ID: nht94-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Unrath, Albert W., Sr. -- President, Albert W. Unrath, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 7/5/94 From Albert W. Unrath, SR. To John Womack (OCC 10204)

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA's regulations apply to your company's plans to refurbish used vehicles. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that after refurbishing, the vehicles wil l have lower gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs). You wish to know whether you could add a label showing the lower GVWR to the vehicles' original certification label (which you refer to as the "original Vin Plate").

As explained below, NHTSA does not require the supplementary label on a refurbished -- and not newly manufactured -- used vehicle. We would, however, encourage you to add the label on the refurbished vehicles, since the label would provide important saf ety information to the vehicle operator. On the other hand, the modifications you make to the vehicle could be so extensive that the resulting vehicle is considered "new" under our regulations. If the vehicle is a new vehicle, you must certify the vehi cle as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), and include on your certification label the new GVWR of the vehicle.

Based on the information you provided, the vehicles you are refurbishing are "trucks" under section 571.3 of our regulations. Section 571.3 defines a "truck" as a motor vehicle with motive power "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." You provided two photographs of the vehicles after they have been refurbished. Your photographs show the refurbished vehicles as carrying 4' x 8' "Advanced Warning Flashing Arrow" signs on flat beds. Since your vehicles are designed for transporting property or special purpose equipment, the vehicles are "trucks" under 571.3.

You describe your refurbishing process in your letter. You state that you will take a used truck with a GVWR of 45,000 or 80,000 pounds (lbs.), "scrap" the body, and check remaining truck parts such as the subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, and s uspension. You will repair and replace those parts, as needed. Next, you will clean and paint the frame and running gear, and add a new support frame and "attenuator mounting hardware with braces." After the vehicle is refurbished, its GVWR will be app roximately 25,500 lbs.

As a general rule, NHTSA has no requirements for "used" vehicles. Whether a vehicle is considered new or used depends on the origin of its parts. For example, we regard an assemblage of a new body on a chassis of a vehicle that was previously registere d for use on the public roads to be a "used" vehicle and therefore not subject to the FMVSS's. When a modified chassis is being used in the refurbishment, NHTSA has a regulation (49 CFR section 571.7(e)) for determining when the modifications to the use d chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the FMVSS's. Section 571.7(e) states:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . ., 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.

It does not appear that you plan to add a new engine, transmission, or drive axle to each refurbished truck. If you leave the requisite components specified in section 571.7(e) in place from the previous vehicle, we would consider the vehicle you produc e to be a used vehicle. However, please keep in mind that you would be subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. section 30122(b), which 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 . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety s tandard . . .

This means that the refurbished truck must continue to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification, such as those for braking, lighting and safety belt systems. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

You ask whether, after refurbishing the used truck, your company may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to reflect the lower GVWR. Since NHTSA generally does not regulate used vehicles, we do not require or prohibit the addition of a supplementary GVWR label. However, we would encourage you to add the supplementary GVWR label to the vehicle.

American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), NHTSA recognized that certain modifications that might be made to a used vehicle (e.g., adding or deleting an axle) could make the originally assigned GVWR inappropriate for the vehicle as modified. In the let ter to the AABA, NHTSA stated that although it is not required by our regulations, we believe it would be appropriate in these situations to add a label to the vehicle which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the modified vehicle. Similarly, in your case, since the GVWR of the refurbished trucks would be much lower than that indicated on the certification label, we believe it would be appropriate for your company to add a label to the trucks which indicates the appropriate loaded weigt of the r efurbished truck.

As noted at the beginning of this letter, it is possible that your modifications could result in a "new" vehicle. You indicate that, if needed, you could replace the vehicle's subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, suspension, and/or support frame. If you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the original vehicle and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable FMVSS's in effect on the date of the remanufacture of the new vehicle.

You also asked that NHTSA "approve" your proposed operations. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" refurbishing operations. Under our regulations, manufacturers of new vehicles "self-certify" that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Like wise, businesses refurbishing used vehicles must assure themselves that the resulting vehicle continues to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification. NHTSA can examine the refurbisher's determination in the context of an enforcement proceedin g.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 24, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terry M. Habshey -- Oxytire Incorporated

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/6/95 LETTER FROM TERRY M. HABSHEY TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10785)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Habshey:

This responds to your March 6, 1995 letter to Philip Recht, our former Chief Counsel, and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff in which you requested a "new D.O.T. number." As discussed below, we are unable to provide you a tire man ufacturer's identification mark since the operations you perform on tires are not sufficient to make you the manufacturer of the tires.

You explained that your company is a global exporter of tires, particularly to third world countries, but that you intend to distribute tires domestically in the future. You stated that you obtain new tires from different manufacturers consisting of ori ginal equipment overruns, blems, etc., and that by a new process you intend to remove "most" of the information from the tire sidewalls. The new process includes removing a thin layer of rubber from the tire sidewall, then vulcanizing a layer of new rubb er onto the sidewall. The new layer will contain a new "registered" trade name, logo, and "identifying marks along with the size, safety information, mounting instructions, maximum and minimum inflating instructions, etc." You emphasized that all tires will be new and meet "all minimum standards established by the Department of Transportation."

Before addressing your request, let me first provide some background information. Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety st andards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment sold in or imported into the United States. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufact urers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs effective on the date of manufacture. In the case of tires, manufacturers reflect that certification by molding the letters "DOT" into or onto the sidewalls of all their tires manufactu red for sale in the United States.

The FMVSSs are not applicable to tires intended solely for export, labeled for export on the tires and on the outside of the container, and exported. See 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(b)(3); 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.7(d)). Accordingly, you are free to export any tires you want, whether or not they comply with the FMVSSs and after whatever modifications you make to them.

That is not the case, however, with tires distributed for sale in the United States. FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires and FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims, specify performance standards and labeling requirements for new passenger car tires and r ims. FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars and FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, specify performance standards and labeling requirements applicable to tires and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part 574, Tire identification and recordkeeping, requires new tire manufacturers to permanently mold into or onto one tire sidewall a tire identification number (TIN) and specifies methods by which new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners shall maintain records of tire purchasers. 49 CFR Part 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS), requires new motor vehicle and new tire manufacturers and brand name owners to provide informat ion to consumers concerning the relative performance of passenger car tires in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The UTQGS grades are also required to be molded into or onto the tire sidewall.

The labeling requirements specified in the regulations referred to above apply to the actual tire manufacturers and/or brand name owners, and the required information, including the DOT symbol and the TIN, must appear on all new tires before they can be sold to their first retail purchasers. A tire distributor or dealer cannot legally remove any of the required information from new tire sidewalls. The required information on new tires is intended for safety purposes, purchaser information, and to enab le this agency to identify the manufacturer in the event of a noncompliance or defect in a tire line or lot.

A "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(5) as one who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles or equipment or one who imports motor vehicles or equipment for resale. The operations you describe would not be sufficient to make you the manufa cturer of the tires in question. According to your letter, you would, for marketing reasons, remove a thin layer of the surface area of the sidewalls of the tires so that most of the existing information is removed. You would then apply a new thin laye r of rubber containing new information. Your operations would thus not be changing the basic tire as such but simply changing the labeling. A change in labeling would not change who manufactured the tire. Thus, since you would not be a manufacturer of tires, you may not obtain a manufacturer's identification mark in accordance with 49 CFR @ 574.6. Only tire manufacturers or retreaders may obtain that mark.

49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b) prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and/or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with applicable FMVSSs unless that individual reasonably believes that the vehicle or equipment will not be used when the device or element is inoperative. Thus, removal of the labeling information required to be marked on tire sidewalls in accordance w ith the standards and regulations discussed above could be a violation of @ 30122(b), which could subject the violator to civil penalties of up to $ 1000 per violation, or up to $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

In summary, the Safety Act does not apply to tires intended solely for export. Thus, those tires are not required to comply with any FMVSSs. However, all new or retreaded tires sold or imported into the United States for sale must comply with all applic able FMVSSs and regulations as discussed above. Distributors and dealers may not remove any of the labeling information required to be marked on new tires by the actual manufacturers and/or brand name owners of those tires. Removal of that information c ould make inoperative an element of design on those tires, which could constitute a violation of 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b).

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you need additional information or have further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 7743

Under Secretary
Ministry of Commerce and Industry
P. O. Box No. 2944
KUWAIT

Dear Mr. Under Secretary:

This responds to your letter concerning United States tire regulations. You stated that some companies have been reported to be dumping defective and rejected tires in your country. In response to that situation, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued a decree requiring that all imported tires must be new, must comply with international standards, and must be accompanied by a quality certificate issued by an independent, officially recognized authority which has the capability of testing and proving the quality of the tires in accordance with the standards. You stated that you have been unable to obtain such a certificate from the United States, but have received one from a company called Societe Generale de Surveillance, which issues a certificate for each shipment separately and does only visual tests and not laboratory testing. You stated that you have studied this agency's tire standards and posed a series of questions to us which I will endeavor to answer below.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Standard No. 109 (49 CFR Part 571.109), and all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements.

The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is considerably different in the United States than in other countries. For example, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. The Safety Act, on the other hand, establishes a "self-certification" process for tires sold in the United States. Under this process, the tire manufacturer, not a governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with applicable safety standards.

The Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base its certification on a specified number of tests. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of the individual tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with Federal tire safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all requirements of the safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing or approval of tires. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the standards, the tire manufacturer is required to remedy the noncompliance without charge.

With the above background in mind, I now turn to your specific questions:

1. Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the "DOT" mark? Answer: Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles. The "DOT" symbol molded onto at least one side of the tire is the manufacturer's certification that that tire complies with all applicable safety standards.

2. What are the bases for granting the right to use the "DOT" mark by tire manufacturers? Answer: The use of the "DOT" symbol on tires is a requirement imposed on tire manufacturers and not a right which is granted.

3. Is the "DOT" symbol required for tires intended both for domestic consumption and for export? Answer: NHTSA's safety standards do not apply to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment which are intended solely for export. Therefore, the "DOT" symbol is required only for tires intended for use in the United States.

4. Is there a validity time for the use of the "DOT" symbol? Answer: No. The symbol constitutes the manufacturer's certification that, at the time a new tire is manufactured, that tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

5. What is the relationship between your administration and the Department of Transportation concerning the implementation of the "DOT" symbol? Answer: NHTSA is a subordinate agency of the United States Department of Transportation.

6. What are the legal responsibilities of manufacturers by using the "DOT" symbol? Answer: As indicated above, by placing the "DOT" symbol on a tire the manufacturer certifies that, under the provisions of the Safety Act, the tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

7. What are the responsibilities of manufacturers in case of violations of the "DOT" symbol's role? Answer: If a tire is determined not to comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer is required to remedy the noncompliance without charge. In addition, violations of Safety Act provisions may result in civil fines.

I hope that the information in this letter is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, however, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366- 3820.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref:#109#119#571#574 d:11/13/92

ID: nht81-2.49

DATE: 07/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation; Michigan

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 30, 1981 letter pertaining to the mounting of an old school bus body on a new chassis. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has stated that such a mounting constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle and must comply with all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of that manufacture. This statement comes from previous agency interpretations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and from the rationale underlying the provisions of section 571.7(e) of our regulations. You state that section 571.7(e) applies only to trucks and, accordingly, has no application to school buses.

The agency has had a longstanding position that a vehicle combining an old body and new chassis is a new vehicle. This position was developed and applied long before the proposal of section 571.7(e) in May 1975. See, for example, the enclosed 1972 letter of interpretation and the discussion of pre-proposal interpretations in the enclosed copy of the May 1975 proposal.

The codification in section 571.7(e) of the agency's position as regards trucks did not alter its simiar position as regards other vehicle types. I am enclosing a 1978 interpretation stating that school buses will be treated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in the same fashion as trucks are under section 571.7(e). The reason for this interpretation is the similarity of the practice of manufacturing school buses and trucks on new truck chassis. Accordingly, the agency has applied the same rationale in determining those vehicles, e.g., buses, that are to be considered newly-manufactured.

In light of these existing interpretations and in the interest of safety, the agency is retaining its position that vehicles using old bodies and new chassis be treated as newly manufactured vehicles.

ENCLS.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

March 30, 1981

Roger Tilton, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton:

The State of Michigan is in the grips of a financial crisis which is now threatening the children of this State through the local school's inability to provide new school buses to replace those which have reached the end of their life expectancy.

New school bus purchases are off by about 75% due to budget constraints which have also reduced the State's assistance to the school district from 68% during the last reimbursement period to an expected 30% for the 80-81 fiscal year. In this State, we turn over 1,900 school buses each year.

As a means to provide safe, dependable and economical school bus transportation, the local school districts are contemplating rehabilitation of these older school buses.

Rebuilding an old school bus is easy and economically rewarding. However, there are many old school bus bodies (approx. 20% or 350 each year) that would better serve the fleet if they were mounted on new chassis.

We, in the State of Michigan, are fully aware of previous interpretation of Part 571.7(e) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which relates to combining new and used components. The interpretations which are printed for all who ask, come from Joan Claybrook's office and from Frank Berndt do not say one shall not put an old school bus body on a new chassis, BUT that when an old school bus body is placed on a new chassis, the entire re-manufactured vehicle must comply with all of the FMVSS's in effect on the date of re-manufacture. The interpretation leads us to Part 571.7(e).

The Part 571.7(e) relates to "TRUCKS" and does not address "BUS" or school bus. Since there is "TRUCK" listed in definitions, Part 571.3 and the word "BUS" is also in definitions Part 571.3; we contend that 571.7(e) does not apply to Bus or School Bus since 571.7(e) does not refer to "BUS" in its content.

We do not accept the interpretation provided by Joan Claybrook or Frank Berndt. We completely understand that by allowing these used buses manufactured prior to April 1, 1977 to wash out of the system that in a few years the only buses on the road will be those which were manufactured in compliance with 220, 221, & 222.

The Part 571.7(e) also tells us that the re-manufactured truck must meet the current FMVSS "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." Therefore, if we in Michigan make these drive line changes we do not have a re-manufactured truck and we can continue to use a pre April 1, 1977 school bus body which still does not meet 220, 221, & 222; while mounted on a post April 1, 1977 chassis.

I submit to you that your office, NHTSA, is saying that we may not put a pre April 1, 1977 school bus body on a post April 1, 1977 chassis unless the body is updated to meet the post April 1, 1977 FMVSS 220, 221, & 222, OR instead of updating the body, we may install a used engine, transmission, and rear end in the new chassis; two of those three components must come from the same used vehicle.

Your interpretation is illogical and seemingly does not apply where school buses are concerned. We respectfully request a new interpretation keeping in mind that it is President Reagan's philosophy that those Federal Regulations which are non-productive, yet require great expense in order to comply; are Regulations with which we need to deal.

The State of Michigan, the State Department of Education, and I personally feel bound to comply with Federal Law; however, we do not feel bound to comply with an interpretation which smacks of pressure from the manufacturers and dealers who are in the business to sell new bodies.

We eagerly await your response.

Larry Louderback, Safety Specialist Pupil Transportation

cc: PHIL O'LEARY - SAFETY & TRAFFIC PROG; MR. WEINHEIMER - MICH. SCH. BD. ASSOC.; MR. TEBBE - UNION CITY SCH. DIST.; SENATOR DON RIEGLE; ROD LAMORE - GRAND RAPIDS STATE POLICE; DREW LEWIS - TRANS. SEC.; NHTSA

ID: 1991y

Mr. Terry Hudyma
Vice President, Engineering
LAFORZA Automobiles, Inc.
3860 Bay Center Place
Hayward, CA 94545

Dear Mr. Hudyma:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked about certification requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles that will be assembled in Italy and in Michigan. I apologize for the delay in this response. The vehicles in question will be assembled in Italy to the extent that they will be "complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.), transmission and transfer case in Italy." These assemblies will then be imported into the United States where the vehicles will be completed. You state that both the operations in Italy and in Michigan will be performed pursuant to a contract with LAFORZA, who will have "complete control over the manufacturing process at all times."

It is your understanding that in the fact situation described above, LAFORZA is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle and therefore LAFORZA is responsible for affixing the certification label on the completed motor vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. You asked us to confirm this interpretation. We cannot do so. Under our law and regulations, the company that completes the vehicles in Michigan is a "manufacturer" of the vehicles in question. The information provided in your letter is inadequate to allow us to determine whether LAFORZA might also be considered a "manufacturer" of these vehicles.

The first issue to be addressed in our analysis is whether the products in question are "incomplete vehicles" when they arrive in the United States. An "incomplete vehicle" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as:

... an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Your letter states that the products that arrive in the United States will not have an engine or transmission, which means they will not have a power train. Accordingly, 568.3 makes clear that these products would not be "incomplete vehicles" for the purposes of our regulations. In previous interpretations, we have referred to products that do not qualify as "incomplete vehicles" as an "assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment". In those previous letters, we have stated that the assemblage should be labeled as items of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States and that the importer of the assemblage must certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. See the enclosed May 6, 1985 letter to Mr. Hayley Alexander.

This finding also means that the Italian company that produces these "assemblages of items of motor vehicle equipment" is not a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles with respect to the vehicles in question. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5); the Safety Act) defines a "manufacturer" as "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." In this case, the Italian company producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment has not manufactured or assembled any motor vehicles, nor has it imported any motor vehicles. Hence, it does not fit the statutory definition of a "manufacturer" of the vehicles in question.

After these assemblages are imported into the United States, the operations performed by the Michigan company will transform the items of motor vehicle equipment into a motor vehicle. Therefore, the Michigan company would be a "manufacturer" of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Since 567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to include the name of the manufacturer, the vehicles could comply if the name of the Michigan company were shown on the certification label.

The information in your letter was inadequate to allow us to make even a tentative determination of whether LAFORZA may also be considered a manufacturer of these vehicles. The agency discussed the issue of vehicles with more than one "manufacturer" at length in its proposal to establish rules of attribution for determining which of the manufacturers would be responsible for complying with the phase-in requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). In that proposal, NHTSA said:

Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility of compliance with safety standards on manufacturers, the agency does not have authority to attribute a vehicle to a party other than one of the vehicle's manufacturers. However, the agency considers the language in section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer is "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles . . ." to be sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. For example, if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer. This follows from application of basic principles of agency law. In this case, the sponsor is the principal. On the other hand, the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles. 50 FR 14589, at 14596; April 12, 1985.

According to your letter, LAFORZA has a contractual relationship with the company in Italy that is producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and a contractual relationship with the company in Michigan that is assembling the motor vehicle. These contractual relationships led you to assert that "... LAFORZA Automobiles will have complete control of the manufacturing process at all times." If LAFORZA merely has contractual relationships under which it purchases products for resale from the companies in Italy and Michigan, LAFORZA would not be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles. If you can provide us with information about any role LAFORZA has in producing these vehicles besides contracting with other companies to assemble the vehicles, we will review that information and offer our interpretation of whether LAFORZA could be considered a "manufacturer" of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Mr. Hans W. Metzger LAFORZA Safety Consultant 6323 E. Turquoise Avenue Scottsdale, Arizona 85253

ref:567#568 d:9/7/89

ID: NYBILL22661

Terry W. Wagar, Vehicle Safety Technical Analyst III
Technical Services Bureau
NYS Department of Motor Vehicles
6 Empire State Plaza, Room 111
Albany, NY 12228





Dear Mr. Wagar:

This responds to your letter and telephone calls asking whether a proposed New York State bill (A00359) would be preempted by Federal law, in light of a possible inconsistency with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205. I regret the delay in responding. Your correspondence attached a version of the bill and expressed concern regarding an amendment to the original language of the bill which imposes light transmittance requirements on windows to the left and right of the driver on sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and other multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). Based on our understanding of your correspondence and telephone conversations with staff, we believe that the legislation would not be preempted.

BACKGROUND

According to your correspondence, New York's amended proposed law states, in relevant part:

(b) No person shall operate any motor vehicle upon any public highway, road or street:

* * *

(4) the rear window of which is composed of, covered by or treated with any material which has a light transmittance of less than seventy percent. A rear window may have a light transmittance of less than seventy percent if the vehicle is equipped with side mirrors on both sides of the vehicle so adjusted that the driver thereof shall have a clear and full view of the road and condition of traffic behind such vehicle.

The proposed State law pertains to the light transmittance of the rear window of SUVs and other MPVs, which is an aspect of performance regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR '571.205). The standard specifies performance requirements and permissible locations for the types of glazing that may be installed in motor vehicles. The standard requires some glazing to allow 70 percent of the incident light to pass through. For buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), the standard specifies the 70 percent light transmittance requirement for glazing installed in the windshield, the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility.

The proposed State standard also pertains to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR '571.111). The standard at S6.1 requires that MPVs, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less must have either (a) a passenger car mirror system, which includes an inside rear view mirror; or (b) a light truck mirror system, which requires unit magnification (flat) outside rear view mirrors of a minimum size on each side of the vehicle. In vehicles using the passenger car mirror system, the rear window is used for visibility. An inside mirror is not required for use with the light truck mirror system.

Whether the proposed New York law would be preempted under our statute is determined by '30103(b) of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, which states in part:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

NHTSA safety standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30112.) Thus, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), state laws that apply to the manufacture and sale of new vehicles, and to the same aspect of performance, must be identical to the FMVSS.

However, NHTSA does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the States. Federal law does not require New York to set operational requirements that are "identical" to the FMVSS. Nonetheless, there are limits on State operational requirements, in that general principles of preemption law apply. These principles preclude States from adopting operational requirements that are more stringent than the requirements applicable to new vehicles under the FMVSS, because more stringent State requirements would have the effect of precluding the use of a Federally compliant vehicle in that State.

ANALYSIS

The proposed New York law would appear to be more stringent than the FMVSS, in that it would prohibit the windows to the rear of the driver on the left and right from having a light transmittance of less than 70 percent. However, NHTSA has determined in a 1998 rulemaking that the light transmittance levels of light truck and MPV rear glazing not used for driving visibility and light truck and MPV rear side glazing are not regulated under FMVSS No. 205, and that States are therefore free to set transmittance levels for those windows on those vehicles. Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking, July 14, 1998, 63 FR 37820. Thus, we conclude that the proposed New York law would not be preempted and that New York could prohibit the operation of light trucks and MPVs with rear windows that have a minimum light transmittance of less than 70 percent.

In addition, the proposed New York law would be less stringent than the FMVSS for mirrors because the New York law merely requires two outside mirrors rather than mirrors complying with the light truck mirror system in S6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 111. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed New York law would not be preempted under '30103(b).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205
d.11/9/01

ID: 17440.drn

Jörg S. Mager, Vehicle Policy Engineer
Safer Vehicles, Roads & Rail
Vehicle Policy
Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand
Level 4
7-27 Waterloo Quay
P. O. Box 2840
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND

Dear Mr. Mager:

This responds to your request for information on U. S. requirements for aftermarket tinting of motor vehicle glazing by means of self-adhesive films. You posed several questions which are answered below:

The first question concerned the "current legal position" of motor vehicle tinting in the United States. You also wished to know what Federal policy is with respect to tinting.

NHTSA has the authority under 49 USC 30111 to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to all new motor vehicles at time of first sale to the consumer. Standard No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR Part 571.205) specifies performance requirements for glazing, and includes a requirement that all windows "requisite for driving visibility" (including all windows in passenger cars) have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. In establishing the 70 percent light transmittance requirement for motor vehicle glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined that level met the need for motor vehicle safety.

Although Standard No. 205 itself does not apply after the first sale of the vehicle, 49 USC 30122(b) prohibits a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "mak[ing] 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 . . . ." The effect of Section 30122(b) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard No. 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent.

Note however, that NHTSA's regulations do not apply to certain parties or actions. Vehicle owners are not restricted by Federal law in the modifications that they make to their vehicles, and could tint their windows as dark as they like without violating Federal law (although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than Standard No. 205 allows). NHTSA recommends that vehicle owners not degrade the safety features of the glazing in their motor vehicles by tinting the glazing darker than Standard No. 205 allows. Federal law also does not regulate the operation or use of vehicles, which is under the jurisdiction of the individual States.

Under certain circumstances, State laws would be preempted by Federal law. 49 USC 30103(b)(1) states "[w]hen a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect . . . a State . . . may prescribe . . . a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance . . . only if the standard is identical to the [federal standard]." A State law would be preempted by the Federal law to the extent that it regulates the same aspect of performance in a different way, or permits something prohibited by the Federal regulations (such as modifications by vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses that would violate Standard No. 205). A State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture and sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard No. 205.

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 the state requirements 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.

You asked about the outcome of the "Blue Skies" case in the Middle District of Florida.

In a Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking of January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496) (copy enclosed), NHTSA noted the following regarding the "Blue Skies" case:

One Florida District Court has held that Standard No. 205 is not currently enforceable against window tinting businesses because the agency did not issue a "new and revised Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard" pursuant to the second sentence of Section 103(h) of the Safety Act. United States v. Blue Skies Projects, Inc., No. 90-253-CIV-ORL-18 (M.D. Fla., August 13, 1991) ... NHTSA strongly believes that the court's opinion was erroneous and that the current standard is valid and enforceable. (57 FR at 2507)

Please note that the U.S. government did not appeal the decision of the Florida District Court. Also, NHTSA has not yet issued a final determination regarding the January 22, 1992 Federal Register notice.

You asked if NHTSA has a list of the "legal requirements with respect to the minimum visible light transmittance allowed by the states for windows of motor vehicles."

Since NHTSA does not maintain such a list, we cannot provide it to you.

You also asked if "the requirements in terms of permissible minium visible light transmittance spelled out in FMVSS 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1:1995 will be adopted on a state level in the foreseeable future."

NHTSA has no information on any planned state actions in this area. As described in our answer to the first set of questions, depending on the conduct or aspects of performance it seeks to regulate, a State law reducing the level of window light transmittance below the Federal standard may be preempted by Federal law.

I am enclosing a copy of NHTSA's March 1991 "Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows." Among other matters, the report discusses: (1) the current performance requirements in the Federal standard concerning window light transmittance, (2) how vehicles on the road at the time the report was written compare to the standard's requirements, (3) the rules and regulation other countries have in effect (at the time the report was written) on light transmittance through windows, (4) research on the effect of various tinting levels on depth perception, night vision, or other faculties that affect safety.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:205
d.6/22/98

ID: 1984-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Utilimaster Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 29, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, Seating Systems, FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

According to your letter, your company manufactures parcel delivery vans, step vans, and cargo trailers. One of your customers requested the installation of side-facing seats in the cargo area of the vehicle, and you asked whether FMVSS No. 207 and FMVSS No. 210 apply to these seats. As explained below, Standard No. 207 specifies no requirements for side-facing seats unless they have a hinged or folding back. Standard No. 210 does apply to these seats.

Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation, to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats installed in vehicles including vans, but section 4.2 of Standard No. 207 excludes side-facing seats from the general seat strength requirements of the standard. However, there are other requirements in the standard which may apply to side-facing seats. For example, paragraph S4.3 requires a restraining device if the seat has a hinged or folding seat or seat back.

You asked whether side-facing seats in the cargo area are required to meet Standard No. 210. Standard No. 210 exempts side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.

You asked what kind of testing is required for side-facing seats to determine compliance with FMVSS No. 207 and FMVSS No. 210. As discussed above, side-facing seats are excluded from the performance requirements of Standard No. 207. Regarding the testing of the seats to FMVSS No. 210, a manufacturer is permitted to use whatever test procedures or method of evaluation he chooses to assure its vehicles are in compliance with this and all Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The legal requirement under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq.) is that the manufacturer exercise due care to determine that his vehicles will be in compliance with all applicable standards when tested by the agency in accordance with the test procedures specified in those standards. Whether a manufacturer has in fact exercised due care cannot be determined by the agency in advance of the actual events leading to the certification of compliance.

Your last question concerned FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You stated that Virginia requires additional side marker lights than that required by Standard No. 108, and requested the agency to advise you on whether a state can specify more requirements than the standard. We assume that Virginia's requirement is a general one which applies to vehicles other than those procured for the state's own use.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or 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. . . Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, had been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.

You indicated in the attachment to your letter that the vehicles for which Virginia is requiring the additional side marker lamps are less than 30 feet in overall length. Section S4.1.1.3 of Standard No. 108 specifies that "Intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length." Since the State standard prescribes mounting of side marking lights other than that required by the Federal standard, the State standard is preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Your final question asked whether there are any States other than Virginia that have different requirements than FMVSS No. 108. In general, under Section 103(d) of the Safety Act States are prohibited from imposing safety standards applicable to the same aspect of performance governed by FMVSS No. 108. The limited exception in @103(d) allows States to promulgate requirements applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for the State's own use which impose a higher standard of performance than the Federal standard. States may also regulate aspects of performance of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment which are not governed by a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. For example, there is no preemption of a State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment, such as foglamps, not currently included in Standard No. 108.

UTILIMASTER

June 29, 1984

Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt: Utilimaster is a commercial truck manufacturer of parcel delivery vans, step vans, and cargo trailers and we have some questions for you.

We have an application where the customer would like to have side-facing seats in the cargo area. Do we need to meet FMVSS 207 or 210 and what kind of testing of these seats is required?

Also, we have a question on FMVSS 108. I had a call from a Virginia dealer stating they require additional side marker lights. Can a State require more lighting and does any other State have different standards than FMVSS 108?

Dan Pugh Product Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam4547

Dear Mr. Ziolo: This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1988 asking about the acceptability under Safety Standard No. 108 of modifying imported vehicles so that they are equipped with two Type 2D1 and two Type 1C1 headlamps. You have been informed by the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that this is impermissible 'because they are 'nonconforming' 'headlight systems'.' You disagree because you believe that the minimum requirements of the Standard are satisfied by the Type 2D1 lamps, and that 'S4.4 appears to permit such a combination.' Paragraph S4.4 is not applicable to the situation you present as it refers to combinations of lamps serving different functions, in your discussion, the lamps serve the identical function of headlighting. Given the fact that the Type 2D1 sealed beam 7' diameter headlamps fulfill the headlighting requirements of the Standard, your question must be viewed as whether a supplement to the headlighting system is permissible under Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.l.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the addition of nonrequired lighting equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the equipment that the standard requires. The two Type 1C1 5 3/4' diameter sealed beam lamps in a four lamp headlighting system form the major portion of an upper beam headlighting system. The two Type 2D1 lamps in a two lamp headlighting system form the whole of an upper beam headlighting system. Thus, a vehicle furnished with the systems you posit would be equipped with more than one upper beam headlighting system. The Type 2D1 system must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c DEC79 'Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles.' The SAE Standard establishes at two test points, H-V and 4 D-V, maximum allowable candela of 75,000 and 5,000 respectively for each Type 2D1 headlamp. This means that the maximum allowable candela for headlighting systems at these test points is 150,000 and l0,000 candela. The Type 1C1 headlamps will also be designed to conform to SAE J579c. Corresponding maxima at test points H-V and 4 D-V for Type 1C1 systems are 60,000 and 5,000. Thus, a vehicle equipped with the lamps you have described could emit a total of 270,000 candela at test point H-V (when only 150,000 is permitted), and 20,000 at 4D-V (when only l0,000 is allowable). Agency research has shown that candela readings in excess of 150,000 greatly increase the potential for glare with little increase in seeing ability. This glare would be visible both to the driver of an oncoming car, and the driver of the modified vehicle itself through creation of a 'veiling' glare. The addition of the Type 1C1 headlamps would therefore impair the effectiveness of the Type 2D1 headlighting system, and is forbidden by S4.1.3. We appreciate your interest in safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3955

Dear Mr. Pitts: Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1985, asking about the effect o our regulations on a product you would like to manufacture. I hope the following discussion explains that effect.; You described your product, which you call a glare- shield, as 1/8-inch thick sheet of 'Lexan' plastic with a special scratch resistant coating. Your product is designed to be mounted inside a motor vehicle, as close to the windshield as possible, to reduce glare-related vision problems caused by the sun. You stated that your product would cover the entire windshield and is designed to be held in place by three or six latches. The latches can be released by the driver and the shield can be removed from the car.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we hav issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials,* (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films o other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in *new* vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.; After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may themselves alte their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens on their vehicles.; If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair busines installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel