ID: 1931y

Don A. Norton, Esq.
Levinson, Murray & Jensen, P.C.
Suite 400
312 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60606

Dear Mr. Norton:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to compliance of imported motor vehicles with the Federal standard relating to vehicle identification numbers (VIN). I regret the delay in responding.

You have asked "in what manner does the importer affix the vehicle identification number to the tag that is to be located so as to be visible from the outside of the vehicle through the left portion of the windshield? Is the proper procedure to acertain the proper chassis number of the vehicle, and then to fashion, emboss, and affix a plate of any design that would comport with the visibility regulations," or is it affixed by the State authority that licenses the vehicle.

Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard is the responsibility of the importer of any vehicle not originally manufactured to comply with the standards. Compliance with Standard No. ll5 requires affixation of the VIN in the location you described (paragraph S4.6). The VIN label should be affixed by the person conforming the vehicle, as compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. ll5, must be demonstrated simultaneously in order to satisfy Federal requirements. A State does not affix VINs.

In response to a request you made for information, please note that we have searched our records and find no l98l or other model Mercedes-Benz with the serial number WDB10704612000486.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref:115 d:8/7/89

ID: 19323.wkm

Mr. Michael L. Mack
Bosch Automotive Proving Grounds
Bosch Braking Systems Corporation
32104 State Road 2
New Carlisle, IN 46552-9605

Dear Mr. Mack:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this office in which you referred to paragraph S5.6.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems, and asked whether, after activating the parking brake and releasing the service brake, the vehicle would be allowed to "roll a bit" before the parking brake takes hold. The answer is a qualified yes.

Paragraph S5.6.2 of Standard No. 121 provides:

Grade holding. With all parking brakes applied, the vehicle shall remain stationary facing uphill and facing downhill on a smooth, dry portland cement concrete roadway with a 20-percent grade, both

(a) When loaded to its GVWR, and

(b) At its unloaded vehicle weight plus 500 pounds (including driver and instrumentation).

We assume that Bosch is referring to the distance traveled during brake "wrap-up" (partial revolution of the braked wheels to enable the brake shoes to reach peak torque). Although the standard is silent on this issue, the agency discussed it in a February 8, 1990 Federal Register notice (55 FR 4447-4453, copy attached), stating that some small amount of movement, on the order of several inches, can result during the transition from the service brake application to the parking brake application. Therefore, we would not consider such small amount of movement during brake wrap-up to be in violation of the grade holding requirements of Standard No. 121.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, you may contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.7/2/99

ID: 1932y

Mr. John Schroeter
August Industries
26717 216th Av., S.E.
Maple Valley, WA 98038

Dear Mr. Schroeter:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a head restraint that attaches to the rear window of pickup trucks. I regret the delay in responding. I hope the following information is helpful.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraint device sold as an item of "aftermarket" equipment for pickup trucks.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed), would also affect your head restraint if your product is installed by a commercial business on either new or used vehicles. A manufacturer installing your head restraint device on a new truck prior to certifying the truck as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as required by the Safety Act, has certain responsibilities relating to that obligation to certify. Standard No. 302 establishes flammability resistance requirements for trucks that must be met by certain vehicle components, including head restraints. The new vehicle manufacturer that installs your product on the new vehicle would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the head restraint device conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard.

A commercial business that installs the head restraint on new or used vehicles would be subject to statutory considerations that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle without violating the Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108.

However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

In addition to the materials described above, I am also enclosing a Federal Register notice (53 FR 50047) that NHTSA issued on December 13, 1988, proposing to extend the applicability of Standard No. 202 to light trucks and vans. NHTSA has proposed to make this extension effective September 1, 1991. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding by this fall.

Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:VSA#202#302 d:8/7/89

ID: 19337.ztv

Mr. Bill Carpenter, Jr.
The Carpenter Group, USA
514 Chestnut Street
Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3916

Dear Mr. Carpenter:

This is in reply to your recent letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a clarification of our letter to you dated November 20, 1998.

With reference to the security device as described in your letter to us of August 3, 1998, we informed you that "The manufacture and sale of this accessory is not subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard." We continued by cautioning that its installation had a "theoretical potential of affecting compliance" with Safety Standard No. 111, the Federal rearview mirror standard. You wish us to restate our advice to read "The manufacture, sale, and use of the Auto Tracker (TM) Security Beacon does not violate any current U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standard." The purpose of your request is "so that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration review of the product can be stated in a concise, direct, and easily understandable manner for the general public."

We cannot furnish the interpretation you seek. You have gone beyond our letter in asking us to state that the "use" of the product is not subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, when our letter clearly indicated that installation of the product had the potential of affecting compliance with Standard No. 111.

I am sorry you feel that we have not stated our views "in a concise, direct, and easily understandable manner for the general public." However, our opinion was directed to you, a manufacturer who sought to understand the relationship of your product to applicable Federal requirements, and was not intended to facilitate its advertising. If you wish to use our letter for such purpose, we have no objection to your stating, as we did in

our letter of November 20, that "The manufacture and sale of this accessory is not subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard."

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108#111
d.1/28/98

ID: 1933y

Mr. Robert W. Kahle
4111 Blood Road
Metamora, MI 48455

Dear Mr. Kahle:

This responds to your letters to Mr. Jettner of our Office of Vehicle Safety Standards asking about the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of an "aftermarket" head restraint for light trucks. Your letters have been referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in responding.

You ask whether you need this agency's approval of your product. The answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraints sold as an item of "aftermarket" equipment for pickup trucks.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

A commercial business that installs your head restraint would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108.

However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

You ask for a copy of an "order" requiring head restraints on new pick-up trucks in 1991. Please note that NHTSA has thus far only proposed to require head restraints in new light trucks and vans (10,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight rating), and has proposed a September 1, 1991 effective date for the requirement, if the proposed rule is adopted. I have enclosed a copy of the proposal for your information. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding shortly.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:VSA#202#302 d:8/7/89

ID: 1934y

Mr. William L. Dunlap
Engineering Manager
Philips Industries, Inc.
Dexter Axle Division
500 Collins Road
Elkhart, IN 46515

Dear Mr. Dunlap:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.120; copy enclosed). I apologize for the delay in this response. You stated that your company manufactures rims that you sell to other wheel manufacturers. These wheel manufacturers combine your company's rims with center disc sections of their own design to produce finished wheels for use on light trucks and trailers. Section S5.2(c) of Standard No. 120 specifies that each rim shall be marked with certain information. You asked whether your company, as the rim manufacturer, or any subsequent manufacturer that uses your company's rims to produce complete wheels is required to mark the rims in compliance with section S5.2(c). The answer is that the rim manufacturer is responsible for those markings, as explained below.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A); the Safety Act) specifies that "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any ... item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." In this case, section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 requires certain markings to appear on all newly manufactured rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. These requirements became effective August 1, 1977. Thus, section 108 of the Safety Act makes it illegal for any person to "manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any rim manufactured on or after August 1, 1977 designed for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars unless that rim is marked in accordance with section S5.2 of Standard No. 120. Your company would violate this provision of the law if you were to sell light truck rims without the required markings, even if the party to whom you sold such rims was going to use the rims to produce completed wheel assemblies.

You suggested in your letter that your company's markings on its rims used by other manufacturers to produce completed wheel assemblies may be misleading or unfair, because your company has no control over the integrity of the completed wheel assemblies. This may represent a misunderstanding of the meaning and purpose of the required rim markings. The markings and certification required on rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars by section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 provide information about only the rims, not the entire wheel assembly. In your letter, you indicated that other wheel manufacturers simply add center discs to your company's rims to produce completed wheel assemblies. In these circumstances, the accuracy of the markings and certification put on a rim by your company as the rim manufacturer would not be affected by another manufacturer simply adding a center disc to that rim to produce a completed wheel assembly.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:120 d:8/7/89

ID: 19359.rbm

Martha A. Geer, Esq.
Patterson, Harkavy & Lawrence
200 West Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27611

Dear Ms. Geer:

This responds to a request for an interpretation by this office as to whether a cellular phone charger constitutes a piece of motor vehicle equipment as that term is used in 49 U.S.C., Chapter 301, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (the Safety Act), and if so, what legal limitations apply to that product.

The product you described is designed to charge the cellular phone's battery and is intended exclusively for installation in motor vehicles. You state that installation usually occurs after the vehicle has been purchased by the consumer. The cellular phone charger operates by drawing current from the vehicle's battery.

Your first question was whether this device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the Safety Act. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7) defines, in part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured;

(B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to the motor vehicle; or

(C) any device or an article or apparel (except medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner) that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury, or death.

Since the product you described is not original equipment or sold for replacement or improvement of any original equipment, it would be included within this definition only if it were an "accessory." In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered an "accessory" and is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the cellular phone charger you have described, it appears that this product would be an accessory and is consequently an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. NHTSA has not issued any safety standards that directly apply to the product you have described. Nevertheless, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware.

First, 49 U.S.C. 30122 states that "no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make 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 motor vehicle safety standard."

If installing the charger would adversely affect compliance with a safety standard, then it would "make inoperative" a design element in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business who committed such an act would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1100 for each violation. Since the statute is limited to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by installing the device even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle or equipment.

Second, the manufacturer of the charger would be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer. The manufacturer would be subject to the notification and remedy requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). A "defect" includes "any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." "Motor vehicle safety" is defined as "the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance." 49 U.S.C. 30102.

If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. Repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. Replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the determination that defect existed

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.6/23/99

ID: 1935y

Mr. Clifford Anglewicz
Vice President Marketing
Verne Corporation
50405 Patricia Drive
Mount Clemens, MI 48045

Dear Mr. Anglewicz:

This is in reply to your letter regarding the Dragoon Armored Security Vehicle (ASV), as amplified by a telephone call to you by Mr. Vinson of this Office. The ASV that your company produces is presently used "by the U.S. Armed Forces". You are now considering the possibility of selling the ASV "to police departments, U.S. Border Patrol, Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Customs Service to use as a special purpose rescue and utility vehicle", and have asked "to know the procedure for getting this vehicle classified as a special purpose vehicle."

As Mr. Vinson explained to you, we have no category of "special purpose vehicle". If a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, it is a "motor vehicle" subject to the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that it must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to its type and be certified as conforming to those standards, and that it is subject to remedial action upon the determination that it does not comply with one of those standards or that it contains a safety related defect. If the vehicle is a motor vehicle that has been manufactured for and sold directly to the armed forces in conformity with contractual specifications, it is not required to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If a motor vehicle is one that is designed to carry l0 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis, or with special features for occasional off-road operation, it is classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle". A motor vehicle designed for carrying more than l0 persons is classified as a "bus".

This means that the ASVs sold to the armed forces have not been required to conform to the Federal standards. As Mr. Vinson further explained to you, we provided the Border Patrol with a letter of interpretation under which we concluded that its mission was so similar to that of the armed forces that it could be considered a component of it, and that the "Hummer" vehicle it wished to purchase in fulfilment of that mission need not be manufactured to meet Federal safety standards. I enclose a copy of that letter for your information. The ASV appears similar to the Hummer in configuration. Therefore, on the basis of the facts as presented in your letter, ASV's could be sold to the Border Patrol without the necessity of conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. On the other hand, we have not been contacted by the Drug Enforcement Administration or the U.S. Customs Service, nor by any police department. In the absence of any interpretation issued in response to these entities, ASVs sold to them must be manufactured to conform with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Technically, the ll and l2 passenger versions of the ASV would be "buses", but the overall configuration of the ASV, with its high approach and departure angles, its capability of amphibious operation with special equipment, and its suitability for use on rough terrain support its classification as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for all passenger configurations.

Obviously, the ASV is not a conventional motor vehicle subject to easy classification or, possibly, conformity with multipurpose passenger vehicle standards (e.g., we understand it uses a military specification brake fluid rather than DOT-3). Because of the facts that your annual production is around 60 units, and that your sales are not to the general public, you might wish to petition for temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal safety standards. If the petition is granted, you would be able to sell the ASV to entities other than the armed forces without conforming it to the Federal standards. Mr. Vinson has provided you with the citations to the Federal standards and to the exemption procedures, and you may consult him if you have any questions with respect to them (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#571 d:8/7/89

ID: 1936y

Mr. Mike Sazio
S.C. Manufacturing, Inc.
11879 Woodbury Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92643

Dear Mr. Sazio:

This responds to your letter concerning the application of our regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standards to your company's manufacture of "convertible vinyl tops for Jeeps and similar vehicles." I regret the delay in responding. You asked which Federal safety standards apply to these convertible tops that you sell in both the new vehicle market and the aftermarket. You were especially interested in standards for "windows and door handles."

There are two Federal safety standards (copies enclosed) that would apply to your product: (1) Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials; and (2) Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. While the brevity of the description of your product makes it difficult for us to determine whether our standard for door handles (Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components) applies, we believe that the standard does not apply to your product because the tops, which apparently incorporate doors, are readily removable.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable Federal requirements.

The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. If you or the agency determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, you are obligated to notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.)

The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as follows: "Motor vehicle equipment" means 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 the motor vehicle ..." (/102(4)) This definition includes the product your company manufactures since the convertible tops are components manufactured and sold either as a replacement or improvement of the convertible top or as an addition to vehicles that have no existing top. Since your product is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, S.C. Manufacturing Inc., as the manufacturer of the equipment, must ensure that the convertible tops comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and contain no safety-related defects.

If your product contains glazing material, Standard No. 205 (49 CFR /571.205, Glazing Materials) directly applies to that glazing material. Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of motor vehicle equipment, including glazing used in convertible tops. Any glazing in the convertible tops that your company manufactures for new or used vehicles must therefore conform to the applicable specifications set forth in Standard No. 205. The standard establishes both performance requirements, including those regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing, and labeling requirements applicable to the glazing used in your product.

If your convertible top is added to a new vehicle, i.e., before the vehicle is sold for the first time to a consumer, then it must comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR /571.302). Standard No. 302 applies to certain vehicle occupant compartment components, including convertible tops, on new completed motor vehicles. Persons selling new vehicles equipped with your convertible top must ensure that the vehicles, including your top, conforms to Standard No. 302.

Generally speaking, while the requirements of Standard No. 302 apply to convertible tops incorporated in new vehicles, they do not apply to convertible tops added to used vehicles, i.e., vehicles which have been sold for the first time to a consumer. Under this general rule, you are permitted to sell aftermarket convertible tops that do not comply with Standard No. 302 to vehicle owners who will add them to their used vehicles even if the addition of the top by the vehicle owners caused the vehicles to no longer comply with Standard No. 302.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of /108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your top on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the top does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108.

You should note that section 108(a)(2)(A) is not limited to Standard No. 302, but applies also to any modification of Federally-required safety systems or devices on new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits rendering inoperative the compliance of devices or elements of design with any applicable Federal safety standard. Thus, a commercial entity would be permitted to install your product only if the modification would not destroy or degrade from a vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal requirements, such as those for lamps and reflective devices (Standard No. 108).

Standard No. 206 applies to new vehicles, but not to new aftermarket motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the doors on aftermarket Jeep top covers would not have to meet the standard. Further, doors on new Jeep vehicles would not have to meet the standard if they are "designed to be easily attached to or removed from" the vehicle, as provided in paragraph S4 of Standard No. 206.

To summarize the above discussion, any glazing in the convertible tops you manufacture must meet applicable requirements of Standard No. 205 regardless of whether the tops are sold in the aftermarket or to new vehicle purchasers. The effect of Standard No. 302 on your product depends on the circumstances surrounding installation of the product in new and used motor vehicles. If the convertible top does not meet Standard No. 302, the top cannot be installed in vehicles by any commercial business listed in /108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. However, these convertible tops may legally be installed in vehicles by the owners of the vehicles. Your company would still have the responsibility under the Vehicle Safety Act to recall and remedy its products which are determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, even if the convertible tops were installed by vehicle owners themselves.

I hope this information is helpful. In addition to the materials described above, I have also enclosed an information sheet describing generally your responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:206#302#205 d:8/7/89

ID: 19376-1.pja

The Honorable Tim Holden
Member, United States House of Representatives
Berks County Services Center
633 Court Street
Reading, PA 19601

Re: Mr. Gary Issod

Dear Representative Holden:

This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Gary Issod of Reading, regarding Federal regulations on window tinting and how they relate to the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the Federal requirements for window tinting.

Mr. Issod objects to a Pennsylvania law requiring automobile windows to transmit at least 70 percent of the incident light. Mr. Issod believes that the State law is based on an erroneous interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, which regulates automotive glazing materials (windows). As explained below, Pennsylvania correctly interprets Standard No. 205, and we have determined that the State law is not preempted.

By way of background, NHTSA has the authority, under 49 U.S.C. 30111, to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this statute, we issued Safety Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for vehicle glazing. The standard 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. Although the standard does not apply to vehicles once the vehicle has been sold to a consumer, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) of our statute 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 . . . ." Therefore, the act of tinting any car window to transmittance levels darker than 70 percent is a violation of section 30122(b), if it is performed by one of the regulated businesses listed above.

We do not regulate or limit owners tinting their vehicle windows, although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than that allowed by Standard No. 205 for new vehicles. Moreover, NHTSA does not regulate the use of vehicles. Instead, the operation or use of vehicles is under the jurisdiction of the States.

States have the authority to regulate how vehicles are operated or used, as long as the State law is not preempted by Federal law. State operational restrictions addressing an aspect of performance regulated by the Federal standard would be preempted by Federal law only to the extent that they prohibit the use of vehicles that comply with Federal regulations.

Examining Pennsylvania's law, as outlined in the letter you forwarded from Assistant Counsel Sanders, we find that the Pennsylvania law is not preempted by NHTSA's regulations. Pennsylvania's law does not prohibit the use of vehicles with windows allowing 70 percent light transmittance. It requires the identical level of light transmittance as the Federal standard. There appears to be no conflict between the State and Federal glazing standards, with regard to the light transmittance issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
NCC-20:PAtelsek:6-2992:OCC# 19376:1/21/99

NHTSA # ES99010044, DOT # 984688

ref: FMVSS 205
I10, I20, NOA-01, NOA-02, NOA-03, NOA-04,NOA-10
cc: NCC-20 Subj/Chron,
NCC-20 PJA, NPS-01, NSA-01
Interp.: 205, Redbook (2)

Re: Mr. Gary Issod

Dear Representative Holden:

This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Gary Issod of Reading, regarding Federal regulations on window tinting and how they relate to the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the Federal requirements for window tinting.

Mr. Issod objects to a Pennsylvania law requiring automobile windows to transmit at least 70 percent of the incident light. Mr. Issod believes that the State law is based on an erroneous interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, which regulates automotive glazing materials (windows). As explained below, Pennsylvania correctly interprets Standard No. 205, and we have determined that the State law is not preempted.

By way of background, NHTSA has the authority, under 49 USC 30111, to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We issued Safety Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for vehicle glazing. The standard 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. Although the standard does not apply to vehicles once the vehicle has been sold to a consumer, section 30122(b) of our statute 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 . . . ." Therefore, the act of tinting any car window to transmittance levels darker than 70 percent is a violation of 30122(b), if it is performed by one of the regulated businesses listed above.

NHTSA's regulations do not apply to the use of vehicles by their owners. We do not regulate or limit owners tinting their vehicle windows, although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than that allowed by Standard No. 205 for new vehicles. Instead, the operation or use of vehicles is under the jurisdiction of the States.

States have the authority to regulate how vehicles are operated or used, as long as the State law is not preempted by Federal law. Preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards is addressed by section 30103(b)(1) of our statute, which states, in pertinent part: "[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]." State laws would be preempted by Federal law to the extent that they regulate the same aspect of performance in a different way, or permit an action that is prohibited by the Federal regulations (such as permitting the sale of noncomplying vehicles, not allowing the sale of complying vehicles, or permitting businesses to tint windows darker than 70 percent transmittance).  As long as the State law restricts itself to regulating the operation or use (as opposed to the sale or modification) of vehicles, it would not be preempted by Federal law.

Examining Pennsylvania's law, as outlined in the letter you forwarded from Assistant Counsel Sanders, we find that the Pennsylvania law is not preempted by NHTSA's regulations. Pennsylvania's law does not permit businesses to tint vehicle windows darker than 70 percent light transmittance. It requires maintenance of the identical level of light transmittance as the Federal standard. There appears to be no conflict between the State and Federal glazing standards, with regard to the light transmittance issue.

Further, the relevant State provision, 75 Pa. C.S. 4524(e)(1), states "[n]o person shall drive any motor vehicle . . ." (emphasis added). No part of the law quoted by Mr. Sanders appears to regulate anything beyond the operation of vehicles or the criteria for inspection. It does not restrict the operation of vehicles that are manufactured in compliance with Federal regulations that concern the same aspect of performance addressed by the State standard. Finally, Pennsylvania's law does not permit businesses to tint vehicle windows darker than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, it requires maintenance of the identical level of light transmittance as the Federal standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:205
d.2/11/99