ID: nht90-3.30

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Wayne Brush -- Director, Material Management, Conceptor Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 4-20-90 to Clive Van Orden from Wayne Brush

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. Clive Van Orden of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance seeking an interpretation of this agency's requirements for a vehicle identification number (VIN), as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements, and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR S571.115). You stated that your company plans to modify vans manufactured by General Motors (GM) to produce electric powered vehicles for sale in th e United States. You asked whether these vehicles may use the GM world manufacturer identifier (WMI), as well as a check digit, model year identification, and production sequence codes assigned by GM, and use an X as the engine type code to show that th e vehicles were actually manufactured by your company. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

S4.1 of Standard No. 115 reads as follows:

Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. Each vehicle manufactured in more than one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Vehicle alterers, as sp ecified in 49 CFR S567.7, shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the vehicle.

As described in your letter, Conceptor Industries plans to produce completed electric powered vehicles by using an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment produced by GM, including frame and chassis structure, steering, suspension, and braking systems. Ho wever, the assemblage provided to your company by GM would not include a power train. The absence of a power train means that this assemblage would not be an "incomplete vehicle," as that term is defined in S3 of Standard No. 115, so the Conceptor elect ric vehicles would not be considered to be manufactured in more than one stage. Your company would not qualify as a vehicle alterer, based on the information provided in your letter, because GM would not have already certified the vehicles modified by yo ur company. Thus, the electric powered vehicles produced by Conceptor would be considered to be vehicles manufactured in one stage, and the VIN for these vehicles would have to be assigned by Conceptor, the manufacturer of these vehicles.

Part 565 specifies the format and content of the VIN that Standard No. 115 requires your company to assign to its electric powered vehicles. In relevant part, 49 CFR S565.4 provides that:

The VIN shall consist of four sections of characters which shall be

grouped accordingly: (a) The first section shall consist of three characters which occupy positions one through three (1-3) in the VIN. This section shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. If the manufacturer produces less than 500 motor vehicles of its type annually, those three characters, along with the third, fourth, and fifth characters of the fourth section shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle. Under the approach suggested in your letter, GM would be identified as the manufacturer of the vehicle by the first three characters of the VIN, and the eighth character would indicate that Conceptor was the actual manufaCcturer. This approach would be plainly inconsistent with the requirements of S565.4 quoted above, because the regulation requires the first three characters in the VIN to identify the vehicle manufacturer. Your company is the manufacturer of these vehicles, not GM, so your company mus t be identified by the first three characters of the VIN. Furthermore, S565.4(b) provides that the eighth character in the VIN shall uniquely identify specified attributes of the vehicle, not identify the manufacturer. Hence, the approach suggested in y our letter would not comply with this agency's VIN requirements.

Additionally, you informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff in a July 3, 1990 telephone conversation that, at least in the initial years of your company's production of these vehicles, the annual production will be less than 500. If this is the case, you shou ld note that S565.4(a) requires your company to use not only the first three characters of the VIN to uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle, but also the 12th, 13th, and 14th characters of the VIN as well to make this uni que identification.

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

ID: nht90-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/90

FROM: JEFF CORNELL -- ENGINEERING, THE BARGMAN COMPANY

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-23-90 TO J. CORNELL FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO DOCUMENT SEARCH REPORT (INFORMATION OMITTED)

TEXT:

My company manufactures lighting products for recreational vehicle manufacturers, OEM's. Due to recent customer requests, we are asking for a clarification on the following FMVSS 108 changes published May 15, 1990.

S5.1.1.31 (amended) states: On a motor vehicle, except a passenger car, whose overall width is 80 inches or more, measurements of the functional lighted lens area, and of the photometrics, of a multiple compartment stop lamp, and a multiple compartment turn signal lamp, shall be made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

Prior to this change, the maximum values increased as the number of lighted compartments Increased. As the new change states above, the photometric requirements are to be on the entire light, does this include the maximums also? If this is the case, a single compartment light must be less than the 300 maximum candlepower, and a 5 compartment light would also need to be less than the 300 value. This was addressed in the second full paragraph on page 20159 of the Federal Register for the minimum requirements, but there is no reference to the maximums. Please clarify.

Here is an example of another question we have:

Let's say a manufacturer is purchasing a single compartment light, that does not meet the new lens area requirement, for use in a molded bumper or fiberglass cap. If he is using 3 of these lights per side as stop lamps, and the combined area of the 3 is greater than the 75 square centimeters (from SAE J1398 MAY85), is this legal per the new requirements? Along the same line, If the vendor making these lights mounts the individual lights in a molded housing, are we correct in assuming that this would now classify as a multiple compartment lamp? If adding a housing to these lights will make it a multiple compartment lamp, then how is it different if it is installed into a molded bumper or fiberglass cap?

At the beginning of the amendment in the summary, it states that the lens area is 12 square inches, however, in the SAE standard J1398 MAY85 it states 75 square centimeters. When the two areas are converted into like units they do not match up. Which area is correct? (75 square centimeters = 11.625 square inches, 12 square inches = 77.42 square centimeters).

We would appreciate your earliest response, as we have customers waiting for answers concerning the above items.

ID: nht90-3.32

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 27, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ron Boucher -- Energy Savings Systems

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 5-29-90 to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel from R. Boucher; (OCC 4837); also attached to letter dated 5-17-90 to Miss Carnes from R. Boucher; (OCC 4824) TEXT:

Thank you for your letter asking whether the products you plan to market would comply with the laws and regulations administered by this agency. As explained below, the laws and regulations administered by this agency would not be applicable to these pro ducts.

Enclosed with your letter were two brochures describing the "Signal Flash" personal identification lights. The brochure included pictures and descriptions of several different types of battery-powered lights that are small enough to be carried on one's person, and include straps that make them suitable to be carried on one's arm, around one's wrist, or inserted into a life preserver. The brochures describe these "Signal Flash" lights as suitable for use in "diving, mountaineering, jogging, sailing, wi ndsurfing, cycling, fishing, car breakdown, life jacket, etc."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and items of "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment", in par t, as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to t he motor vehicle...

Your "Signal Flash" lights are plainly not a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured," nor are they a "similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement" of an original equipment part of a mot or vehicle. The issue is whether these lights would be considered an "accessory" within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory," the agency applies the relevant statutory language and the two following criteria: first, whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the item are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehic les.

In evaluating the first criterion, the product literature enclosed with your letter emphasizes the versatility of these personal identification lights. While these lights occasionally may be used in connection with a motor vehicle breakdown or repair, m ost of the suggested uses involve sports activities that have nothing to do with a motor vehicle. Thus, a substantial portion of the expected uses of the light would not appear

related to the operation or maintenance of a vehicle, so these "Signal Flash" lights would not be considered items of "motor vehicle equipment." This conclusion means that the "Signal Flash" lights are not subject to any of the laws and regulations admin istered by this agency.

You may wish to consult the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any requirements applicable to these lights. That agency protects the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products. You may write to the Con sumer Product Safety Commission at 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20207, or contact them by telephone at (301) 492-6580.

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

ID: nht90-3.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 27, 1990

FROM: Thomas R. Mounteer -- Esquire, Stovall & Spradlin

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Heritage Motor Cars, Inc./VIN for Legacy Passenger Vehicles (NEF-31KNU IR 831-836)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-1-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Thomas R. Mounteer (A37; Std. 115)

TEXT:

This firm has been retained to assist Heritage Motor Cars, Inc. ("Heritage") in complying with the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance's certification review program. We are coordinating those efforts through Karen Nuschler in that office.

As part of its compliance efforts, Heritage will ensure that it has fully satisfied Part 567's certification requirements. Our purpose in writing this letter is to ensure that VINs are properly assigned to Legacy vehicles under Part 565. I discussed th is matter with Ms. Dot Nacoma of your office, and she requested that I write to request an interpretation from the agency.

Ms. Nacoma explained that Heritage's method of manufacturing the Legacy complicates the assignment of VINs. As I explained to Ms. Nacoma, Heritage builds its Legacy on the frame of used Chevrolet Camaros. I have enclosed photocopies of Heritage's broch ure for its Legacy assembly kits by way of illustration. You should be aware, however, that in its finished Legacies, Heritage uses new engines and transmissions purchased from GM's Parts Division. With that caveat, the diagrams on page two of the encl osure illustrate what portion of the donor car remains.

My preliminary thought was that the Heritage Legacy would need an entirely unique VIN for purposes of Part 567 certification. However, I recognize that the donor car's VIN is retained for so-called "altered vehicles," although Heritage manufacturing pro cess does not constitute vehicle alteration. Nevertheless, Ms. Nacoma pointed out that a discrepancy between the confidential VIN which GM stamps on the Camaro frame (a number not regulated by NHTSA) and the VIN used for purposes of Part 567 certificati on might thwart theft prevention efforts.

Your interpretation of the proper approach for assigning VINs for Heritage's Legacy vehicles would be very much appreciated. I would be pleased to provide any additional information which might be required in this regard.

Attachment

Heritage Motor Cars brochure for Legacy assembly kits (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-3.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Betsy Dittemore -- Legislative Liaison, Iowa Department of Public Safety, Office of the Commissioner

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-14-89 to NHTSA from B. Dittemore; (OCC 3633); and NHTSA bulletin dated 8-85 re Federal Auto Safety Laws and Motor Vehicle Window Tinting

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter regarding a bill introduced in the Iowa Senate that, among other features, would establish light transmittance limits for "sunscreening devices" that may be applied to the windows of motor vehicles operated in Iowa. I apologize for the delay in this response. You requested our office's interpretation about whether provisions of this bill would violate or be preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205).

As you are aware, this agency is authorized by section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standard s that we have issued under this authority is standard No. 205, which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of ligh t transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that no person may manufacture, import, or sell any vehicle in the United States unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)), this prohibition no longer applies after the vehicle is sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that "No manufacturer, d istributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal moto r vehicle safety standard . . . ."

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

Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle

owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of a Federal statute or this agency's reg ulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles.

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

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

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

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

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further

questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 30, 1990

FROM: Kathleen Demeter -- Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law

TO: J.P. Ravier -- R & D Director, Valeo Lighting Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-13-90 to M.J.P. Ravier from Paul Jackson Rice (A36; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 7-13-90 to P.J. Rice from J.P. Ravier and Guy Dorleans (OCC 5304)

TEXT:

This is in answer to your letter to Mr. Rice dated July 13, 1990, in which you solicit a response from the agency concerning the acceptability of your headlamp aiming device under existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and claim confidentiality for certain drawings submitted with your letter. Your request for an interpretation will be handled in separate correspondence.

When confidential protection is claimed for material submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), our confidential regulation, 49 C.F.R. S512, requires the submission of a certification stating that the submitter has made dili gent inquiry to ascertain that the information submitted has not been disclosed, or otherwise made public (49 C.F.R. S512.4(e)) and other supporting information. In the absence of such a certification, I am deprived of proper and sufficient justificatio n by which to review your request to protect any of this information from public disclosure.

Although you have not submitted this certification, I will waive the requirement for the limited purpose of expediting the review process. I have examined the two drawings you have submitted and decided that they should be treated confidentially because their release to the public could cause substantial competitive harm to your company. I will protect these drawings for an indefinite period of time. Compliance with our confidentiality regulation will be expected for all future submissions of informa tion claimed to be confidential.

Please inform NHTSA of any changed circumstances which may affect the protection of the information (49 C.F.R. S512.4(i)).

ID: nht90-3.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack E. Eanes -- Chief, Vehicle services, State of Delaware, Department of Public Safety, Division of motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 10-20-89 to T. Vinson from J. E. Eanes (OCC 3822)

TEXT:

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

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue two safety standards that are relevant to your question. The first of these is standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR S571.108), which applies to all new vehicles and new replacement equipment for motor vehicles. Among the requirement s set forth in this Standard is a requirement for all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 to be equipped with a CHMSL of specified minimum size, brightness, and visibility from the range of locations set forth in the standard. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205). This standard applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing for use in motor vehicles, and includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance of the glaz ing (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. A new passenger car with a rear window tinted so darkly that th e CHMSL was not easily visible would probably not be in conformity with Standards No. 108 and 205, and so could not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States. However, this prohibition on the manufacture or sale of a nonconforming vehicle doe s not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer.

Both before and after the first sale of a vehicle, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." If any of the listed commercial entities were to install tint film or otherwise darken the rear windows on passenger cars so that the light transmittance of that window plus the darkening material was below 70 percent, those entities would be "rendering inoperative" the light transmittance of the rear window of the car, in violation of Federal law.

This same prohibition in Federal law makes it unlawful for a service station to permanently remove the safety belts or permanently disconnect the brake lines on a car.

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

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

You indicated in your letter that the State of Delaware "allows vehicle rear windows to be tinted as dark as the owner desires." While I am not familiar with Delaware law, I assume that this statute, and similar statutes adopted by other States, does no t purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing and CHMSLs by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, any commercial firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittanc e of less than 70 percent and/or reduces the required brightness of the CHMSL would have violated the "render inoperative" provision in Federal law, even if Delaware permits individual owners to make such modifications themselves and to register and oper ate vehicles with rear windows and CHMSLs that would not comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards for new vehicles. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifi cations commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Delaware from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in t he State of Delaware.

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

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

366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.37

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1990

FROM: W. Marshall Rickert -- Administrator, Maryland Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Administration

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re After Market Glazing

ATTACHMT: Attached to Maryland Vehicle Law, sections 22-103 and 104, page 320 (text omitted); Also attached to Maryland Vehicle Inspection procedures regarding mirrors and vehicle glazing, pages 227 and 228 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 1 0-15-90 from P.J. Rice to W.M. Rickert (A36; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Section 22-104 of the Maryland Vehicle Law states that a person may not willfully or intentionally remove or alter any safety device or equipment that has been placed on any motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, or pole trailer in compliance with any law, rule, regulation, or requirement of any officer or agency of the United States or of this State, if it is intended that the vehicle be operated on highways in this State, unless the removal or alteration is permitted by rule or regulation adopted by the Administrator.

Maryland's existing rule and regulation prohibits any type of after market tinting; however, there has been a lot of legislative interest in permitting some form of after market tinting due to medical conditions.

We are interested in amending our rule and regulation to permit the installation of after market tinting. If this would create a problem from your standpoint, please advise us on or before October 1, 1990.

Attached is a copy of sections 22-103 and 22-104 of Maryland Vehicle Law (text omitted).

Also attached is a copy of Maryland vehicle inspections procedures regarding mirrors and vehicle glazing, pages 227 and 228 (text omitted).

ID: nht90-3.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 1, 1990

FROM: Carol Zeitlow -- Manager, Engineering Services, Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TO: Taylor Vincon -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-27-90 to C. Zeitlow from P. J. Rice; (A36; Std. 108); also attached to photocopies of Federal Register (text omitted)

TEXT:

I spoke with Kevin Cavey last week regarding section 108 of the FMVSS. He suggested I write to you for clarification of the following issue:

When a hazard warning light (four-way flasher) and a rear stop light are together on a vehicle, which should be the over-riding feature?

Per Mr. Cavey, the hazard warning light should always over-ride the rear stop light.

If this is correct, will you please confirm this fact in writing? If this is not correct, will you please direct us to the section of the regulation which would explain the proper installation procedure? Also, if the stop lights were to override the fl ashers, should the front flashers be steady burning or flashing?

We have also noticed that in Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Section SlO8-10, page SS-210, only SAE Standard J588e is referenced, J1395 is not shown. Will this section be updated to reflect the SAE change?

Thank you. I will await your reply.

ID: nht90-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 1, 1990

FROM: Jamie McLaughlin Fish -- Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: Bob Graham -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

TEXT:

Thank you for your recent letter to Mr. John Womack, of our Office of Chief Counsel, on behalf of your constituent Mr. G. Nick Routh, the President of American Energetics in St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr. Routh wrote to you concerning Federal safety stand ards on light transmittance through motor vehicle windows.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards which require specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. One of our standards requ ires that a certain amount of light be transmitted through the windows (called glazing in our standard) of motor vehicles. The purpose of this standard is to ensure driver visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash .

Under Federal law, a motor vehicle manufacturer must certify that the glazing in its new vehicles meets the light transmittance requirements of our standard. Under the law, there are limitations on tinting vehicle windows after sale to the first purchas er. Here, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from modifying equipment installed for compliance with our safety standards, if the modification causes the vehicle or equipment to no longer comply with the safety st andards. Thus, these business establishments cannot add tinting film if it reduces the level of light transmittance below that required by the Federal standard.

The individual States have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be operated or registered in the States, provided that those requirements do not conflict with the requirements of Federal law. Several States have passed laws that prohib it the operation or registration of a vehicle in those States if the vehicle's glazing has a light transmittance below a given level. These State laws do not purport to legitimize conduct -- tint installation firms adding film to glazing so that light t ransmittance is below the level required by the Federal standard -- that is illegal under Federal law. Thus, there is no conflict between Federal law and these State laws, and the States may continue to enforce their operating rules.

Your constituent is president of a company that sells and distributes solar window film to be installed on automobiles. As indicated above, this film is not allowed to be installed by the above-mentioned types of businesses if it results in a lower leve l of light transmittance for the windows than is required by our standard.

Specifically, your constituent enlists your assistance in urging NHTSA to adopt a change in our safety standard for light transmittance. Changes to safety standards can be made by the agency in response to petitions. We have, in fact, been petitioned t o change the light transmittance requirement in our safety standard. In order for us to make a change in a standard, we must determine that sufficient facts are available to support a change. To obtain such information, the agency granted a petition (m entioned by your constituent) for a change in the light transmittance requirement, and published a request for comments on the issue.

However, the granting of this petition does not necessarily mean the standard will be changed. Rather, it indicates that we believed that a review of the current light transmittance requirements in our safety standard was appropriate.

Currently, the agency is completing our review of all the comments received. Based on our review and analysis of all information submitted to the agency, along with other data available, the agency will make a final decision on the appropriate regulator y action. The options include: proceeding with a notice of proposed rulemaking to change the light transmittance requirements; a termination of the rulemaking because our review and analysis did not indicate a change in the light transmittance requireme nts is appropriate at this time; or leaving the rulemaking open, with no final decision, and continuing research into the question of the appropriate level of light transmittance. This last option would mean that the standard would remain as it is today - thereby precluding the use of certain window film -- but the agency would indicate that further research is necessary before a final determination on the question of changing the light transmittance requirement can be reached.

I hope this information is helpful.