ID: 1983-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Eldon Rudd; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Rudd:

This responds to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Jan Wilson, asking whether Federal law restricts motorists from having darkly tinted films installed on the window of their automobiles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. Seventy percent transmittance is required in all areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes the windshield and all windows in passenger cars. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, use of such films on motor vehicles in certain cases would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance requirements of the standard (most of these films do reduce light transmittance below 70%). If a vehicle manufacturer or dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205 (i.e., has to certify that the glazing still has transmittance of at least 70%).

Regarding vehicles that have already been purchased, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381) provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if the vehicle glazing would no longer meet the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this provision could subject the manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business th civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note, however, that under Federal law the vehicle owner may alter his or her vehicle as is desired. This agency does not govern use of vehicles by owners; this is left to the States. Thus, under Federal law, an owner could install solar film on his or her vehcile whether or not such installation affected compliance with Standard No. 205.

In summary, Federal law does not preclude Mrs. Wilson from having darkly tinted film on her passenger car, provided she installed the film herself. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business (including an auto tint shop) installed the film for Mrs. Wilson, they are in violation of Federal law if the glazing no longer meets the 70% light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. The State of California is, of course, free to prohibit vehicle owners from operating vehicles with darkly tinted glazing in its jurisdiction.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

DATE DETAILS

1/3/83 Mrs. Wilson is the daughter of Saxton Pettit whom she says was a very good friend of the Congressman. He used to own the Basket House in Scottsdale. Mrs. W. said the Basket House was America's largest basket store. Her father is now deceased. Mrs. Wilson would like the Congressman' help in acquiring a special pass to enable her to drive from Arizona to California with tinted windows on her car. Apparently Mrs. W. goes through an extension of UCLA for medical treatment. She was stopped on the highway and given a citation for driving in California with tinted windows as the law in California is such that you cannot drive with tinted windows if they don't comply with the designated degree of tint. The ticket amount is $75. She said she called the courthouse in California and explained her situation and asked for a special pass to drive in California. She doesn't think she should have to take off the tint just to drive in California. She said she was told that she could remove the tint, but still have to pay the citation or she would have to drive with her windows rolled down while in California. She thinks these answers are absurd and she doesn't think it fair that she was slapped with such a high fine without even getting a warning first. She said the highway patrolman told her he was just doing his job. She tried to explain that she was unaware of the law and that she only travels to California for treatment. Mrs. W. also said her lawyer tried to talk to the courthouse, but to no avail. I explained to Mrs. W. that this is a state law of California and that there is nothing the Congressman can do as he handled matters on the federal level. I said she would have to comply with our laws. She then said that the highway patrolman told her that this is a federal law. I said I didn't think so, but would forward this to our W.O. for verification. I also suggested she write the Cong. a letter asking him to contact the State of California as it is policy to have a request such as that in writing. She said she is a very sick woman, and doesn't want to take the time and effort if she doesn't have a valid case.

ID: brookvil.rbm

Mr. Steve Brookmire
Sport Utility Accessory Depot
1945 Airport Court, Suite B
Marietta, GA 30062

Dear Mr. Brookmire:

This responds to your letter requesting information about the impact of brush guards and grille guards on the Nissan Pathfinder air bag assembly. Your company is a distributor of brush guards and grille guards. You indicate in your letter that Nissan has stated the installation of these products may interfere with the air bag. This letter will address the effect under Federal laws of the installation of a bumper guard or grille guard.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR Part 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles; therefore, if a brush guard or grille guard is installed by the manufacturer before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208, with the brush guard or grille guard installed.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. section 30122. That section provides that:

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

Any violation of this provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation. This provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing a brush guard or grille guard on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard.

Please note that this provision would apply to a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing the product and not to the company that manufactures or distributes the product. Also note that this provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install a brush guard or grille guard on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

You should also note that a brush guard or grille guard would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. Therefore, if it contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the guard manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

It is not possible for NHTSA to provide an unequivocal opinion as to whether brush guards or grille guards will interfere with air bag performance. This is because any answer would depend on the designs of the guards, the air bag, and the vehicle as a whole. The discussion which follows illustrates possible problems, identified by our technical staff, which brush guards or grille guards could cause with respect to air bags. Please understand that these examples do not represent the universe of possible problems.

First, a guard attached to the bumper could possibly induce unwarranted air bag deployments if the guard extended vertically below the car bumper. Such a guard could snag on travel surface irregularities, sharp inclines, or sharp incline departure angles which might otherwise not engage the vehicle structure.

Second, if a guard were attached to the vehicle structure, rather than the bumper, it too could possibly produce deployments that are not intended. Such a system might impose direct loading into the vehicle frame without the energy absorption of the bumper moderating the impulse experienced by the crash sensor system which is calibrated to measure crash severity.

Third, if a guard were added to the front bumper of a vehicle in such a manner as to change the load path through the bumper of the car structure behind the bumper, it is possible that the crash impulse arriving at the crash sensor location might be different from the impulse that would be present without the guard, causing air bag deployment to occur either above or below the original manufacturer's deployment threshold, and at a different time during the crash.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.7/3/97

ID: nht76-5.46

DATE: 05/11/76

FROM: VETTER FOR JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 4, 1976, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number.

As I advised you on March 1, 1976, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intends to issue within a few months a notice of proposed rulemaking relating to a standardized Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). At that time, it is our intent to contact directly a number of interested organizations, including the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, the International Standards Organization, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, and seek comments regarding the proposal.

I believe this procedure will satisfy the requirement in section 103(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) for NHTSA to consult with the Commission in prescribing standards under the Act. Regarding this requirement, the conference committee stated:

In the administration of this provision it is expected that the Secretary will, to the extent consistent with the purposes of this act, inform the VESC and other agencies of proposed standards and amendments thereto and afford them a reasonable opportunity to study and comment thereon. (Emphasis added.) (H. Rep. No. 1919, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1966))

Informing the VESC of proposed rulemaking, i.e., proposals issued by the agency, and providing an opportunity to comment, is the practice that the agency has been following and intends to continue following pursuant to section 103(f).

If a final rule relating to a VIN format is promulgated, we would expect all manufacturers to comply with the requirements of the amended standard and therefore do not anticipate litigation on our part. Consequently, should litigation ensue, as you suggest in your letter, it is my expectation that it would emanate from a manufacturer faced with differing requirements.

NHTSA has been considering the preemptive effect of Standard No. 115. As you know, the standard requires a VIN that is unique to a manufacturer during a ten-year period. It does not specify the length or content of the number. The question, therefore, becomes whether the standard was intended generally to cover all aspects of those numbers, and preempt any differing State rules. The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida Lime & Avacado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142, (1963), is "whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field." Under the accepted doctrines enunciated in cases as Thorne v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

The NHTSA has determined that Standard No. 115 is intended to cover all aspects of VIN's relative to the vehicles to which the standard applies, and that any aspects for which there are no specific requirements were intended by this agency to be left to the discretion of the manufacturers. State regulations differing from the standard on this subject are found to "impair the federal superintendence of the field," within the meaning of the Florida Lime doctrine, and any such State regulation would be preempted under section 103(d), 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).

Should you have any other questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Maryland Department of Transportation

March 4, 1976

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

I appreciate your letter of March 1, 1976 advising me that you Administration intends to issue, within the next few months, an NPRM to amend the existing FMVSS No. 115 to standardize the vehicle identification numbering system for all vehicles on a worldwide basis.

I shall certainly advise my colleagues who serve with me on the Executive Committee of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's intent in this regard. I presume, and it certainly will be my recommendation, that the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission proceed with the promulgation of the Vehicle Identification Number Standard that was the subject of VESC hearings in Orlando, Florida in early December.

As I indicated in my correspondence to General Vetter, as soon as the VESC Standard is promulgated, and assuming it is, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration will promulgate rules and regulations adopting the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission's standard as its own and require manufacturers to comply with the Maryland standard as a condition for the titling and registration of vehicles within this jurisdiction. This action on my part naturally assumes that the pre-emption provision does not apply in this matter and that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not complied with the Congressional mandate that it consult with the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission in the promulgation of equipment standards.

I presume, on the basis of your correspondence, that I can anticipate litigation in this matter and I have instructed counsel to prepare for this contingency.

With kindest regards, I am

Sincerely,

EJNER J. JOHNSON -- Administrator

CC: Joseph P. Murphy;

George O. Stevens;

Robert R. Harrison

ID: 77-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 23, 1977, letter asking whether three proposed labels satisfy the requirements for label identification found in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample labels appear to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120. A review of the labels you supplied indicates that you have used a different format than illustrated in our notice of February 7, 1977 (42 Federal Register 7140). For example, the amended Standard No. 120 does not require the words "with the tires listed below" or even the word "with" before the tire size. The deletion of such superfluous words from the label requirements of Standard No. 120 resulted from comments by manufacturers, particularly motorcycle manufacturers, that unnecessary words needlessly increase the size of the label.

The example of label information shown in S5.3 of the standard is intended only as a guide to manufacturers. A manufacturer can vary the illustrated format somewhat as long as the requirements of S5.3 are satisfied. Since the additional words on your labels do not obfuscate the certification statement, the labels appear to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120 and Part 567.

SINCERELY,

U.S. SUZUKI Motor Corporation

February 23, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Having reviewed the notice published in a recent issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER covering FMVSS no. 120 we are submitting examples of our proposed certification labels for your inspection. For this purpose please see attachment. We believe that any of these three proposals meet the requirements of 49 CFR ss571.120 S5.3 (label information) as amended.

Since the notice cited above did not address motorcycle certification labels specifically (the notice gave an example for trucks) we felt it is important that we have some clarification on this subject. The effective date, September 1, 1977, is fast approaching. Your response will be greatly appreciated.

Jeffrey L. Link Supervisor, Product Safety Safety and Legislation Department

MFD BY: SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD MFD IN: (Illegible Word)/76 THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE. GVWR 847 LBS WITH THE TIRES LISTED BELOW GAWR/FRONT 315 LBS WITH 3.25H19-4PR TIRES, 19X1.85B RIM AT 18PSI COLD. GAWR/REAR 532 LBS WITH 4.00H18-4PR TIRES, V.I.N. (Illegible Word) 18X2.15B RIM AT 25PSI COLD. GT750-(Illegible Word) MOTORCYCLE MADE IN JAPAN

MFD BY: SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD

MFD IN: (Illegible Word)/76

GVWR 847 LBS WITH THE TIRES LISTED BELOW GAWR/FRONT 315 LBS WITH 3.25H19-4PR TIRES, 19X1.85B RIM AT 18 PSI COLD. GAWR/REAR 532 LBS. WITH 4.00H18-4PR TIRES, 18X2.15B RIM AT 25 PSI COLD. THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE. V.I.N. GT750 (Illegible Word) MOTORCYCLE MADE IN JAPAN

MFD BY: SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD MFD IN: (Illegible Word)/76 GVWR 847 LBS WITH THE TIRES LISTED BELOW GAWR/FRONT 315 LBS WITH 3.25H19-4PR TIRES, 19X1.85B RIM AT 18 PSI COLD. GAWR/REAR 532 LBS WITH 4.00H18-4PR TIRES, 18X2.15B RIM AT 25 PSI COLD. THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE. V.I.N. (Illegible Word) GT750 - (Illegible Word) MOTORCYCLE MADE IN JAPAN

ID: curtain22830

Mr. Natale De Pasquale
ITI Industriale
s.r.l. Via Fratelli Bandiera
13-20016 PERO (MILANO)
ITALY





Dear Mr. De Pasquele:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of United States safety standards to a "rear window curtain for cars in general." You do not mention, however, the purpose of the attachment, whether the curtain will be made available to original equipment manufacturers and/or marketed as an aftermarket product for installation on used vehicles, or provide a thorough description of the product. Further, you indicate that ITI Industriale intends to import this product into the United States.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our laws to your product based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Installation in New Vehicles

A manufacturer of a new vehicle must certify that its vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Any person who manufactures or sells a new vehicle which does not conform to any safety standard is subject to civil penalties and recall action under our statute.

NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, to establish performance and location requirements for glazing in each new motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates an industry standard, the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26.1)." Under FMVSS No. 205 and the ANSI standard, glazing for use at levels intended for driving visibility must meet all of the requirements of the standard, including those on light transmittance. FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI

Z26.1 apply a 70 percent light transmittance requirement to areas of glazing that are requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Installation of your curtains as proposed would not cause a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 205 because the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test, instead they contemplate testing of only the glazing itself. Therefore, your curtain need not comply with the standard either by itself (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the windows, assuming that it is not attached to the window. However, if the curtains were installed into the glazing in any manner, e.g. between two layers of glass, the combination of curtain and glass would be considered a multiple glazed unit and would have to meet the standard.

In addition, there are a number of other standards that might be affected by installation of the component. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to FMVSS No. 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems, FMVSS No. 212, Windshield mounting, FMVSS No. 219, Windshield zone intrusion, FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, and FMVSS No. 302 , Flammability of interior materials. You should carefully review these and all other FMVSSs to determine how the product would affect a vehicle's conformance with these standards.

As an Aftermarket Item of Equipment

As far as we can tell from your letter, your product appears to be an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. ⁽¹⁾ Your curtain is an accessory because it was presumably designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. (We make this assumption because you designed the product for rear windows in "cars"). Further, the curtain appears to be intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While a rear window curtain is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards directly applicable to this product if it were sold directly to consumers for installation on used vehicles. However, the manufacturer, whether your client or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120, which set forth the notification and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the product is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

The installation of a rear window curtain by a commercial entity is also subject to other restrictions. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the rear window curtain could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the ability of a vehicle to comply with any FMVSS. You should carefully review the FMVSSs, particularly those listed above, to determine whether installation of your rear window curtain would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standards. ⁽²⁾

I note that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You should contact that Administration at (202) 366-2519 for information about any requirements that may apply to your product. In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions and may have restrictions on shade bands. Therefore, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

Also, there is a procedural regulation that you need to meet to import the curtain into the United States. 49 CFR Part 551, "Procedural Rules," requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured motor vehicle equipment to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under section 551.45:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b).

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205
d.5/9/01






---

1. Our statute defines "motor vehicle equipment," in relevant part, as any system, part, or component "sold ... as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B)). An item of equipment is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

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

ID: 1982-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/05/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cariben, Inc. -- Ernesto Rodriguez

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 22, 1981, asking whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard precludes the importation or sale of your anti-theft device. The device works by blocking the brakes and electric circuits to the motor. In trucks, the clutch is also blocked. Installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system.

By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." [Emphasis added.]

The agency does not have any regulations covering anti-theft devices that work by preventing release of the brakes. However, since installation of your device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.

If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In the case of your device, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:

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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . .

Standard No. 105 includes various requirements that might be affected by installation of your device. We are not able to determine from the drawings included with your letter whether compliance with the standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard. Your letter states that when your device is not in use, the vehicle works normally without any interference whatsoever. In addition to requirements specifically concerning stopping performance, the standard also includes requirements related to such things as a split system and the ability to withstand a series of spike stops, which might be affected by your device.

While we do not have any opinion as to the safety of your particular device, we do have a general concern about the safety of anti-theft devices which work by preventing release of the brakes. We note that some manufacturers state in their service manuals that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles.

Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.

Finally, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above, there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.

SINCERELY,

Sept. 22, 1981

U.S. Dept. of Transportation Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Att: Chief Counsel Office

Gentlemen:

Cariben Inc. restpectfully submit for your consideration and judgement the following request and corresponding data:

I- WE have the oportunity to import from Europe to be marqueted in our country an unique and efficient Antitheft Devise for Cars, Trucks and Containers or Vans identified as: U.F.006- 00I2 and 00I2 I. R; Patented by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce Dossier #5320.U2.12US.I

2-The most important and vital feature of the Devises are that once you turned the key on, the brackes and all elecric circuits to the motor are blocked except the one that goes to the horn that will blow if somebody tampered with the vehicle. In the trucks also the clutch is blocked, and in the containers or Vans the brackes are blocked mecanically and hidraulically.

3- The Antitheft works in conjunction with the master cylinder controling the flux of the bracke fluid to the brackes and the electricity going from the battery to the ignition and to the coil.

4- When the Antitheft is not in use then the vehicle works normally without any interference whatsoever.

We respectfully beg your office to determine if this Anti-thefts so badly needed in our country, as all of us knows, violates the already standards established by your office for articles of this nature. We have already make contact with Sea-Land, Navieras de Puerto Rico, Sears, T.S.S. and others and we need your ruling in this case.

Thanks in advance for your kind attention to this letter.

We remain,

By: Ernesto Rodriguez

(Enclosure Omitted.)

ID: 1982-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Baily Ford, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 26, 1982

Mr. Lloyd L. Bailey President Bailey Ford, Inc. West Main Street Road Malone, NY 12953

Dear Mr. Bailey:

This responds to your letter of December 4, 1981, requesting current regulations on installing a glider kit on an existing truck chassis. Your letter also asked about regulations on repowering a truck from gas to diesel, changing axles, and transmission changes. We apparently did not receive your letter of October 16 and regret the delay in responding.

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571.7(e), Combining new and used components, is the agency's regulation on glider kits. It states that when a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for the purpose of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. We have enclosed a copy of Part 571.7 for your convenience.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that you plan to add a new cab and other components to an existing vehicle's engine and axles. Unless you also use a transmission that is not new, the truck would be considered newly manufactured under Part 571.7(e). If the truck is newly manufactured under that Part, you must certify compliance with all applicable current Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If the truck is not considered newly manufactured under Part 571.7(e), the changes would be considered in the nature of repairs and certification would not be required. However, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, you as a repairer of a vehicle other than your own must not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This would mean that the reassembled truck with the glider kit installed must continue to meet the standards that it met before the alteration.

The agency does not have specific regulations concerning repowering a truck from gas to diesel, changing axles, or transmission changes. In making such changes, however, a person other than the vehicle's owner must not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (except temporarily during the course of repairs).

The changes you refer to could affect compliance with a number of safety standards. For example, repowering a truck from gas to diesel could affect compliance with Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. Changing axles could affect compliance wit standards in such areas as braking and tires.

We suggest that you examine the various Federal motor vehicle safety standards before making such changes. Due to the volume of requests, the agency does not provide copies directly. We have, however, enclosed an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

In your telephone conversation with Mr. Glancy, you asked what model year designation should be given when a glider kit is used. This agency is interested in the compliance of motor vehicles with safety standards and does not regulate the model year designation of vehicles. However, it is our belief that a vehicle considered to be newly manufactured under Part 571.7(e) would receive a new registration, while other vehicles would continue to carry their original registration. State laws may cover the question. Further, you should consult with the Federal Trade Commission with respect to the legality of calling such vehicles new, since that agency is concerned with any consumer fraud that might arise when a vehicle with used parts is sold as a new vehicle.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

December 4, 1981

Dept. of Transportation Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen: Would you please send us current regulations on installing a glider kit on an existing truck chassis; also regulations on repowering a truck from gas to diesel, changing axles and transmission changes.

We asked for this information back on October 16th, and never received a reply.

Very truly yours,

Lloyd L. Bailey President

LLB:rm

ID: 77-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Krystal Glass Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 11, 1977, question whether the stained glass portholes manufactured by your company for use on van vehicles have to comply with Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You contend that since the portholes are backed by complying safety glazing the intent of Standard No. 205 is met, even though the stained glass itself is not safety glazing.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot agree with your interpretation. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing material for use in specified locations in motor vehicles. All parts of your stained glass porthole windows must comply with the requirements of the standard. The safety glazing that backs your portholes could be damaged during a crash and the vehicle occupants could be exposed to the noncomplying stained glass. The NHTSA, therefore, disagrees with your conclusion that the intent of Standard No. 205 is met by the Krystal Glass porthole windows.

You should be aware that paragraph S6.2 of the standard requires a prime glazing material manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing material that is designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, (15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et. seq.), and by marking the glazing with the "DOT" symbol and a manufacturer's code mark. A prime glazing material manufacturer is defined as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material. A manufacturer's code mark is assigned by the NHTSA upon the written request of a manufacturer.

Enclosed is a copy of the ANS Z26 standard, as requested in your telephone conversation with Hugh Oates of this office.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MARCH 11, 1977

Frank Berndt

Subject: Stained Glass Portholes, with safty glass backing.

Dear sir,

In our research to insure that Stained Glass Portholes were a safe and legal product, we have met and discussed the product with both State and Federal officials. Our first step was directed toward approval from the California Division of Highway Patrol - Engineering Division. Stained Glass Portholes, backed with safety glazing, (AS-2) were shown to a Mr. Robert Sheppard. He held the Portholes for inspection by his department until he was assured that we had a safe product, (one that complies with the safety codes). He telephoned Krystal Glass Co. on 3, March 1977 and gave an assurance that we had a safe product and that it was ok to go ahead with manufacturing.

We proceeded to manufacture and market our windows until 8, March 1977. On this day a Federal Official, Mr. Joseph Zamaitas, contacted our company and informed us we were required to meet Federal Safety Standard #205, also that we possibly needed a manufactures code number. Therefore would you please consider our question. If we install Automotive Safety Glazing (AS-4) or Laminated Safety Glass (AS-2) on the inside portion of the unit, towards the passenger compartment, does this comply with the intent of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205?

Besides protecting the passenger compartment with an approved Safety Glazing, we were concerned with the shattering effects of our Stained Glass Plate. After testing the evidence, it is quite clear that the shattered glass was contained within the leaded channels.

We have submitted the Stained Glass Porthole that we tested for your inspection, also included are two undamaged protholes for your inspection.

Your rapid reply to our question in regards to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205, would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,

John Watson -- Krystal Glass Co.

ID: nht93-4.35

DATE: June 17, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Dennis Platt -- Sergeant, Program Supervisor, Vehicle Safety & Equipment Section, Utah Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-20-93 from Dennis Platt to Marvin Shaw (OCC 8577)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Standard No. 205, GLAZING MATERIALS (49 CFR S571.205) for glazing used in school buses and heavy trucks. You explained that along with the information required by Standard No. 205, the windshields in your jurisdiction are being replaced with glass that is marked with "16 CFR 1201 CAT II." You asked whether it is permissible to mark replacement windshields with both the AS1 marking required by Standard No. 205 and "16 CFR 1201 CAT II." As explained below, it would be permissible for glazing to be marked with this additional information.

Under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, GLAZING MATERIALS, which establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing materials. A replacement windshield would be required to be marked with the following information in accordance with section 6 of the American National Standard (ANS) Z26: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. In addition, the replacement windshield would be required to be marked with the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency.

With respect to additional information not required by the Standard, the agency's longstanding policy is that an item of glazing is permitted to be marked with additional information provided that the additional marking does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information.

The purpose of the marking -- 16 CFR 1201 CAT II -- is to inform a glazing purchaser that the glazing may be used for architectural applications. Thus, such information would serve a different purpose than our marking requirements.

It is our opinion that marking glazing with the information about its use for architectural applications would not cause confusion with respect to the markings required by Standard No. 205, nor raise other concerns with respect to our marking requirements. We believe that the additional marking would not interfere with an individual's understanding that the glazing is certified for motor vehicle applications.

You express concern that glass designed for architectural purposes (e.g., for shower stall doors) might not be appropriate for motor vehicles. Glazing cannot be certified to Standard No. 205 unless it meets all requirements of that standard. Glazing certified to Standard No. 205 has the appropriate

performance characteristics to be installed in motor vehicles, even if the glazing was also designed for architectural purposes.

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

ID: 23082.jeg

Granta Y. Nakayama, Esq.
Kirkland & Ellis
655 Fifteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005





Dear Mr. Nakayama:

This responds to your letter of July 23, 2001, concerning whether Ferrari S.p.A. and Maserati S.p.A. qualify for the small volume manufacturer (SVM) implementation schedule in the final rule for advanced air bags. You provided information with that letter, and in a previous meeting, to supplement information provided in a letter sent by Mr. Mark A. Recchia of Fiat Auto R&D, U.S.A. You asked about this matter in light of the ownership relationships between these companies and with Fiat Auto S.p.A. and General Motors. As discussed below, it is our opinion that Ferrari S.p.A. and Maserati S.p.A. would be considered separately, both with respect to each other and with respect to Fiat Auto S.p.A. and General Motors, for purposes of qualification for the SVM implementation schedule.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's new requirements for advanced air bags are included as part of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Paragraph S14.1(d) of that standard, as amended by the final rule we published in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) on May 12, 2000, provides that "(v)ehicles that are manufactured by a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000 vehicles worldwide annually" are subject to a special implementation schedule. (Emphasis added.)

I note that the Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers (COSVAM) submitted a petition for reconsideration asking us to expand that definition to manufacturers of no more than 10,000 vehicles per year. Alternatively, it petitioned that the 5,000 vehicle cap be limited to vehicles sold in the United States per year or that the 5,000 vehicle cap be averaged over the phase-in period. Under the averaged proposal, if a manufacturer produced more than 5,000 vehicles in a single year, it could still take advantage of the exclusion as long as the average of production during the phase-in was not more than 5,000 vehicles per year.

We will respond to the COSVAM petition as part of our general response to petitions for reconsideration of the May 2000 final rule for advanced air bags. We expect to issue a response in the near future. I observe that, however we respond to the requests of COSVAM, it will not affect the primary issue raised by your letter: whether Ferrari S.p.A. and Maserati S.p.A. would be considered separately, with respect to each other and with respect to Fiat Auto S.p.A. and General Motors, for purposes of qualification for the SVM implementation schedule

According to the information provided by Mr. Recchia, the annual worldwide production of Ferrari cars themselves is and will remain well within 5,000 units. However, the annual worldwide production of Maserati S.p.A., which is wholly owned by Ferrari S.p.A., may exceed 5,000 units in the next few years. Mr. Recchia also indicated that Ferrari S.p.A. is 87 percent owned by Fiat S.p.A., which owns 80 percent of Fiat Auto S.p.A. and 5.1 percent of General Motors. Both Fiat Auto S.p.A. and General Motors are very large auto manufacturers. Mr. Recchia also noted in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office that it is possible that Ferrari cars and Maserati cars could be imported into the United States by the same importer during the time period in question.

You provided information showing that, notwithstanding the fact that Maserati S.p.A. is wholly owned by Ferrari S.p.A., they are two operationally independent companies with different products. In an Annex to your letter, you indicated that the separate nature of the two companies is exhibited by the different and dedicated products, development location and resources, production location and resources, and headquarter location and resources.

After considering the materials provided by Mr. Recchia and by you, it is our opinion, for purposes of considering whether a company qualifies for the SVM implementation schedule under paragraph S14.1(d) of Standard No. 208, that Ferrari S.p.A. and Maserati S.p.A. are separate manufacturers, both with respect to each other and with respect to Fiat Auto S.p.A. and General Motors. This opinion reflects several considerations.

First, Ferrari S.p.A. and Maserati S.p.A. are separate corporations, are operationally independent and are separate manufacturers for most purposes.

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

Third, while it is possible that Ferrari cars and Maserati cars could be imported into the United States by the same importer, we established the special provision in paragraph S14.1(d) for SVMs in light of the technical challenges faced by these manufacturers given the complexity of the new advanced air bag requirements. Ferrari S.p.A. and Maserati S.p.A. are separate European manufacturers, and the use of a common importer would not affect the challenges these companies face in meeting the requirements for advanced air bags.

Finally, the ownership relationships between these companies and with Fiat Auto S.p.A. and General Motors are longstanding and do not represent any "gamesmanship" to avoid the phase-in requirements.

We would caution that this interpretation reflects specific consideration of the factors underlying paragraph S14.1(d) of Standard No. 208 and should not be viewed as providing guidance for interpreting any other regulatory provisions.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.8/22/01