ID: 1983-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/02/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

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

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Ms. Thain:

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

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that "no person shall...import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title, unless it is in conformity with such standard." You stated that your client wants to import used truck tires.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 8, 1983

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

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

DEAR SIR:

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

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

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

VERY TRULY YOURS, HARPER, ROBINSON & CO.

BETTY THAIN

encl-

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

Dear Betty,

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

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

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

I hope to hear from you very soon.

Very truly yours

ID: 1983-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Safety Alert Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 4 1983 NOA-30

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

Dear Mr. Howard:

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

JUNE 28TH, 1983

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

DEAR MR. BERNDT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VERY TRULY YOURS,

CHUCK HOWARD, PRESIDENT SAFETY ALERT CO., INC.

CH:MM CC: DR. CARL CLARK

ID: 1983-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

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

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Ainsworth:

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 12, 983

USA Importation Re: "Warrior" Brand Tires

Dear Attorney Berndt,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert J. Ainsworth President

Encl.

RJA:ws

ID: 1983-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

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

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

TEXT:

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

Dear Ms. Harsha:

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

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

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

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

I hope this has answered all your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

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

2/17/83

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original signed by Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 30, 1983

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

Re: Application of Sun Control Films to Motor Vehicles

Dear Mr. Berndt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very truly yours,

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

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

ID: 1983-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jim Martin Tire

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff asking about this agency's regulations applicable to regrooved tires. Specifically, you asked if a foreign casing must have a DOT symbol on the sidewall in order to be regrooved, what requirements apply to regrooved tires intended for a dealer's own use, and whether there are any restrictions on the use of regrooved tires in particular wheel locations.

49 CFR Part 569 (copy enclosed) specifies the requirements which must be met by all regrooved tires, except those intended solely for export and so tagged or labeled. The mechanics of importing casings for regrooving are explained in a previous letter of interpretation issued by the agency (copy enclosed). Once the casing is inside the customs territory of the United States, Part 569 specifies that the casing must be labeled "regroovable" on both sidewalls. This marking cannot be added to the sidewall by a regroover before regrooving, but must have been placed there by the original manufacturer or a prior retreader. It seems unlikely that foreign manufacturers or retreaders would so label their tires. This means that few, if any, imported foreign casings may legally be regrooved. As explained in the enclosed letter, there is no requirement that the DOT symbol appear on the sidewall of casings in order for the casings to be regrooved.

The requirements of Part 569 apply to all tires regrooved in the United States, and apply equally to tires regrooved for sale to another party and to tires regrooved for the regroover's own use (Part 569.7). Each violation of those requirements could subject the offender to a $ 1,000 civil penalty. Each illegally regrooved tire would be treated as a separate violation.

With respect to your question about restrictions on the application and wheel position of a regrooved tire, this agency has no regulations. The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the Federal Highway Administration has issued a regulation applicable to carriers used in interstate commerce. That regulation prohibits the use of regrooved tires above a certain load-carrying capacity on the front wheels of trucks and truck tractors. If you further information concerning this subject, please contact Mr. Kenneth L. Pierson, Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590.

Should you have any further questions regarding regrooved tires, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.

ENCLS.

ID: 1983-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: C. B. Bright Motor Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Washington, D.C. 20590

August 8, 1983

Mr. C. B. Bright, Jr. C. B. Bright Motor Co. Route 1 Ashland, MS 38603

Dear Mr. Bright:

This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office. You have asked whether you are violating any Federal standards or regulations by adding "right side steering, accelerator, brakes & turn signal controls to rural mail carriers delivery vehicles (cars, pickup, jeeps, etc.)." You have told us that you do not modify in any way the left hand side controls with which the vehicle was originally equipped.

Assuming that your modifications do not affect the performance of any of the systems with which the vehicle was equipped by its original manufacturer, your conversion operations would not be prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, with respect to any new vehicle that you modify which has not yet reached its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, you are required to affix a label identifying you as the alterer and certifying that the vehicle as altered meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This is required by Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7. I enclose a copy of Part 567 for your information.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

C. B. BRIGHT MOTOR CO. Ashland, Miss. 38603

July 19, 1983

MR. TAYLOR VINSON OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION NUMBER 400 7th. ST. S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

MR. TAYLOR:

IN REGARDS TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON OUR ADDING RIGHT SIDE STEERING, ACCELERATOR, BRAKE & TURN SIGNAL CONTROLS TO RURAL MAIL CARRIERS DELIVERY VEHICLES ( CARS, PICKUPS, JEEPS & ETC.).

WE DO NOT CHARGE UP, MODIFY OR TAKE OUT ANY OF THE FACTORY INSTALLED CONTROLLS THAT HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. CONTROLS MEANING STEERING, BRAKE, ACCELERATOR AND TURN SIGNAL.

WE HAVE ADDED THESE DUAL CONTROLS TO MAIL CARRIER DELIVERY VEHICLES SINCE 1958 AND THE USE AND SAFETY HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND ANY DOUBT.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF WE VIOLATE ANY STANDARDS OR REGULATIONS WHEN WE ADD THE DUAL CONTROLS ( STEERING, BRAKE, ACCELERATOR AND TURN SIGNAL CONTROL FOR RIGHT SIDE USE OF VEHICLE.).

ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF A LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL RURAL LETTER CARRIER'S ASSOCIATION.

I SINCERELY THANK YOU FOR THE KINDNESS AND CONSIDERATION YOU GAVE ME BY PHONE.

SINCERELY,

C. B. BRIGHT

NATIONAL RURAL LETTER CARRIERS ASSOCIATION

February 8, 1983 Mr. C. B. Bright Committeeman, Mississippi Rural Letter Carriers' Assn. Ashland, Mississippi 38603

Dear C. B.

This is in response to our telephone conversation concerning the dual controls which you manufacture and install on vehicles for rural carriers.

I advised you I would write you a letter relative to my own use of the dual controls. For the last several years I served on Route #1, Palestine, Arkansas. I used a vehicle equipped with the dual control system. That was during a period that ended in September, 1977. At that time, I assumed the duties of a Na-tional Officer and I have not carried a rural route since that time.

My own personal experience with the dual controls proved to be completely satisfactory, both from an operational and a safety standpoint. The steering was completely functional and the accelerator and brakes were also without fault.

******Letter not complete due to poor copy.

ID: 1983-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Merchant's Inc. -- Buck Burwell, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Buck Burwell: Vice President Merchant's, Inc. 9073 Euclid Ave. Manassas VA 22110

Dear Mr. Burwell:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking questions about a group of trucks tires you wish to sell. Specifically, your company received a large shipment of truck tires from Tong Shinn Chemical Company in Korea. Some of those tires did not have the D.O.T. symbol and other information labelled on the sidewall, as required for all new truck tires by Safety Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR S571.119). Your company tried to return the tires to the Korean manufacturer, because tires which do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 119 may not be legally sold in this country. However, the Korean manufacturer has gone out of business, leaving your company with $15,000 worth of tires which may not be sold legally in this country unless appropriate information is labelled on the sidewalls.

You indicated in your letter that you would be willing to label the appropriate information onto the sidewalls of the tires. Tong Shinn has indicated that those tires are of the same quality as the tires it shipped to you with the DOT markings. Further, you indicated that your company would be willing to store the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, in the event a safety-related recall is necessary. After considering these facts and representations, I believe you may label the tires with the necessary information and sell them, provided that you get some more information from the Korean manufacturer.

This agency has previously allowed the marking of truck tires by a party other than the manufacturer in only one instance. That case, which also involved imported truck tires, included four factors which led the agency to make an exception to the policy that only a tire manufacturer can label the necessary information on the sidewall of the tires. Those factors were:

(l) The manufacturer certified that the unmarked tires met the requirements of Standard No. 119, except for the labelling requirement;

(2) The manufacturer provided the appropriate information to be labelled on the tires;

(3) The manufacturer agreed to be responsible for the tires in the event of a safety-related recall; and

(4) The manufacturer agreed that the marking method to be used by the importer would not weaken the tires and destroy their compliance with Standard No. 119.

In this case, Tong Shinn has already provided the first item listed above. It will be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn to learn what information should be labelled on the tires for purposes of section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) and also the appropriate codes and information for the tire identification number, which must be labelled on the sidewalls of the tires per 49 CFR 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (copy enclosed). Please furnish Mr. Kratzke with a copy of the information you receive from Tong Shinn on this subject.

As to the third item above, you indicate that your company would be willing to be responsible for the tires in the event of a safety-related recall. To do so, it will be necessary for your company to record the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, and store that information for a three year period. For further information on the responsibilities you will have to undertake, see section 574.7 for tire registration requirements for tire manufacturers.

It will also be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn and explain how you propose to make the information on the side-walls of these tires, and get them to agree that this method of marking the tires will not affect their compliance with Standard No. 119. Again, please furnish a copy of that agreement to Mr. Kratzke of this office.

After you have received this additional information, this agency has no objection to your company marking the tires and selling them. Please understand that this is permitted only because of the unique circumstances of this particular situation, and that if the Korean manufacturer had not gone out of business, you would not be allowed to mark these tires. However, in these circumstances, some flexibility in the requirements is necessary to help you avert a financial loss, while maintaining the necessary safety assurances for purchasers of these tires. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

June 29, 1983

Dear Mr. Kretzke:

We have received in our latest shipment, 142 Truck Tires without D.O.T. markings, from Tong Shinn Chemical Company, in Korea.

These tires were mixed in with other tires of the same size that were properly D.O.T. marked. Since discovering the problem we have learned that the manufacturing company has gone out of bus-iness. As a result, we are left with approximately $15,000.00 worth of truck tires that we are at this point, unable to sell. Under normal circumstances we would return the tires to the supplier at their expense.

We know these tires meet D.O.T. standards and have attached notarized correspondence to that effect. We are asking that D.O.T. authorize us to sell these tires after stamping them with any marking that you may require. We can also record the purchasers, should any problems arise with the tires.

This would be a considerable loss to our company if we were unable to resolve the problem.

Thanking you very much for your help in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Buck Burwell Vice President

BB/cg

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: 1983-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Athey Products Corporation -- Roderic A. Esmonde

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Roderic A. Esmonde, P.E. Athey Products Corporation Capital Equipment Division P.O. Box 669 Raleigh, NC 27602

Dear Mr. Esmonde:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You enclosed a sample of a rigid plastic you would like to use on the side windows of street sweepers, and asked whether the standard would be applicable to that type of material.

Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials to be used on motor vehicles. Only those materials that are specified in the standard may be used on a vehicle, and only in the vehicle location specified for each glazing type. Thus, the sample you enclosed may be used only if it qualifies as one of the glazing types (Items) specified in the standard. A specific piece of glazing material qualifies as a particular glazing Item under the standard if it meets all of the performance tests specified in the standard for that Item. For example, your sample would be considered an Item 12 rigid plastic, which could be used in the vehicle locations specified for that glazing type, only if it passes all of the tests specified in the standard for Item 12 plastics.

Whether or not your sample does qualify as a permitted glazing Item under the standard will have to be determined by your company. The agency does not provide advance approval for any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine compliance with the Motor vehicle safety standards and to certify that compliance.

I would also note that the glazing manufacturer is required to certify, by markings etched on the material, any piece of glazing which is to be used in a motor vehicle (see S6. of Standard No. 205). These required markings would include a specification of the glazing type, e.g., "Item 12." The glazing sample you enclosed should be from a piece of certified material if that material is to be used on your motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

JulY 12, 1983

Mr. Hugh Oates, Compliance Division

Dear Mr. Oates:

Please find attached a copy of our letter of June 15, which we fear must have gone astray.

We would appreciate your cooperation in giving us an early response so we may proceed further with our plans.

Roderic A. Esmonde P.E. Director of Engineering

June 15, 1983

Mr. Hugh Oates, Compliance Division, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Oates:

This will confirm our recent conversation regarding glazing materials for the front and side windows of street sweepers.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205 defines the requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

Section S5.1.2.1. Item 12 Rigid Plastics, and Section S5.1.2.2. Item 13 Flexible Plastics, define where these materials can be used.

We have been seriously considering using some form of Rigid Plastic for the side windows of the street sweepers we build. We enclose a sample piece of this material.

Would you be so kind as to advise us if the subject regulation also applies to this specific type as well.

Your kind cooperation and guidance is gratefully appreciated since we are, as such, neophytes in this area.

Yours very truly, ATHEY PRODUCTS CORPORATION

Roderic A. Esmonde, P.E. Director of Engineering

RAE/pfw

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: 1983-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Willard B. Synder -- Security National Bank (Kansas)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/8/83 letter from Frank Berndt to William S. Stalder

TEXT:

Mr. Willard B. Snyder Honorary Counsul Federal Republic of Germany Security National Bank 7th Street and Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1983, asking me to review and reconsider my letter of February 8, 1983, in which I concluded that a transporter van, to which features are added enabling it to be used occasionally on railroad tracks, in a "motor vehicle" and must meet applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I am pleased to do so. You raise the possibility "that any off track travel utilization by the Kansas City Southern Railroad will either be on their private roads or land and no on any public roads or highways." We should like confirmation by the Railroad of that fact, if true, or a statement as to the quantum of use on the public roads likely for this vehicle. We should like an indication of how the company intends to dispose of the vans when it has finished with them. It is our assumption that the conversion features can be removed and the vehicle operated solely on the public roads; please correct or confirm this assumption. When we have this information we shall reconsider the matter.

In closing, I must say that your letter reflects the confusion that appears to exist in the public mind regarding jurisdiction of Federal agencies over motor vehicles. In my earlier letter I quoted the definition of "motor vehicle" in 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, while you have replied that "the deciding one" appears to be that of 42 U.S.C. 7251(3)(C). Both definitions are appropriate, the one in Title 15 for purpose of determining applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by the Department of Transportation, and the one in Title 42 for determining applicability of the vehicle emission standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. While I can offer no interpretation of whether the van conversion is subject to emission standards I note with interest that EPA's definition of "heavy duty vehicle" is similar in many respects to our definition of "motor vehicle."

Frank Berndt

July 12, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mr. William Stalder of Carland (a subsidiary of the Kansas City Southern Railroad) forwarded me a copy of your letter to him dated February 8, 1983 wherein you denied an exemption for a Zwei Weg conversion of a Mercedes-Benz vehicle. I would appreciate it if you would review and reconsider this earlier decision. I have enclosed a part of Title 42, section 7521, Paragraph (3)(c) from U.S.C.A., for your easy reference. This is the section which appears to be the deciding one.

I realize that, administratively, you have the possibility to stop here and reaffirm your previous stance, however, I hope you will continue on and give this appeal a fair review since this purchase will be fairly substantial and could easily have a direct effect on the business and its employees here in the Kansas City area.

Title 42, Sect. 7521, Paragraph (3) (c) defines a heavy duty vehicle as "one manufactured primarily for use (emphasis is mine) on the public streets, roads and highways". While the Mercedes-Benz van was manufactured at one point in its development as a street and highway vehicle, its manufacture actually continued on with Zwei Wdg and the end item of production bears only a superficial resemblance to the interim product. Not only have track and alignment systems been permanently added, but new hydraulic and suspension systems as well. The interior controls have also been appropriately modified. The tires and drive system provide the traction on the rails, so there was no need to change this. However, as the end manufactured product, this vehicle is primarily and functionally a track vehicle, not a road vehicle, even though it has a road capability. Also, its cost precludes any economic use as a road vehicle.

I think that it is only fair to assume that the drafters of this statute were not thinking of Zwei Weg products when they wrote about off-highway use. This provision was intended primarily to cover cross-country and all-terrain type vehicles whose operations depend on and use heavily the public streets and roads to get to their cross country all-terrain locations. This type of cross-country, all-terrain vehicle is designed primarily for highway use and its other characteristic is an added feature. With Zwei Weg, the primary manufactured function is rail, not road.

Also, the land (roads) where this vehicle would be utilized, when not in actual rail use, should be considered. I suspect that any off track travel utilization by the Kansas City Southern Railroad will either be on their private roads or land and not on any public roads or highways. If this would be a critical consideration, you might want to consider a conditional waiver - conditional on the non use of public streets and highways by Kansas City Southern Railroad Company.

I am sure we have both personally suffered when we stopped behind a "Big Bus" or "Diesel Truck" at a stoplight and the contribution of the multiple passenger cars to the overall atmosphere is equally as important. However, this vehicle will not be on the public streets (where we could get caught behind it) and the numbers will not be so great as to materially or significantly contribute to the atmospheric pollution.

Based on these factors, I hope that you will be able to grant an exemption for this vehicle, under its particular circumstances.

Sincerely, Willard B. Snyder

ID: 1983-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr H. Nakaya Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road - Suite 462 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This is in response to your letter of July 8 1983 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Section S4.2 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps establishes a minimum distance of 4 inches from the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp providing the lower beam. You believe that it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp and you have asked whether you may substitute the edge of the reflector (as shown on your drawing) to measure the dimension covered by S4.2 of J588e.

The point depicted on your drawing appears to be the inner edge of the reflector, rather than the extreme edge; nevertheless, the "reflector edge" you have indicated is the approximate location of a retaining ring on a fully sealed headlamp, and is therefore acceptable as a measuring point under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 8, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington; D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda requests interpretation regarding the amendment to FMVSS No.108 which allows the use of semi-sealed headlamps (Docket No. 81-11; Notice 3, 48 F.R. 24690).

Section 4.2 of SAE Standard J588e states that, "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." However, it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp. We, therefore, believe that it is appropriate to use the edge of the reflector, instead of the inside diameter of the retaining ring, to measure the dimension described in Section 4.2 of SAE Standard J588e (See attached sketch).

We would appreciate your interpretation of this matter as soon as possible.

Very truly yours, H. Nakaya Manager

HN/ab

cc: Att.

FIGURE 1: SEMI-SEALED HEADLAMP (PLAN VIEW SECTION) GRAPH INSERTED HERE REFLECTOR EDGE