure to drop, the vehicle could roll away. This would not necessarily be prevented by your additional feature that will disengage the electrical drive system when the line-lock system is engaged.

Because it appears that G&C is a new manufacturer of motor vehicles, I enclose an information package that we provide, explaining our laws and regulations. We particularly call your attention to Part 565, Vehicle Information Number Requirements, and Part 566, Manufacturer Identification.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:500
d.3/15/2000

ID: 21067.ztv

John F. Letchford, Esq.
Dilworth Paxson LLP
3200 Mellon Bank Center
1735 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7595

Dear Mr. Letchford:

This is in reply to your letter of November 30, 1999, with respect to whether "a device that causes the backup lamps to steadily burn for a few seconds upon actuation of the horn would violate" 49 CFR 571.108 ( Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108).

Specifically, the device would cause the upper beam of a vehicle's headlamps to flash and "backup lights to illuminate and burn steadily" for three seconds or less, when the vehicle's horn is sounded. The purpose of the device is to provide a visual warning to others in front of or behind a vehicle of a potential danger or threat requiring an audible warning, i.e, use of the horn. You have cited S5.5.10(b) of Standard No. 108 which permits headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, but you are concerned with S5.5.10(d) that requires all other lamps to be wired to be steady burning.

S4 of Standard No. 108 defines "flash" as a "cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means . . . ." We would not regard a backup lamp that illuminated steadily for three seconds or less to be a lamp that is not steady burning within the meaning of S5.5.10(d), or flashing, within the definition of S4. However, the determinative question is whether a backup lamp can be used for purposes other than to indicate a reverse movement of the vehicle. The answer is no. See SAE Standard J593c, Backup Lamps, February 1968, which Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 incorporate by reference (copy enclosed). Paragraph 2 of Installation Requirements states that "Backup lamps shall not be lighted when the vehicle is in forward motion." It is clear that the device you discuss is intended to be used under normal operating conditions of the vehicle on the public roads, and that its installation would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

We appreciate your client's interest in motor vehicle safety and regret that we cannot provide the letter you requested.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.3/30/2000

ID: 21068.ztv

Mr. Seymour Hanks
Rt. 1 Box 144
Medora, IL 62063

Dear Mr. Hanks:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1999, asking for our views on the issues that you raise.

In the first case that concerns you, Sun International Racing Corp. is reported as importing and certifying for sale in the United States niche cars otherwise unavailable, such as the Renault Sport Spider and Lotus Elise. You have asked whether either car can "be disassembled overseas imported into the U.S. and re-assembled by Sun Int'l as a complete vehicle?"

The Renault and Lotus have never been certified by their original manufacturers as complying with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Nevertheless, uncertified vehicles may be imported for resale under certain conditions specified by 49 U.S.C. 30141 and 49 CFR Part 593. These vehicles may be imported if, as is the case here, "there is no substantially similar United States motor vehicle [and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decides that] the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are capable of being altered to comply with" the FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1)(B), and "the vehicle is imported by a registered importer" (Section 30146(a)(2)). We make these decisions either on our own initiative, or upon the petition of the manufacturer or a "registered importer" (RI). RIs are entities that we have recognized as being capable of performing conformance work and are the only entities permitted to import nonconforming vehicles for resale after conformance to the FMVSS.

Thus, a RI could import nonconforming vehicles (either assembled or disassembled), provided they are covered by a NHTSA conformance capability decision, and provided that the RI conforms and certifies conformance of the vehicles before sale to a member of the public. However, we have made no such conformance capability decision with respect to either the Renault or the Lotus, and thus a RI could not legally import either the Renault or the Lotus for resale. The vehicles, however, could be imported temporarily, as provided by 49 CFR Part 591, for purposes other than resale, such as for participation in competitive racing events.

In the second case, you refer to an article listing Ameritech as the manufacturer of a U.S. version of the McLaren F1. You have asked if your understanding is correct, that the vehicle must be imported through DOT's RI program and EPA's independent commercial importer (ICI) program.

As I explained in my answer to your first question, a non-conforming vehicle imported for resale must have been the subject of a conformance capability decision, imported by a RI, and then be brought into conformity with our standards by the RI. Ameritech, which was not a RI, entered several McLaren F1s into a "foreign trade zone," modified and certified them to U.S. standards, and entered them as "Ameritech" vehicles. All these actions took place before we were aware of them. Properly, the vehicles should not have been imported in the absence of a conformance capability determination under Part 593, and then only through the RI program. We have directed Ameritech to cease such importations and have advised the U.S. Customs Service that it should not allow them.

You have asked "who is the manufacturer of the vehicles in Case 1 and Case 2."

A "manufacturer" of motor vehicles is defined by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) both as a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles, as well as a person who imports motor vehicles for resale. In both cases, the vehicles were originally manufactured in one stage. Therefore, we consider the entity that assembled these vehicles to be the manufacturer, that is to say, Lotus, Renault, and McLaren. I note also that any person importing these motor vehicles for resale is also a "manufacturer" for Federal safety purposes.

I would like to note here that the vehicle import laws have been amended since the articles that concern you were written. We are now authorized to allow permanent entry of nonconforming vehicles for "show or display." Under regulations we adopted in mid-1999, an importer for "show or display" must demonstrate that the vehicle is of technological or historical interest. If we approve an entry on this basis, the vehicle may not accumulate more than 2,500 miles a year on its odometer until it is 25 years old.

Your final question is whether "a completed motor vehicle [can] be disassembled then shipped into the U.S. as parts, and then re-assembled here in the U.S. as a motor vehicle listing a different manufacturer than the original manufacturer."

A disassembled vehicle that was not certified by its original manufacturer as being in compliance with our standards is subject to the same import restrictions as an assembled one; i.e., it must have been the subject of a conformance capability determination, and be imported, reassembled, and brought into compliance by a RI, which must certify its conformance with our standards. In this event, there are two manufacturers of the vehicle, the original manufacturer whose marque name should appear on the vehicle, and the RI, which, under 49

U.S.C. 30102(a)(5), is a "manufacturer" for purposes of notification and remedy in the event that a safety-related defect or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist in the reassembled vehicle.

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202)-366-5263.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.2/22/2000

ID: 21069.ogm

Mr. Mac Yousry
Global Vehicle Services, Corp.
1238 West Grove Avenue
Orange, CA 92865

Dear Mr. Yousry:

This responds to your request for information whether a vehicle that is capable of operating on water as well as land may be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

Please note that under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) statutory authority (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety) the vehicle's manufacturer is responsible in the first instance for classifying a particular vehicle. NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of an enforcement action.

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) is defined in our regulations at 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

Your letter indicates that the vehicle in question is intended to be used on the water forty to sixty percent of the time. You ask if a vehicle which is intended primarily to operate on public highways but also has the capability to operate on water, has special features for occasional off-road operation.

It is not clear from your description if the vehicle is designed to carry fewer than 10 persons or is constructed on a truck chassis. As your inquiry requests the agency's view on whether the vehicle may be properly said to be capable of occasional off-road operation, we will assume that it is not built on a truck chassis and is designed to carry 10 persons or fewer.

Part of the "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition is that the subject vehicle has "special features for occasional off-road operation." We note that you describe the vehicle as "amphibious," i.e., having the capability to operate independently on land and in the water. The amphibious capability of such a vehicle indicates that it would possess special features for off-road operation. Therefore, based on the information you have provided, it appears that the vehicle in question would, for the purpose of classifying the vehicle for application of Federal motor vehicle safety standards, qualify as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

For further information, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.571
d.2/11/2000

ID: 2636o

The Honorable Harris W. Fawell
House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

Dear Mr. Fawell:

I have been asked to respond to your recent letter asking the Department of Transportation to provide you with information concerning the use of safety belts on school buses. You ask for this information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Wayne Mann, in the Illinois Palos Community Consolidated Schools. Mr. Mann specifically seeks "factual information relative to seat (lap) belts on school buses," and information on funding for traffic safety programs involving hazardous conditions outside the school bus.

I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds) to have passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include high seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.)

School buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces); the drivers' training and experience; and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses.

I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled "Safety Belts in School Buses," which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject. I think your constituent may find this information helpful.

With respect to hazardous conditions outside the school bus, the agency realizes that there are special problems of driver visibility associated with transporting students. NHTSA has addressed these problems in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111, Rearview mirrors, paragraph S9. In 1975, NHTSA established special mirror requirements for school buses "to reduce the danger of death or injury to school children (by giving) the school bus driver the fullest possible view of all sides of the vehicle..." (The proposed rule, including this preamble quotation, appears at 40 FR 33828, 33829, August 12, 1975. The final rule was published originally at 41 FR 36023, August 26, 1976.) One of these special requirements is that manufacturers equip a school bus with a crossview mirror that permits the driver to see the area in front of the bus. These special school bus mirror requirements help contribute to the low number of fatalities associated with school bus travel.

Your constituent also mentions funding to implement a program to address hazardous conditions outside the school bus. The agency believes that its school bus regulations effectively address the safety of school bus design and performance, and contribute to occupant safety.

We note, however, that /402 of the Highway Safety Act, provides funds to each State for its use in conducting a highway safety program. Some of these funds are distributed by the State to local governments or organizations within the State. To get information on Illinois' /402 funds, I suggest that your constituent contact the Illinois Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, Mr. Melvin H. Smith, Director, Division of Traffic Safety, 319 Administration Bldg., 2300 South Dirksen Pkwy., Springfield, IL 62764.

If you or Mr. Mann have further questions, I encourage you to contact our agency.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:111#222 d:1/12/88

ID: 2636y

Mr. Jack E. Eanes
Chief, Vehicle Services
State of Delaware
Department of Public Safety
Division of Motor Vehicles
P. O. Box 698
Dover, Delaware, 19903

Dear Mr. Eanes:

This is in response to your letter asking whether very darkly tinted rear windows that obscure the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL) required in passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 would violate any Federal laws or regulations. Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (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 issue two safety standards that are relevant to your question. The first of these is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), which applies to all new vehicles and new replacement equipment for motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in this Standard is a requirement for all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 to be equipped with a CHMSL of specified minimum size, brightness, and visibility from the range of locations set forth in the standard. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). This standard applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing for use in motor vehicles, and includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance of the glazing (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)) provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. A new passenger car with a rear window tinted so darkly that the CHMSL was not easily visible would probably not be in conformity with Standards No. 108 and 205, and so could not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States. However, this prohibition on the manufacture or sale of a nonconforming vehicle does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer.

Both before and after the first sale of a vehicle, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) 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 a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." If any of the listed commercial entities were to install tint film or otherwise darken the rear windows on passenger cars so that the light transmittance of that window plus the darkening material was below 70 percent, those entities would be "rendering inoperative" the light transmittance of the rear window of the car, in violation of Federal law. This same prohibition in Federal law makes it unlawful for a service station to permanently remove the safety belts or permanently disconnect the brake lines on a car.

Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle no longer complies with the safety standards after such alterations. Hence, no provision of the Safety Act or our safety standards makes it unlawful for vehicle owners themselves to tint or otherwise darken the rear window of their car so that its light transmittance is below 70 percent and/or its CHMSL is obscured.

The individual States, however, do have authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. The States also have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State.

You indicated in your letter that the State of Delaware "allows vehicle rear windows to be tinted as dark as the owner desires." While I am not familiar with Delaware law, I assume that this statute, and similar statutes adopted by other States, does not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing and CHMSLs by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, any commercial firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittance of less than 70 percent and/or reduces the required brightness of the CHMSL would have violated the "render inoperative" provision in Federal law, even if Delaware permits individual owners to make such modifications themselves and to register and operate vehicles with rear windows and CHMSLs that would not comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards for new vehicles. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifications commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Delaware from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in the State of Delaware.

Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and Delaware law, and Delaware would be free to enforce the provisions of its law. We would, however, urge the State of Delaware to carefully consider the adverse safety consequences that will result from the provision of its law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety, and that the CHMSL on passenger cars enhances motor vehicle safety. It is not clear why the State of Delaware would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance and CHMSLs in new passenger cars is satisfied by allowing far lower light transmittance levels and lower-brightness CHMSLs in passenger cars to be operated in the State.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:108#205#VSA d:7/3l/90

ID: 2637o

Mr. E. W. Dahl
Vice President
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
Akron, Ohio 443l6-000l

Dear Mr. Dahl:

This responds to your letter concerning the tire marking requirements of Standard No. ll9, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked whether the standard would prohibit the following size designations from being marked on the tire:

385/65R22.5 REPLACES l5R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES l6.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES l8R22.5

As discussed below, it is our opinion that the above markings are prohibited by Standard No. ll9.

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1."

As noted by your letter, NHTSA recently provided an interpretation letter to Michelin, dated July 9, l987, concerning one of the exact sizes included in your request. The agency stated the following:

In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire size.

The tire size marking at issue in the Michelin interpretation differs from your proposed marking in that it did not include the word "replaces." You stated the following:

In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles.

As indicated in our letter to Michelin, the only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. Any practice of using dual-size markings has the potential for confusing consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle, since consumers may erroneously believe that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of more than one tire size designation. For example, a consumer seeing a tire marking that size A replaces size B might erroneously believe that it is appropriate to replace size A with size B.

You cited a l974 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Standard No. l09 which stated that NHTSA believed that the providing of replacement size information on the tire itself was advantageous to consumers. See 39 FR l0l62.

I would note several things about the background and subsequent history of that NPRM. The NPRM indicated that despite the clear language in Standard No. l09 that each tire must be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used," NHTSA had previously taken the position [in interpretation letters] that replacement markings constituted an exception to this requirement. (Emphasis added.) The interpretation letters had not offered any basis for concluding that this exception existed. (See June 8, l97l letter to Mercedes-Benz; January l9, l972 letter to Kelly-Springfield; March 2, l973 letter to Samperit.)

The NPRM sought to "clarify the labeling requirements of Standard No. l09, to allow, subject to certain conditions, the labeling of replacement tire size designations." However, the NPRM was not adopted as a final rule. We also note that while the l97l-72 interpretation letters cited above do not appear to have been expressly overruled, our February 7, l980 interpretation letter to Michelin (copy enclosed) concluded that Standard No. l09 prohibited replacement markings.

NHTSA has never interpreted Standard No. ll9 to permit any type of dual size markings, including replacement markings. Based on the reasoning presented in our July 9, l987 interpretation letter to Michelin, and the additional discussion presented above, we conclude that Standard No. ll9 prohibits a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if the word "replaces" is used.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l09#ll9 d:1/7/88

ID: 2637y

Ms. Betsy Dittemore
Legislative Liaison
Iowa Department of Public Safety
Office of the Commissioner
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319

Dear Ms. Dittemore:

Thank you for your letter regarding a bill introduced in the Iowa Senate that, among other features, would establish light transmittance limits for "sunscreening devices" that may be applied to the windows of motor vehicles operated in Iowa. I apologize for the delay in this response. You requested our office's interpretation about whether provisions of this bill would violate or be preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205).

As you are aware, this agency is authorized by section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of 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 may manufacture, import, or sell any vehicle in the United States unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)), this prohibition no longer applies after the vehicle is sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a notor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ."

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:205#VSA d:7/30/90

ID: 2638o

Mr. Koji Tokunaga
Manager, Engineering
Isuzu Motors America, Inc.
2l4l5 Civic Center Drive
Southfield, MI 48076-3969

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays, as amended by a final rule published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (52 FR 3244) on February 3, l987. We apologize for the delay in our response. You described a proposed design for a radio and asked whether the requirements of section S5.3.5 would apply to the source of illumination for the radio and, if so, whether your design would meet those requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

As discussed below, the requirements of section S5.3.5 would apply to the source of illumination for your planned radio. Your current design would meet the requirements of that section.

You described your planned radio as follows:

In the case of the radio to be installed on our vehicle, radio display is automatically illuminated when radio switch is turned "on." Likewise, when the switch is turned "off," this display is automatically extinguished. This illumination is a single intensity, but the intensity is not "barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions."

The current language of section S5.3.5, which reflects an amendment made by a final rule published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (52 FR 334l6) on September 3, l987, is as follows:

S5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (ll0.6 mm) rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated.

The first issue raised by your letter is whether section S5.3.5 would apply to your proposed design. The answer to that question is yes. You suggested that the section might not apply, since "display illumination turns 'on' or 'off' simultaneously with the 'on' or 'off' operation of radio switch irrespective of vehicle motion." However, section S5.3.5's limitation of applicability to sources of illumination which are "capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion" does not refer to illuminations which are provided only when the vehicle is in motion but instead incorporates all sources of illumination which are "capable" of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion.

The second issue raised by your letter is whether your proposed design meets the requirements of section S5.3.5. You suggested that the "off" switch of the radio would be "a means of being turned off," under that section. We agree with your suggested interpretation. Section S5.3.5 requires that the "source of illumination" have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. As discussed in the preamble to the February 3, l987 final rule, the purpose of providing section S5.3.5's three options was to meet concerns raised by commenters, while maintaining essential limits on glare. Although a driver may use the radio while driving at night, he or she will have the means to remove the radio as a source of glare by turning the radio off. In our view, this meets section S5.3.5's third option.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:101 d:1/7/88