ID: 3138o

Mr. John S. Crockenberg
156 Holland Road
Ormond Beach, FL 32074

Dear Mr. Crockenberg:

This is in response to your letter of February 26, 1988, concerning antiglare plexiglass shields. I regret the delay in our response. You asked whether Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applies to your product, a 4" x 6" x 1/8" parallelogram with rounded corners made of transparent bronze plexiglass with an attached 1/2" diameter suction cup. You noted that this device, which adheres to the interior of automobile windows, deflects obstructive sunglare where conventional sun visors cannot be placed. You also asked what other agency's regulations you should be aware of before you begin to manufacture and market this device, if none of our standards apply.

You are correct in assuming that Standard No. 103 and Standard No. 111 do not apply to your product. The only Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is relevant to your product is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. S2 states that one purpose of this standard is to "ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility." S1 and S3 note that Standard No. 205 applies to glazing materials in both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I am enclosing an agency "fact sheet," which concerns the tinting of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I also am enclosing two previous NHTSA interpretation letters, which concern products similar to your antiglare shield. These letters to Susan House on December 20, 1985 and to Jeffrey Richard on April 16, 1985 explain the effect of Standard No. 205 on a manufacturer of such a product.

In response to your second question, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This identifies other agencies whose regulations might be applicable to a new manufacturer's products.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:205 d:ll/l/88

ID: 3139o

William J. Henrick, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
General Tire
One General Street
Akron, Ohio 44329

Dear Mr. Henrick:

This is in response to your letter of June 3, 1988, seeking an interpretation of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you stated that your company has reached an agreement with two foreign tire manufacturers to jointly produce a radial medium truck tire in one of your domestic facilities. You anticipate that all three entities will use the same "green" or "uncured" tires. Although your letter is not clear on this point, I am assuming that the sidewall on a given tire will contain the name and the respective tire identification mark of only one company. You asked whether each of the three companies involved in this joint venture may secure its own identification mark required by Part 574 to identify its tires. The answer to your question is yes.

49 CFR /574.5 requires that "Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures . . . by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section." The purpose of the tire identification number requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. To best effectuate the recall of noncomplying or defective tires, the agency recommends but cannot require each production plant to have its own tire identification number.

If the company that produced the tires in its molds (General in this case) wished to put its tire identification number on all of the tires produced for this joint venture, /574.5 would not prohibit it from doing so, since that company could certainly be considered the manufacturer of all of the tires. However, if that company were to do so, it would be responsible for any recalls of these tires, including the tires sold by the other partners in the joint venture.

On the other hand, /574.5 does not prohibit each of the three partners in the joint venture from putting its own tire identification number on those tires produced for it by the joint venture. Each partner could be considered the "manufacturer," for purposes of /574.5, of those tires that it markets under its name. Each partner would then be responsible for any recalls of those tires produced by the joint venture on which its identification number appears.

I am enclosing 49 CFR Part 551 which requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the foreign company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the foreign company;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the tires which do not bear the name of the foreign company.

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the foreign company;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the foreign company, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or United States corporation; and

6. The full name and address of the designated agent.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:551#574 d:ll/l/88

ID: 3140o

Mr. Doug Cole
National Van Conversion Association, Inc.
2 West Main St., Suite 2
Greenfield, IN 46140

Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter asking about the test procedures of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. I regret the delay in responding.

In your letter, you explained that the National Van Conversion Association (NVCA) gathers samples of materials used for vehicle floor coverings, seat covers, etc., in van conversions to determine the compliance of the material with Standard No. 302. In your test program, you have found that many samples do not appear to comply. You said that a closer look at the conditions under which these samples were tested revealed that use of support wires affected whether many materials passed or failed the standard's test. You ask for clarification as to when support wires are used in Standard No. 302 testing.

The conditions and procedures under which Standard No. 302 compliance testing is conducted using support wires are stated in paragraphs S5.1.3 and S5.3(a) of the standard. Basically, these two paragraphs specify, respectively, that support wires are used: (1) when testing a specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning," to keep the specimen horizontal; and (2) when testing a specimen that has an available width of not more than 2 inches, to position and mount the specimen on the U-shaped frames used in the test. Standard No. 302 makes no provision for using the wires other than in these two situations.

The agency follows the test procedure specified in Standard No. 302 when testing vehicles for compliance with the requirements of the standard. The agency uses heat-resistant wires as specified in S5.1.3 when there is a reasonable expectation that a test specimen will bend or curl while burning. NHTSA bases its determination about the likelihood of bending or curling on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the specimen, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience with materials similar to a test specimen. I would like to point out that manufacturers are not required by Standard No. 302 to test the flammability of their vehicles in only the manner specified in the standard. The standard only sets the procedure that the agency will use in its compliance testing. Thus, a manufacturer is not required to use wires only with specimens that are anticipated to bend or curl, or that are too small to fit in the test frame without wires. However, manufacturers must exercise due care in making their certification of compliance that their product will meet the standard's requirements when tested by the agency according to the specified procedures of the standard. Whether a manufacturer meets that due care standard when using heat-resistant wires in situations other than those described in Standard No. 302 is a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/

ref:302 d:ll/1/88

ID: 3141o

Mr. William E. Lawler
Specifications Manager
Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.
18881 U.S. 31 North
Westfield, IN 46074

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Specifically, you noted that a final rule published July 6, 1988 (53 FR 25337) upgrades the safety belt requirements for heavy vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. One of the new requirements for those safety belts is that, if an automatic locking retractor (ALR) is used, that retractor "shall not retract webbing to the next locking position until at least 3/4 inch of webbing has moved into the retractor." Standard No. 208 sets forth this requirement in section S4.3.2.2 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds, and in section S4.4.2.2 for buses. You asked whether an ALR that depended on a mechanism external to the retractor itself to prevent it from retracting webbing to the next locking position would comply with S4.3.2.2 and S4.4.2.2. The answer to your question is no.

The agency explained in detail the reasons why the final rule did not adopt the proposed requirement for all heavy vehicle safety belts to be equipped with emergency locking retractors only; see 53 FR 25338-25340. The proposed prohibition of ALR's in heavy vehicles was based on the tendency of current designs of ALR's to become progressively tighter around an occupant as the vehicle travels over potholes or other jarring surfaces of the road. However, NHTSA acknowledged in the final rule that some newer designs of ALR's do not exhibit this tendency. In response to these newer designs of ALR's, the agency said:

Therefore, this rule has been expanded from the proposal, in order to permit ALR's with anti-cinch capability to be installed in heavy vehicles. For the purposes of this rule, anti-cinch capability is determined by examining the working of the retractor after it has locked after the initial adjustment of the safety belt. 53 FR 25339. This language explicitly states that the "working of the retractor" is what determines whether an ALR on a heavy vehicle belt complies with the requirements of Standard No. 208. Since the focus is exclusively on the "working of the retractor," an ALR must comply with these requirements without depending upon any external mechanisms to assist it. Any ALR that cannot satisfy these requirements without the assistance of external mechanisms would not comply with Standard No. 208's requirements for ALR's on heavy vehicles.

This conclusion is reinforced by the agency's statement that:

"NHTSA believes it is appropriate to measure compliance with this new 3/4 inch minimum webbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 208 under the same conditions currently specified for determining compliance with the existing 1-inch maximum webbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 209." 53 FR 25340.

The 1-inch maximum webbing travel requirement for ALR's is set forth in section S4.3(i) of Standard No. 209. Since Standard No. 209 became effective in 1968, the agency has determined whether ALR's comply with this requirement by examining the performance of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms. As explained in the final rule, the same procedure (examining the performance of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms) will be used to measure compliance with the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208.

In your letter, you requested that we issue an interpretation that any ALR that complies with Standard No. 209 can rely on the use of an external mechanism, such as your company's "Komfort-Lok," to comply with the minimum webbing travel requirements of Standard No. 208 for ALR's on safety belts in heavy vehicles. I cannot do so, for the reasons explained above. Any ALR used on a heavy vehicle safety belt must satisfy the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208 by the working of the retractor itself, without the use of any external mechanisms.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:208#209 d:ll/l/88

ID: 3142o

Robert L. Ripley, President
Knaack Manufacturing Co.
420 East Terra Cotta Avenue
Crystal Lake, IL 60014

Dear Mr. Ripley:

This is a response to your letter asking this agency to review three product catalogs you submitted with your letter, and tell you whether your company is required to furnish information pursuant to 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Based on the information you supplied with your letter, your company is required to file information under Part 566 for the warning devices shown in one of the catalogs, but not for any of the other items shown in the three catalogs.

As specified in the Application section of Part 566 (/566.3), Part 566 applies to (1) all manufacturers of motor vehicles and (2) manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, other than tires, to which a safety standard applies. The only item advertised in the three catalogs that is motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies is the "Safety Reflector Kit" shown on page 6 of the catalog entitled "weather guard For Full-Size and Mini Vans." These devices are subject to Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR /571.125). Accordingly, your company, as the manufacturer of these devices, must furnish the information specified in /566.5 within the time period specified in /566.6.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#566 d:l0/3l/88

ID: 3143o

Mr. Hiroshi Kato
MMC Services Inc.
3000 Town Center
Suite 1960
Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Kato:

This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1988, concerning whether a Mitsubishi Motors Corporation SH27 lightweight industrial truck that you intend to offer for sale in the United States should be classified as a motor vehicle under Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"). You stated that this vehicle is intended for "general or carrier work for off-road applications," and that it is capable of a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph. You further explained that your company planned to advertise, promote, and market this vehicle as an off-road vehicle. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the SH27 would not be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle". Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, your vehicle has a body configuration nearly identical to standard trucks, can be registered for use on the highways of several foreign countries, and can obtain a a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph. These factors suggest that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, you stated that this vehicle is intended to be used only for off-road applications and that this vehicle will be advertised and promoted for off-road purposes only and will contain four warning labels stating "Warning: Off Road Use Only." These factors suggest that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

You noted that several foreign countries including Japan and Taiwan register for on-road use the general export configuration of this vehicle. This suggests that your vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle. You attempted to distinguish this fact by stating that the vehicle to be sold in the United States has different specifications than the general export vehicles. The differences are that the United States version has a maximum speed of 25 mph while the general export version can achieve speeds of greater than 55 mph, the engine displacement in the United States version has an engine of 548 cc rather than the 796 and 783 cc for the general export version, and the United States version has an hourmeter (similar to agricultural vehicles) rather than a speedometer. You stated that these differences mean that there is little basis for assuming that the experience in other countries would correlate to the likelihood of States permitting the vehicle to be registered for highway use in the United States. Since the vehicle closely resembles a small truck for highway use, we believe it is likely that States would permit it to be registered for highway use, just as other countries have. Therefore, this factor suggests that your vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use. You stated that your advertising and promotional materials will state that your vehicle should be used only for off-road purposes and will not depict or suggest that the vehicle can be used on-road. This factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

You stated that your dealers will be instructed that this vehicle is to be used solely for off-road purposes and that no assistance should be given to obtain a title for the vehicle or to register the vehicle in this country. Your company also will state on any ownership document that this vehicle is not intended for on-road use. Therefore, this factor would indicate that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

You stated that this vehicle will only be sold by dealerships that sell vehicles other than motor vehicles, such as material handling equipment like lifts and agricultural equipment. This factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

You stated that four warning labels will be affixed to the interior and exterior of the vehicle body. Labels stating "Off Road Use Only" will be applied to the exterior front panel of the cab, the rear gate, and the instrument panel. Additionally, a label stating "Warning: Off Road Use Only" will be affixed to the exterior rear panel of the cab. This factor would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

Based on the representations in your letter, the agency believes that the Mitsubishi SH27 lightweight truck does not appear to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ ref:VSA d:l0/3l/88

ID: 3144o

Mr. Andrew P. Kallman
Tu-Grooves
Kallman Building
205 West Saginaw Street
Lansing, Michigan 48933

Dear Mr. Kallman:

This responds to your letter asking for further clarification of a March 1, 1985 letter to you from the Chief Counsel of this agency. Your company is marketing a process in which parallel grooves are ground into the lower portion of the windshield of vehicles. In our March 1, 1985 letter to you, we set forth a general description of the requirements that would apply if the process were used on new vehicles or new windshields sold as an item of replacement equipment, and those requirements that would apply if the process were used on vehicles that had already been sold to the first purchaser or windshields that were already installed in vehicles. Your letter explains that your company now uses this process only on vehicles that have already been sold to a first purchaser and windshields already installed in vehicles. You asked for clarification of several issues in your letter.

1. Your company has obtained test reports from two laboratories on the process of grinding these parallel grooves into the lower portions of windshields. One of these reports specifically states that windshields with these grooves fully comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). You asked whether the steps your company has taken are "sufficient to show compliance with Standard No. 205."

Response: The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not permit this agency to assure any person or entity that its products or processes comply with all applicable requirements or to "approve" some product or process. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the manufacturer itself to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 205 requires that the windshields installed in new vehicles and new windshields sold as replacement equipment to meet certain performance requirements, and requires the windshield to be certified as complying with those requirements. You have stated that your company's process of grinding grooves into windshields will not be used on new vehicles or new windshields. Standard No. 205 does not require that windshields be certified as continuing to comply after being treated by aftermarket processes, such as your company's grooving process. Accordingly, if your grooving process is used only in aftermarket applications, your company is not required to certify that those windshields continue to comply with Standard No. 205 after grooves have been ground into the windshield. However, continued compliance with Standard 205 is important, for a different reason, discussed below.

Even though Standard No. 205 does not directly apply to your process, and your company does not have to certify continued compliance with Standard No. 205, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) does impose an obligation on manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses, including your licensees, with respect to aftermarket processes. That section provides: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..."

In this case, a number of elements of design have been installed in the windshield of motor vehicles in compliance with Standard No. 205, including impact and penetration resistance, optical deviation limitations and limitations on visual distortion. If grinding grooves into the windshield by means of your company's process would cause the windshield to no longer comply with these or some other requirements of Standard No. 205, grinding the grooves into the windshield would be a violation of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act.

The Safety Act imposes a responsibility on manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses to ensure, in the first instance, that none of the aftermarket operations they perform will result in a violation of the "render inoperative" provision. NHTSA reexamines the initial determinations made by any of these parties only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. If your company has concluded that the test reports enclosed with your letter show no "rendering inoperative" when grooves are ground into windshields, NHTSA will not express any view on that conclusion unless and until the agency begins some enforcement proceeding to examine this grooving process.

In keeping with this statutory scheme, neither our March 1, 1985 letter nor this letter expressed any agency opinion as to whether dealers using your company's process to grind grooves into windshields of vehicles would or would not render inoperative the windshield's compliance with Standard No. 205. Instead, both these letters are intended only to alert your company to the elements of design that might be rendered inoperative by grinding grooves in windshields by your process.

2. Would it be possible for your company to indicate on the windshields in which you grind these grooves that your company has "shown compliance with Standard No. 205," for example, by affixing a clear sticker to that effect?

Response: As explained above, only new windshields or windshields installed in new vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 205. There is no requirement that windshields subjected to aftermarket processes be certified as still complying with the standard. If your company voluntarily chooses to provide some indication of continuing compliance, it is free to do so. NHTSA has long said that the only restriction on voluntary markings is that those markings must not obscure or confuse the meaning of any required markings on the product. Assuming that your voluntary markings will not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required markings on the windshield, the voluntary marking would not violate any Federal requirements. You should be aware, however, that some State laws restrict stickers and other items placed on automobile windshields.

3. Is your company required to show continuing compliance with Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting (49 CFR /571.212) for vehicles whose windshields have grooves ground in accordance with your company's process?

Response: The vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that each of its new vehicles complies with the requirements of Standard No. 212. There is no obligation for any person that performs aftermarket operations on the vehicle or its windshield to certify continuing compliance with Standard No. 212.

As explained above, the only requirement applicable to aftermarket operations on a vehicle is that manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses are prohibited from "rendering inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard, including Standard No. 212. Standard No. 212 requires a vehicle to retain a specified percentage of the windshield periphery. To avoid violating the "render inoperative" prohibition, I suggest that you carefully examine the process by which grooves are ground into windshields and determine whether the installation of those grooves in accordance with your company's process would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 212. Your company is obliged to determine that this grooving process will not result in a rendering inoperative violation with respect to Standard No. 212. As explained above, NHTSA will not express any views about your company's determination except in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#205#212 d:l0/28/88

ID: 3145o

Mr. Gary M. Ceazan
Vice President
Riken-America, Inc.
PO Box 3698 Terminal Annex
Los Angeles, CA 90051

Dear Mr. Ceazan:

This is in response to your letter asking whether tires marked with both an ETRTO (European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization) size designation and a different ISO (International Standardization Organization) size designation can legally be imported into the United States. As discussed below, such tires cannot be imported into the United States, because they do not comply with the applicable safety standards. I regret the delay in this response.

All new pneumatic tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.109), and all new pneumatic tires imported for use on motor vehicles other than passenger vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.119). Both of these standards prohibit "dual-size markings," or labeling two different size designations on one tire.

In the case of passenger car tires, section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." (emphasis added). This agency expressly prohibited dual-size markings on passenger car tires in a preamble amending Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. This prohibition was expressly repeated in subsequent amendments that addressed the question of tire labeling under Standard No. 109; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974; and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.

In the case of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, there is no express prohibition in Standard No. 119 against dual size markings. However, section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire and size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." NHTSA has interpreted the use of the singular in the phrase "tire size designation," rather than the plural "tire size designations," to be a prohibition against marking more than one tire size designation on these tires. See the enclosed copies of my January 7, 1988 letter to Mr. E.W. Dahl and my February 16, 1988 letter to Mr. Mike Kaizaki.

Since tires marked with two size designations would not comply with our tire standards, they could not legally be imported into the United States, according to the requirement specified in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). If you have any further questions about our tire standards or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ ref:l09#ll9 d:ll/l/88

ID: 3146o

Mr. Dave Anderson
Sales Manager
Gist Ornamental Iron Works, Inc.
l2l27 Woodside Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter about Federal requirements for trailers. According to your letter, you are in the planning stages of becoming a manufacturer of, and dealer for, automobile trailers. The trailers would hitch to the back of automobiles and be designed to carry cargo. You noted that in response to an earlier inquiry, you received a copy of the handout entitled "Information For New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." You stated that you are unclear just how this applies to automobile trailers. You asked what you need to do to comply with any applicable Federal regulations, and what regulations apply to trailers of the kind you plan to build.

Trailers are considered motor vehicles under Federal law. As a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. The procedure is specified in 49 CFR Part 567.

The following safety standards apply to trailers: Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, Safety Standard No. ll5, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, Safety Standard No. ll9, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, Safety Standard No. l20, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, trailers with certain braking systems must meet Safety Standard No. l06, Brake Hoses, Safety Standard No. ll6, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, and Safety Standard No. l2l, Air Brake Systems. All of these safety standards are found in 49 CFR Part 57l.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref: 571 d:ll/l/88

ID: 3147o

The Honorable Beverly B. Byron
Member of Congress
U.S. House of Representatives
Westminster District Office
6 North Court Street
Westminster, MD 21157

Dear Ms. Byron:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr., who received a citation from the Maryland State Police, Automotive Safety Enforcement Division, for noncomplying window tinting. You asked us to review Mr. Ciampa's letter and provide you with our comments and appropriate information. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Ciampa suffers from diabetes, which makes his eyes extremely sensitive to sunlight. Because of this, the side windows on his passenger automobile apparently were tinted such that the tinted glazing no longer complied with State of Maryland requirements. There is no indication whether Mr. Ciampa did the tinting on his own or had an aftermarket business do it. According to Mr. Ciampa's letter, he was previously given a medical exemption by the State of Maryland that permitted him to drive with windows tinted differently than Maryland law permits. However, Mr. Ciampa stated that Maryland officials have now told him that the Federal government will not allow Maryland to grant any more medical exemptions. This information is inaccurate.

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the safety standards. Thus, we assume that Mr. Ciampa's car as delivered to him complied with Standard No. 205's requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance in all of its windows, including the side windows that are now the subject of dispute.

The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including the tinting performed on the side windows of Mr. Ciampa's car, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Again, Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition in Federal law. Thus, the State of Maryland does not have any authority to permit manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses to install tinting on the side windows of passenger cars if such tinting causes those windows to have less than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on Mr. Ciampa's side windows would be liable for the civil penalty discussed above.

Please note that Federal law does not affect 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 Federal law or this agency's regulations prevents Mr. Ciampa himself from tinting his side windows.

However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. It would seem that the State of Maryland has exercised its authority to prohibit windows being tinted in the way that Mr. Ciampa's are. The wisdom and fairness of applying that prohibition to individuals with Mr. Ciampa's condition is something to be decided by the State of Maryland, not the Federal government. Contrary to the statement in Mr. Ciampa's letter, we have never told Maryland or any other State how to administer their laws and regulations with respect to the operational use of vehicles in the State. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Washington Office Constituent's Correspondence

ref:VSA#205 d:l0/27/88