ID: 8180

Mr. Juan F. Vega
102790
F.S.P.
P.O. Box 747
Starke, FL 32091
U-2-N-9

Dear Mr. Vega:

This responds to your letter addressed to former Secretary Card. Your letter expresses concern that vans used by the Florida State Prison to transport prisoners do not have seat belts. According to your letter and copies of other correspondence you enclosed, wood and metal benches are located along the sides of the rear area of the vans, and there are no side windows in that area. You state that you believe that this is a violation of Florida and Federal safety belt laws. Your letter has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for response because it contains questions concerning laws and regulations administered by this agency.

Let me begin by making clear that I have no special knowledge or expertise with respect to Florida law. My answer will address only the requirements of the laws and regulations administered by this agency.

Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (49 CFR 571.208) which, among other things, requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in motor vehicles. However, different requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific requirements for the vans you are concerned about without knowing the vehicles' date of manufacture, seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating.

The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new vehicle unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the seat belt installation requirements in Standard No. 208. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the vehicle is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Please note that this prohibition applies only to the commercial entities identified in the section, not to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways without violating Federal law, even if the owner's modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208. Thus, if a State purchases a vehicle and makes modifications itself, there is no violation of Federal law, even if the modified vehicle does not comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:2/16/93

ID: 8181

The Honorable Paul David Wellstone
United States Senate
2550 University Avenue, West
Court International Building
St. Paul, MN 55114-1025

Dear Senator Wellstone:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituents, Ms. Tutti Sherlock and Ms. Mary Bock, regarding the application of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) school bus standards to Head Start facilities.

Your constituents ask that NHTSA inform the Minnesota Department of Transportation that we do not require school bus manufacturers to provide school bus equipment, such as stop arms and special stop lights, on Head Start buses. They base this request on their belief that in 1985, NHTSA said that states may decide which regulations should apply to Head Start buses. They also believe that stop arms and lights for Head Start buses are unnecessary, and that painting Head Start buses yellow could be confusing.

We cannot provide the requested interpretation, because the understanding of your constituents is incorrect. By way of background, your constituents' concerns relate to two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress. The first of these, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSS's for school buses, including FMVSS's requiring these buses to have a stop arm and warning lights. The Safety Act requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary or secondary school must sell a bus that is certified to the FMVSS's for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement.

The question of whether Head Start facilities are "schools" under the Safety Act has been addressed by NHTSA since the beginning of the school bus FMVSS's. The agency's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore "schools" under the Safety Act. We base this conclusion on a review of the goals and functions of the Head Start program (see, e.g., 45 CFR 1304.1-3), and on past NHTSA interpretations of "school." NHTSA has stated its position that Head Start facilities are schools most recently in an August 21, 1992 letter to Mr. Chuck Anderson of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Any new bus that is sold to a Head Start facility must have the safety features of a school bus at the time of the vehicle's sale, including the stop arm and signal lights.

However, the Safety Act does not require Head Start facilities to use school buses or any other particular vehicle, nor does it require school buses to be painted yellow. The maintenance and operational characteristics of school buses are matters left to the individual states. We stated this in NHTSA's September 27, 1985 letter to Mr. Charles Pekow, to which you refer in your letter. To clarify your understanding of the letter, NHTSA stated that "The requirements for school bus operation and maintenance ... are matters left to the individual states to determine." (Emphasis added.) NHTSA's second set of school bus regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, is a set of recommendations to the states for developing effective pupil transportation programs. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed), recommends that any vehicle designed for 11 or more persons that is used as a school bus should comply with the FMVSS's for school buses and should be painted yellow. However, Guideline 17 would affect the operation of your constituents' school buses only to the extent that Minnesota has incorporated it into state law.

I hope this information will be helpful in responding to your constituents.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA d.1/26/93

ID: 8199

Christopher J. Daniels, Esquire
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough
1330 Lady Street
P. O. Box 11070
Columbia, SC 29211

Dear Mr. Daniels:

This responds to your letter to Paul Jackson Rice, our former Chief Counsel, in which you referred to a tire manufactured in Canada that had had the "DOT number" obliterated. Because you think the tire was improperly sold in that condition, you asked whether it was illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT number and whether it was illegal to sell or use a tire on the highway without a "DOT serial number."

By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq., as amended (hereinafter Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment, the latter of which includes tires. All new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. This requirement is found at Section 1397 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act which provides "No person shall . . . import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . ." The effect of that language is to require that tires manufactured on or after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be legally imported into the U.S. Pursuant to Standard 109 (49 CFR 571.109, New Pneumatic Tires) and Standard 119 (49 CFR 571.119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars), tire manufacturers must certify compliance therewith by molding the symbol "DOT" onto the tire sidewalls. Further, 49 CFR 574.5 requires that all tires sold in the U.S. have tire identification numbers (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the manufacturers to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect.

With that background in mind, your specific questions are answered as follows:

1. Is it illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT serial number? Answer: Yes. Each tire imported into the U.S. for highway use must have molded into or onto the sidewall a TIN and a DOT symbol or in the alternative, be accompanied by proof that the tire was manufactured prior to the effective date of applicable safety standards. The only exception to these requirements is that used truck tire casings which have less than 2/32 inch tread remaining and which are being imported solely for retreading prior to on-road use may be imported without displaying the TIN or the DOT symbol.

2. Is it illegal to sell or use a tire for highway use without the DOT serial number? Answer: It is illegal for a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to sell a new or retreaded tire to the first customer for purposes other than resale without the DOT symbol and the TIN molded into or onto the sidewall. There are no Federal requirements for the use of such tire once it has been sold to the first customer. There may, however, be state safety requirements pertinent to the use of motor vehicle equipment. For that information you should check with appropriate state officials.

If the tire in question is intended for or capable of being used on a commercial vehicle, you may want to check also with the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (Room 3404), of the Federal Highway Administration, at this address. (Telephone (202) 366-1790.)

I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:109#119#574 d:2/11/93

ID: 8210a

Mr. Thomas L. Wright
Coordinator, Technical Support Unit
State of New Jersey
Department of Law and Public Safety
Division of Motor Vehicles
Trenton, NJ 08666

Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your letter to Patrick Boyd of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, concerning window tinting. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Your questions relate to a January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the tinting requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You ask about the status of the NPRM. The agency received a large number of comments on this rulemaking. We have reviewed the comments and are analyzing the issues raised in this rulemaking.

You also ask about a statement in the NPRM about Federal preemption of state window tinting laws. You ask whether Federal law preempts a state law that permits add-on window tinting material for medical or aesthetic reasons.

As explained below, the answer is no, provided that the state law regulates conduct other than that regulated by Federal law. Your question was addressed in the NPRM's discussion of the Federalism implications of the proposed rule (p. 2507).

By way of background, NHTSA issued Standard 205 under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Section 103(d) of the Safety Act provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Whether state law is preempted under 103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the manufacture of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture or sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard 205.

Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The effect of this is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting - that is illegal under Federal law.

I have enclosed a copy of the Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows which you requested. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:205 d:3/11/93

ID: 8223

Mr. Donald L. Anglin
706 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22903

Dear Mr. Anglin:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether removing the self-adjusters on a motor vehicle's drum brakes constitutes a violation of the "anti-tampering" provisions of several Federal laws, including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this agency's regulations. You will need to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for an interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") requires this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the standards issued by NHTSA are Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

NHTSA recently amended these standards to require vehicles to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. (57 FR 47793, October 20, 1992) This rule takes effect on October 20, 1993 for vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes and on October 20, 1994 for vehicles equipped with air brakes. Until these effective dates, a vehicle is not required to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters.

You specifically asked about the agency's "anti-tampering" provisions. While the agency has no provision called this, the Safety Act does include a provision known as the "rendering inoperative" provision which is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

For vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the new requirements for automatic adjusters, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses will be prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) from rendering the devices inoperative. For vehicles manufactured before that time, such an entity should ensure that removal of the adjusters does not otherwise render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with a safety standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:105#121 d:4/19/93

ID: 8228a

Mr. Ken Liebscher
President/Director
Electric Car Company
P.O. Box 618
Everson, WA 98247

Dear Mr. Liebscher:

We have reviewed your application of January 16, 1995, for temporary exemption of the M1-6 electric passenger car from six Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, on the basis that compliance would cause Electric Car Company ("Electric Car") substantial economic hardship. We need some additional information before we are able to consider the application further.

A hardship applicant must provide corporate balance sheets and income statements for the three fiscal years preceding the filing of the application. You have filed statements for E.T.C. Industries and only for two years, those ending December 31, 1992, and December 31, 1993. This is acceptable since your submission indicates that E.T.C. Industries (apparently a Canadian corporation) is the parent of Electric Car (a Nevada corporation incorporated on November 24, 1993), and that "the consolidated financial statements [that you have provided us] include the accounts of Electric Car . . . ." We would like to have balance sheets and income statements for Electric Car for the year ending December 31, 1994, but if these are not yet available, we would be willing to accept statements for E.T.C. Industries (or its predecessor Bradsue Resources, Ltd.) for the year ending December 31, 1991. If the information reflected in the financial statements is given in Canadian dollars, please provide a key indicating the value in American dollars on December 31 of each year for which the information is provided.

In order to grant a hardship application, the Administrator must find that an applicant has tried to comply in good faith with each standard for which exemption is requested. Your application contains no information upon which the Administrator could make such a finding with respect to any of the six standards for which you seek exemption. In spite of your confidence about the MI-6's performance in a 30 mph barrier impact, the fact that the MI-6 uses equipment installed in motor vehicles that are certified as meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards does not mean that the MI-6 will meet any of the six standards with the equipment installed. We therefore suggest that you supplement the application with information demonstrating that you have examined each of the six standards in some detail, and have made a study of possible compliance problems and possible solutions to them. It is permissible to ask to be excused from only a portion of a standard, and you may find, after studying your problems, that you will be able to narrow your requests for exemption from Standards No. 201 and 208. We assume with respect to the latter that you are concerned with the airbag requirements. Although your letter speaks of "restraint systems", we would like your further identification of them as two-point (lap belt) or three-point (lap and shoulder belt) systems.

Although you appear to be a manufacturer in the start- up stage and one whose total motor vehicle production in the year preceding the filing of the application was far less than 10,000, you have omitted to provide the number of motor vehicles that you produced in 1994 which is information that we require. Please do so in your response to this letter.

When we have received this information, we shall prepare a notice requesting public comment which will appear in the Federal Register. We shall notify you when the Administrator has made a decision. We expect this to be three to four months after we have received your further submission. If you have any questions on our requirements, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:555 d:2/13/95

ID: 8234

Mr. Donald Ray McCray
620694, Darrington Unit
Rt. 3
P.O. Box 59
Rosharon, TX 77583

Dear Mr. McCray:

This responds to your letter of November 16, 1992 to former Secretary Card. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for motor vehicle safety.

Your letter expresses concern about the buses that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (DCJ) uses to transport inmates. You believe the buses are unsafe and operated in violation of Federal law. As explained below, it appears the DCJ did not violate any NHTSA regulation.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, each person selling a new bus must ensure that the bus complies with the FMVSS's for buses. NHTSA's requirements for vehicle seats are set forth in FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems. However, that standard does not require seat covers or pads for any bus seat. Also, there is no FMVSS that requires buses to be heated.

NHTSA does not regulate the use of motor vehicles, such as the speed at which the DCJ must operate the bus. Individual states, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. Texas state officials would be best able to answer your concerns about the manner in which you were transported.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:207 d:2/9/93

ID: 8240a

Trooper Bob Dittert
Texas Department of Public Safety
10110 NW Freeway
Houston, TX 77092

Dear Mr. Dittert:

This responds to your inquiry about how the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affect State laws applicable to the same aspect of performance. You were particularly interested in our requirements for window tinting. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. After providing background information, I will answer the specific questions raised in your letter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Standard 205, "Glazing Materials," issued under the Safety Act, has requirements that limit the amount of tinting that can be placed on windows in new vehicles. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Under 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, no person shall manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not meet all applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces.

The prohibition in 108(a)(1)(A) against selling complying vehicles and items of equipment does not apply to a vehicle or item of equipment after its first sale to a consumer. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act applies to modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Please note that the "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

I would now like to apply this background to the particular questions raised in your letter.

Question One: "Are the CFRs law and enforceable only by federal agents?"

NHTSA's regulations and safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations and standards apply without State ratification to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces these regulations and safety standards.

Question Two: "Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?"

The FMVSS's apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, and not to used vehicles or equipment. NHTSA may bring enforcement actions against manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of equipment that do not comply with applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA also enforces the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act against commercial entitites that modify new or used vehicles in a manner that violates the "render inoperative" provision. We also note that NHTSA can investigate safety defects in new or used vehicles or items of equipment.

Question Three: "Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFRs?"

We understand you to ask this in the context of window tinting requirements, since elsewhere in your letter you ask whether a Texas law that allows light transmittance of 35 percent violates Federal law.

Your question relates to 103(d) of the Safety Act, which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Whether State law is preempted under 103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the manufacture of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture or sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard 205.

As stated above, Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses (108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act). The effect of 108(a)(2)(A) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting - that is illegal under Federal law.

Question 4: "Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp `black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?"

You are correct that 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act regulates the modifications of only the commercial entities listed in that section of the Act, and that the Safety Act does not prohibit an individual from modifying his or her vehicle such that it no longer complies with the FMVSS's. The States may have requirements governing the modification of a vehicle by individual owners.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205#VSA d:5/5/93

ID: 8257

Mr. James L. Vasko
527 Old Canyon Road
Fremont, CA 94536

Dear Mr. Vasko:

This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 1993, to the agency in which you call our attention to your invention, the "Front Brake Light System." You have informed us that your invention utilizes "the present turn signal lights . . . to notify the driver and or pedestrian in front of the vehicle that the vehicle is in a braking mode," and that this is accomplished with only the present circuitry. You wish to "open a dialogue" with us and will answer any questions we may have.

We do have some questions about this invention. As you know, the individual front turn signal lamps also operate in tandem as hazard warning signal lamps, and flash simultaneously when the hazard warning switch is activated. We assume that your invention flashes both front signal lamps when the brake pedal is applied, and request confirmation of our assumption. We would also appreciate knowing how this is accomplished without "necessity and expense of adding new, complicated apparatus" as you put it. If, on the other hand, the front signal lamps are activated in a steady-burning state, that would be of interest to us. Finally, we would appreciate your views as to how this device would enhance safety, as our concerns have been directed to warning those to the rear of the vehicle that it is about to stop, rather than those to the front.

When we have this information, we shall be pleased to provide you with an interpretation as to the relationship of your invention to the statutes and regulations that this agency administers. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:2/11/93

ID: 8258

Mr. Raymond S. Byers
Engineering Manager, Research,
Testing, and Certification
Utilimaster Motor Corporation
65598 State Road #19
P.O. Box 860
Wakarusa, IN 46573

Dear Mr. Byers:

This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the alternate placement of a vehicle certification label in your "Aeromate" van. I apologize for the delay in responding.

As you noted in your letter, 49 CFR 567.4 requires that a motor vehicle manufacturer affix a certification label to each vehicle it makes, and permits the manufacturer to place the label in any one of the places listed in that provision. If none of the listed locations is practicable, 567.4 directs the manufacturer to suggest an alternate position for the affixed label, and to request National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approval for that position.

You explain in your letter that in your "Aeromate" vehicle, the driver's door slides between an inner and outer metal panel, thus making it impossible to affix the label to the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post. Based on the photographs you included with your letter, affixing the label to the inside of the driver's side door would be unacceptable because, when opened, the door slides between the two metal panels. Thus, when the door is in the open position, the label would be obscured from the view of any observer. You propose installing the label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's side door opening, to the left of the driver's legs under the instrument panel, and include photographs showing the label affixed to the proposed position. You state, and your photographs appear to confirm, that the location would be visible from the driver's position, and for inspection by officials.

In directing a manufacturer to put its certification label in those places set out in 567.4, NHTSA's purpose is to make these labels easy to see and read. Based on the information you supplied, the agency determines that for this particular vehicle design, installing the certification label as you propose will facilitate seeing and reading the label. On the other hand, placing the label as specified in 567.4 may not be practicable and might interfere with unobstructed viewing of the label. Therefore, on the condition that your company's label complies in all other respects with 567.4, NHTSA grants your request to install the certification label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's door opening as shown in the photographs that you provided to us.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:567 d:4/27/93