ID: 1985-03.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: K. Weight

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. K. Weight 65 E. 200 N. Provo, UT 84601

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole concerning black windows in automobiles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since we are the agency that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We have issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements, including light transmittance requirements, for glazing used in motor vehicles. As explained below, FMVSS No. 205 limits the use of darkly tinted windows.

FMVSS No. 205 requires glazing, both tinted and untinted, in a new passenger car to transmit at least 70 percent of the light that falls on it. To give you an idea of what level of tinting is allowed, please consider the following examples. If a window were completely open, the light transmitted through the opening would be 100 percent; clear windows have about 90 percent light transmittance, while factory-equipped tinted windows in new vehicles have about 80 percent light transmittance.

Minimum visibility levels are necessary to allow the average driver to detect other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic and road signs under all lighting conditions. Were the light transmittance less than 70 percent, such as found in darkly tinted glazing, visibility would be reduced to the extent that it could pose a safety hazard. From your description, I assume that the light transmittance of the "black window" is less than 70 percent. A situation where the light transmittance is below 70 percent may be in violation of FMVSS No. 205.

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install tinting material in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the standard. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs dark tinting material in a used vehicle, then a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of these persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Owners of used vehicles may, themselves, alter their vehicles, so long as the vehicle adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may in this manner install dark tinting material regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying dark tinting material on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

5/4/85

Elizabeth Dole - PERSONAL National Highway Traffic Admin. 400 Seventh St. SW Washington. D. C. 20590

Dear Mrs. Dole:

I wrote you 4/26/85 re several safety questions I had.

I am wondering why black windows are allowed on automobiles now? With kidnappings, and failure for a police officer to see into a car, I am thinking these dark windows should be banned.

If I am writing to the wrong dept. please tell me who to write.

Very truly yours,

K. Weight 65 E 200 N Provo, Utah 84601

ID: 1985-03.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Don Fightmaster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 12, 1985 Mr. Don Fightmaster Director Division of Pupil Transportation Kentucky Department of Education Capital Plaza Tower Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Dear Mr. Fightmaster: Thank you for your letter to former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt concerning the school bus regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I regret the delay in our response. In your letter, you state that Kentucky is planning to contract with commercial bus companies to use Greyhound-type buses to transport deaf and blind students to and from State-operated schools for the deaf and blind. The buses would be used on established routes for 9 round trips per year. You asked for NHTSA's opinion regarding the leasing of Greyhound-type buses in this manner. I would like to begin by explaining that there are two sets of regulations issued by NHTSA that affect buses used for school transportation. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, "school bus" is defined as "passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which...is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools..." (Emphasis added.) The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers of new school buses and their dealers or distributors from selling new buses for use as school buses if those vehicles do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. Federal law would prohibit the sale of new Greyhound buses for use as school buses because those buses as currently manufactured do not meet the requirements of our safety standards for school buses. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that the applicability of the school bus safety standards to a particular vehicle is determined by looking at the intended use of the new vehicle at the time of its initial sale. Buses that are not likely to be "significantly used" to transport school students are not "school buses" subject to our school bus safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act would not prohibit leasing companies from leasing Greyhound buses to Kentucky for school transportation, if the buses, at the time of their initial sale, were not "likely to be significantly used" to transport school students. those buses would not be "school buses" subject to the school bus safety standards. On the other hand, new buses that are likely to be significantly used to transport school children would be school buses, and the parties selling the vehicles are required to sell complying school buses. If a leasing company were to buy a new bus, intending to use it to transport your students on 9 round trips a year, then we believe the use of the bus for school transportation would be "significant" within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. Accordingly, the leasing company could not be sold a new Greyhound bus for this purpose. Although, from a legal standpoint, you are not prohibited from leasing certain Greyhound buses for school transportation, I would like to emphasize the importance that this agency attaches to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. It remains our position that a school bus meeting the Federal school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. We urge you to consider arranging to have your deaf and blind students transported in complying school buses. The second set of regulations relating to school buses consists of the Highway Safety Program Standards (HSPS). They were issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and apply to state highway safety grant programs. These standards, which are more in the nature of guidelines, have been adopted in varying degrees by the States. One of these standards is HSPS No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. A copy of that standard is enclosed. I want to stress that HSPS No. 17 will affect you only if Kentucky has adopted it. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS No. 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1985-03.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Kathryn L. Samuelson, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Kathryn L. Samuelson, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Champaign 102 North Neil Street Champaign, Illinois 61820

Dear Ms. Samuelson:

Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1985, to Mr. Gary Butler of our Region V office, which was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether Federal law requires safety belts to be installed end used in several types of vehicles. I understand from conversations between my staff and Mr. Butler that Your question is related to the provision of Illinois' belt use law which exempts a person operating "a motor vehicle which is not required to be equipped with seat safety belts under federal law" from the safety belt use requirement. I hope the following discussion is of assistance to you in your effort to ensure that the City of Champaign is in compliance with Illinois' safety belt use requirement. I believe that Illinois' law and your efforts can have an immediate and beneficial safety impact on the citizens of Champaign. I would encourage you to have all occupants of municipal vehicles wear their safety belts regardless of whether they are covered by your State's belt use requirement.

This agency has issued, under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which requires the installation of occupant restraints, such as safety belts, in vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires only the installation of the restraints; it does not require their use. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. I hope the following discussion explains how Standard No. 208 applies to each of the vehicles you mentioned.

You asked about fire trucks and public work trucks. Those vehicles would be governed by S4.2 or 4.3 of the standard, depending upon the gross vehicle weight rating of the truck. Police cars would be classified as passenger cars under our standard and currently would have to comply with the requirement of S4.1.2 of our standard.

The application of the standard to the remaining category of vehicles you asked about would depend upon their construction and use. All of our standards apply only to motor vehicles. The Vehicle Safety Act 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." (15 U.S.C. 1391(3))

In interpreting this definition, the agency has said that a vehicle which cannot exceed 20 mph and has an unusual configuration which sets it apart from the rest of the traffic is not a motor vehicle and thus does not have to comply with our standards, even if it uses the public roads. These vehicles, typically, are highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers and other similar vehicles. Thus, if the snow plows, road graders and other specialized types of public work vehicles you asked about have a top speed that does not exceed 20 mph and have an unusual configuration, they would not be covered by Standard No. 208 However, if these vehicles are conventional trucks that use the public roads and have specialized work equipment mounted on them, then they would have to meet the occupant crash protection requirements set in Standard No. 208 for trucks.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: City of Champaign Request Formal Date: June 7, 1985 Opinion on Standard 208 as Relates to Municipal Vehicles

From: Donald A. Williamson Reply to Regional Administrator Attn. of: NHTSA, Region V, Homewood, IL

To: Jeffery R. Miller Chief Counsel, NOA-30 Washington, D.C.

The City of Champaign is concerned that its municipal vehicles comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. As you know, the State of Illinois has a mandatory safety belt use law which goes into effect July 1, 1985. Apparently, the City would like to advise its employees to comply with the State law when in vehicles that are required to be equipped with safety belts.

Please review the attached letter and prepare the appropriate agency response. If additional information is needed, please contact me. I appreciate your attention to this request.

Donald A. Williamson

CITY OF CHAMPAIGN

June 4, 1985

Mr. Gary Butler Program Manager NHTSA 18209 Dixie Highway Homewood, Illinois 60430

RE: Seat Belt Use

Dear Mr. Butler:

After my conversation with you on May 20, 1985, Mr. Stavins, the City Attorney, asked that I write you and ask that you send us a written opinion in relation to certain types of municipal vehicles. We would appreciate a written opinion on whether or not federal law requires seat belts to be installed and used in the following types of vehicles:

1. Fire trucks 2. Squad cars 3. Snow plows 4. Road graders 5. Other specialized types of public work vehicles 6. Public works trucks

Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Kathryn L. Samuelson Assistant City Attorney KLS:eb

ID: 1985-03.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. D. Leeds Pickering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 22, 1985 Mr. D. Leeds Pickering Traffic Safety/Pupil Transportation Department of Education State of Wyoming Hathaway Building Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 Dear Mr. Pickering: Thank you for your letter concerning our regulations on school buses. You asked what problems school districts might encounter if they lease or charter "Greyhound" type buses from a company or individual for use on activity trips. I would like to explain that there are two Federal laws that have bearing on your situation. The first of these is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, under which our agency issues safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. The second law is the Highway Safety Act of 1966, under which we have issued highway safety program standards applicable to State highway safety grant programs. As you know from our letter to Mr. Terry Brown, Pupil Transportation Safety Specialist for the State of Montana, the parties directly affected by the Vehicle Safety Act are manufacturers of school buses and dealers or distributors selling new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits those parties from selling new buses for use as school buses if those vehicles do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. New Greyhound-type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing so, and therefore, cannot be sold as school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit the occasional rental of a Greyhound bus, however, and school districts that want to occasionally lease or charter such a vehicle for a special school activity may do so. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a "school bus" is defined as "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which...is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools..." (Emphasis added.) The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits dealers or distributors from selling new Greyhound-type buses to leasing companies if the dealer or distributor has reason to know that the bus would be "significantly" used to transport school children to and from school or related events. One example of "significant" usage would be a long-term relationship between a leasing company and a school to provide pupil transportation. If the leasing company is seeking a bus to use in this manner, then a dealer or distributor who has knowledge of the intended use of the vehicle would be required to sell a bus which meets the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Conversely, if a bus would be only very occasionally chartered for school service, its use for school service is not "significant." Accordingly, since such a bus is not a "school bus" under Federal law, the dealer or distributor would not be required to sell to the leasing company a school bus that is certified to the school bus safety standards. You asked about a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033; December 31, 1975) which amended NHTSA's regulatory definition of a "school bus" to conform to the Congressional mandate of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974. The notice explained that the definition refers to "introduction in interstate commerce" in order to account for those situations where buses are leased to schools for transporting students. You were concerned as to whether this discussion prohibited leasing companies from leasing buses to schools for activity trips. The term "introduction in interstate commerce" and its reference in the Federal Register notice to leasing arrangements addressed those situations where a new bus is leased by a manufacturer, distributor or dealer directly to a school or school district. In those situations, there is no sales transaction to a leasing company. When a new bus is leased to a school or school district directly from its manufacturer, distributor or dealer, the Vehicle Safety Act requires that the bus must comply with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. State regulations might also affect your use of Greyhound-type buses for activity trips. This agency administers a set of guidelines for State highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program Standards, cover a wide range of subjects. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, has recommendations for the color, identification, operation and maintenance of school vehicles. For a State that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation. HSPS No. 17 sets out recommendations for "Type I" and "Type II" school vehicles and defines those vehicle types in the definitions section of the standard. A Type I school vehicle is defined as: any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 16 pupils to and from school. This definition includes vehicles that are at any time used to carry school-children and school personnel exclusively, and does not include vehicles that only carry schoolchildren along with other passengers as part of the operations of a common carrier. HSPS No. 17 has different specifications for Type I school vehicles that are operated by a local transit system, and used for common carrier transit route service as well as special route service. The standard itself makes no distinction between vehicles carrying school children that are leased by a school from leasing companies, and vehicles that are owned by a school. However, since a state has the discretion to adopt Standard 17 as it determines to be necessary for its highway safety program, it is up to the state to decide whether the specifications of the standard should apply to leased school vehicles. I want to stress that HSPS No. 17 will apply to activity buses operated or leased by your school districts only if Wyoming has adopted it and if Wyoming accepts our view that the specifications should apply. If your State chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with that decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS No. 17. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety program standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS No. 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of HSPS No. 17, that was photocopied from Volume 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations 1204.4 (1984). Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1985-03.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of FMVSS 101; Controls and Displays

The Daimler-Benz AG (DBAG) Petition for Reconsideration dated August 22, 1984 was denied. The rationale behind the Agency's decision for denial was that DBAG did not adequately address the concerns raised in the Preamble to the final rule of July 27, 1984.

Daimler-Benz AG respectfully petitions the Agency to reconsider its decision in view of the following:

1. Horn Control Symbol:

While we concur with some of the arguments set out by the Agency, we would like to draw attention to the importance of the driver's responsibilities. This would respond to the Agency's concern that certain drivers may have difficulties in locating the horn control in an emergency situation when manufacturers place the horn control in areas other than the traditional location in the steering wheel hub.

Location of controls and displays is specified in paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS 101 in that each required control and display must be visible (when activated) to a driver who is restrained by the crash protection provisions required by FMVSS 208.

From the above it follows that the location of control and displays - even if identified by symbol or words - may vary significantly between manufacturers or even models.

Examples:

- The windshield washer and wiper control may be located either on the right or left side of the steering column and may or may not be combined with the turn signal control.

- The hazard warning signal control may be found anywhere on the dashboard, the steering column or the transmission tunnel.

- Lights may be activated by dashboard controls or separate stalks.

- Even gear shift patterns may be varying.

DBAG firmly believes that the identification of controls by symbols or words can only assist either to distinguish between otherwise similar controls or to locate their position if there is sufficient time left for searching. It will not, however, produce shorter driver reaction times in situations where he is required by circumstances beyond his control, to act immediately and intuitively as long as he is not aware of the general location and operating direction of any one control.

Hence, it follows that it is imperative for a driver, prior to using a car that he is not familiar with, to verify the location and function of every control and display, if necessary with the aid of the owner's manual. If he fails to undergo this learning process it must be assumed that he will also fail to correctly operate the appropriate control in a critical moment - regardless of whether or not that control is labeled.

The above considerations lead us to be convinced that the main distinctive features of the most essential controls in a car - as far as the problem of intuitive operation is addressed - are the variations in location, operating direction and shape, rather than their marking with different symbols. Yet, we would not go so far as to request that the hitherto required control symbols be omitted provided such distinctive features are maintained. We feel, however, that a horn control in such a prominent location as in the steering wheel hub - i.e. closest to either hand of the driver -, with such a simple and unequivocal operating mode -i.e. pressing of a usually adequately large area - can, even if not identified by a symbol, be at least as safely and intuitively operated as any other customary control having a symbol.

On the grounds explained above, DBAG reiterates its petition that the exemption of horn control identification be extended and footnote 4 to table 1 be modified to read: "provided there are no other controls incorporated, identification is not required for horn controls in, or on, the steering wheel hub, or for narrow ring-type controls and air-horns".

2. Brake Symbol

Our request to permit the ISO brake failure symbol has also been denied by the Agency. We would like to comment on the arguments presented in the June 4, 1985 Federal Register as follows:

The rationale of adopting certain ISO symbols, according to the NPRM of November 4, 1982, is that they convey information more quickly and are easily and immediately recognizable. DBAG fully supports this opinion. On the other hand, the Agency mentions the results of a SAE investigation, according to which the percentage of recognition of the ISO brake symbol is only 26 and 21 per cent, respectively, vs. 87 and 52 per cent, respectively, of the word "Brake". This leads the Agency to conclude that it is not appropriate to adopt this particular ISO symbol.

However, in order to fully appreciate the meaning of the above-mentioned percentages, it has to be kept in mind that the ISO brake symbol has not been permitted in the USA so far. Therefore, it is to be assumed that the persons interviewed by the SAE have been confronted with a symbol that they had never seen before. Given this fact, a 21-26 percent recognition of statement and function is not, as the Agency suggests, "extremely low", but has, in fact, to be considered as remarkably high.

Moreover, we would like to emphasize that there is a very strong general trend to replace words by symbols or pictograms, e.g. in public buildings, airports, railway stations, etc. It can be stated that people become very quickly accustomed to such symbols and pictograms even if they are not internationally standardized.

For this reason, we again petition to permit the use of the ISO brake failure symbol instead of the word "Brake".

ID: 1985-03.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Patricia Mascari -- Glass Magazine

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Patricia Mascari Glass Magazine 8200 Greensboro Drive Suite 302 McLean, VA 22102

Enclosed is the article we discussed concerning the effect of Federal safety laws on the application of tinting to the windows of motor vehicles. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on this matter. If you have any questions about the article, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

Enclosure

FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The increasing popularity of window tinting in recent years has led to many questions on the effect of Federal auto safety laws on this practice. Is tinting allowed? If so, by whom and how much? And what about state tinting laws? We appreciate this opportunity provided by Glass Magazine to provide a brief explanation of the Federal laws in this area.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorized NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued a vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including vehicle windows.

In 1967, the agency issued Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials in new motor vehicles and those sold as replacement equipment. In addition to establishing some new provisions, Standard No. 205 incorporates a widely recognized industry standard on the subject --the "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways" of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Under the RASI standard, window tinting is permitted, subject to specified performance requirements on light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing.

Windows in New Vehicles

A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that the glazing used in its vehicles conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 205. Any person who manufactures or sells a new vehicle which does not conform to any safety standard is subject to civil penalties and recall action under the Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, all windows required to driving visibility, whether clear or tinted, must meet all of the requirements of the standard, including those on light transmittance and abrasion resistance. The agency considers all windows in a passenger car, and the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, to be requisite for driving visibility.

Likewise, if a dealer or other person places tinting film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to the sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of tinting film and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the abrasion resistance and other requirements in the standard.

Windows in Used Vehicles

In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. The 1974 amendment (15,U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)) provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, 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 motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add tinting to windows in a motor vehicle, if that tinting would "render inoperative" the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties (of up to $1000 per violation) for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard. If any of those commercial businesses added tinting material which reduced the light transmittance of the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility to a level below 70 percent, the agency would consider that action a "rendering inoperative" of the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205. The statute does not prohibit tinting by commercial businesses, but it does limit the use of tinting.

The Vehicle Safety Act does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners may, themselves, add any level of tint to the windows in their vehicles without violating Federal law. However, tinting done by individual owners would have to be done in accordance with applicable State law.

Effects on State Law

Federal law generally preempts any inconsistent state laws on the same subject covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1392(d)) provides:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment , any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Thus, States may not establish provisions regarding tinting or other vehicle window requirements which are either more or less stringent than those provided by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. For example, a State law which specifies a transmittance level less than 70 percent for windows requisite for driving visibility in new vehicles would be preempted. The adoption or retention of such a State law would have no effect on the Federal prohibition of such an installation. Further, any State law or regulation permitting manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses to install tinting materials on a vehicle after its first sale in violating of Standard No. 205 would also be preempted.

States may establish and enforce requirements identical to any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, including Standard No. 205. They may also, as part of their motor vehicle inspection regulations, prohibit vehicle owners from modifying their windows, through tinting or otherwise, in any way that would violate Standard No. 205.

ID: 1985-03.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Moravec -- President, Tow-All, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas J. Moravec President Tow-All, Inc. 10501 E. Bloomington Freeway Bloomington, MN 55420

This responds to your letter of May 20, 1985, concerning Federal requirements applicable to the motorized hitch or "Supplemental Power Unit" (SPU) being developed by your company.

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq. (the Act). Under the Act, a motor vehicle is defined as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways." Your letter states that the SPU is a motorized single axle unit with an automatic transmission. In addition, your letter, the accompanying photographs, and descriptive material indicate that the SPU could be attached between a small car and a large trailer to permit the small car to safely pull the trailer long distances at highway speeds.

Based on this information, the agency concludes that the SPU is a motor vehicle and falls within the trailer classification. Under 49 CFR Part 571.3, a trailer is defined as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another vehicle." An information sheet for manufacturers is enclosed.

The following regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable to trailers:

49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Content Requirements 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (see S567.4 for trailers) Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number Basic Requirements Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Tires Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Tires Standard No. 121, Air Brake System

Copies of these regulations and standards can be obtained by writing to: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. An information sheet for ordering copies is also enclosed.

State regulations applying to trailers and their use on the roads should be checked for any State in which your company's trailers are to be sold.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

May 20,1985

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

This letter is a formal request for the evaluation as to which federal statutes of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are applicable to a new motorized road vehicle product that we are developing at TOW-ALL, Inc. As I discussed recently over the phone with Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, we are developing a revolutionary new product: the Supplemental Power Unit (SPU) or "Motorized Hitch". Inclosed are brochures which describe this concept, our first working prototype, and pictures of this prototype. Also inclosed are copies of two patents we own on this concept which may be helpful in understanding the operation of the SPU.

Basically, the SPU is a motorized single axle unit that attaches between a small car (e.g. a Chevette) and a large trailer (e.g. a 24 foot camper trailer) that allows the small car to safely pull the trailer for long distances at freeway speeds. This is explained in detail in the attached documents. I realize that this is a new idea and thus may not fall directly under specific legislation. The purpose of this letter is to determine which federal laws will be interpreted as being applicable.

We intend to manufacture the SPU out of new parts manufactured in the United States and market the unit worldwide. If you have further questions, please contact me at (612)-8818996 or write me at the above address.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Moravec President TOW-ALL, Inc.

THE SUPPLEMENTAL POWER UNIT "MOTORIZED HITCH"

A vehicle of any size, particularly small, could be enabled to tow a large trailer if this trailer could become self propelled. This note describes a novel method for providing this ability for towing the desired trailer. There are at least two primary requirements for pulling all trailers. First, the towing vehicle must have sufficient power to propel both vehicles, and second, the towing vehicle must be able to carry the tongue weight of the trailer. Few automobiles manufactured today and almost no small cars can meet these requirements.

The novel method that this paper is suggesting for solving this problem is what is called the supplemental power unit (SPU). It is also referred to as a "motorized hitch". This SPU is a small motorized trailer which is attached between the towing vehicle and the trailer that is desired to be moved. The motorized SPU has an automatic transmission and a gas or diesel engine. The synchronization of movements of the vehicle combination is provided by the hitching and towing system for the SPU.

The SPU is rigidly attached to the trailer that is to be pulled and pivoted or articulated vertically about the hitch between these two trailers. The SPU now carries all of the pulled trailer's tongue weight and provides the power to pull this trailer combination. The SPU can be manufactured in a number of sizes to meet the range of towing and tongue weight requirements of the consumer, commercial, and agricultural markets.

The rigid connection between the two trailers permits the tongue of the SPU to be hinged about a horizontal axis so no tongue weight or braking or acceleration moments are applied to the lead vehicle. A portion of the physical weight of the tongue (25-40 lbs.) is all the weight the tongue applies. The operation of the control mechanism of the SPU can also easily be reversed to give power and braking in the reverse direction. When towing a trailer, the tongue weight is generally added to the rear of the towing vehicle. This loading can be distributed over the whole vehicle by "load leveling hitches". These are complicated to couple and disconnect. If no "load leveling" is used and tongue weight is high, the traction of the front wheels and steering can become effected particularly in rough terrain. The SPU applies a very small load (25-40 lbs.) to the rear of the towing vehicle and is very easy to couple and uncouple. In general the towing vehicle does not sense the load being pulled with the SPU attached.

Attachment of the SPU to the load trailer is relatively simple. The patented control arm is hooked to the trailer ball of the front vehicle. No other connections are required. Once attached, the load trailer can be moved using the SPU to another location if desired using just its own power if the terrain is not too irregular. The power disc brakes on the SPU greatly aid in stopping the load trailer due to the method of attachment between the trailers and because of the load transfer which is automatically produced by the braking process.

The tongue of the SPU is hinged about a horizontal axis. This feature prevents the transfer of any of the tongue weight during transit and greatly facilitates coupling. Also, when this tongue is detached from the towing vehicle and allowed to hang down, it applies the brakes of the SPU. This feature is particularly useful if using the SPU to move the load trailer by hand.

ID: 1985-03.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Richard H. Lucki -- Peugeot, U. S. Technical Research Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard H. Lucki U.S. Factory Representative PEUGEOT U.S. Technical Research Company 33 Garland Way Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1985, concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our response. You noted that sections S4.1.2.71(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) of the standard require a seat belt warning system that conforms to S7.3 of the standard to be installed at each front outboard seating position of automatic restraint-equipped cars that have manual belts also at those positions. You pointed out that S7.3, however, only sets requirements for a warning system for the driver's seating position. You asked whether the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) can be met by providing a warning system conforming to S7.3 at only the driver's seating position. The answer is that those requirements can be met by a warning system for the driver only.

In December 1974 (39 FR 42692), the agency amended Standard No. 208 to establish new safety belt warning system requirements for vehicles manufactured after February 24, 1975. As discussed in the preamble, the agency decided against requiring a warning system at both the driver's seating position and the right front passenger's position. Instead, the agency adopted a requirement in S7.3(a) for a warning system at only the driver's seating position. (In July 1977 (42 FR 34299), the agency renumbered S7.3(a) to become the current S7.3).

In July 1976 (41 FR 29715), the agency proposed language concerning the safety belt warning system in automatic restraint-equipped cars. The proposed language was subsequently adopted, an July 5, 1977 (49 FR 34299), in S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. The agency explained in the preamble of the July 1976 notice that the proposed safety belt warning system was to parallel the existing requirements for passenger cars. Thus, the intent was to require a warning system for only the driver's position. Requiring a warning system for the driver's position only is also consistent with the separate warning system requirement set in S4.5.3.3(b) for automatic belts. S4.5.3.3(b) requires a warning system only for the driver's position.

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

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

March 7, 1985

RE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 - Request for Interpretation

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Paragraphs 4.1.2.1(c)(2) and 4.1.2.2(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 requires a seat belt warning system which conforms to paragraph 7.3 at each front outboard seating position.

Paragraph 7.3 requires that a seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position shall be equipped with a warning system and conditions activation of the audible signal to use of the driver's belt.

We request confirmation that the requirements of S.4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S.4.1.2.2(d) are met by providing a warning system conforming to S.7.3 at the driver's seating position only.

Thank you.

Very truly yours, Richard H. Lucki U.S. Factory Representative PEUGEOT

USTR/RHL/jg/070

ID: 1985-03.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

This responds to your two letters to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. We apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.

Your December 6, 1984 letter asked about paragraph S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217 and the ellipsoid used to measure the unobstructed opening of a pushout window or other emergency exit. To simplify matters, I will refer to the illustration you attached with your letter. You asked whether you may rotate the ellipsoid in such a way that axis C-D may be horizontal instead of axis A-B.

By way of background information, I would like to explain that NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letters.

Paragraph S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217 states that:

After the release mechanism has been operated, each push-out window or other emergency exit not required by S5.2.3 shall...be manually extendable by a single occupant to a position that provides an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches.

Since the language of section S5.4.1 requires only that "a major axis" of the ellipsoid to be horizontal when the ellipsoid is passed through the emergency exit, you are not prohibited from positioning the ellipsoid with only a single major axis, such as C-D, horizontal. If there is unobstructed access of the ellipsoid through the opening, with major axis C-D horizontal, then the emergency exit meets the requirement of S5.4.1 as that section is written.

Even if the design of the exit would not violate S5.4.1, however, we urge you to ensure that the design would not complicate efforts of the passengers to use the emergency exit. It appears that the intent of the agency was for the plane generated by the major axes to be horizontal when the ellipsoid is passed through the exit. Otherwise, since a major axis of the ellipsoid will at all times be horizontal, no matter how the ellipsoid is passed, the benefit of such a requirement would be reduced. Further, the opening to the emergency exit could be significantly reduced when the only horizontal major axis is C-D.

The agency issued an opinion in April 1977, stating that S5.4.1 and S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 require the long side of a rectangular roof exit to be parallel to the center line or the side wall of a bus. That opinion interpreted S5.4.1 as requiring the ellipsoid to be passed through the exit with more than one of its major axes horizontal. That interpretation relied on the intent of the standard, but not the language of S5.4.1.

This letter reconsiders the 1977 opinion and holds that the language of S5.4.1 requires only one major axis of the ellipsoid to be horizontal.

The two questions in your December 13, 1984 letter dealt with an outside release mechanism for pushout rear emergency windows. In a telephone call to this office on February 25, 1985, you said that the rear emergency pushout windows would be on school buses and buses other than school buses. You also asked whether an outside release mechanism may be installed on rear emergency doors on buses other than school buses.

Your first question was whether the following interpretation was correct:

FMVSS 217 does not require emergency exits to have outside release mechanisms, except for school bus emergency doors. Therefore, if we provide an outside handle to operate a pushout rear emergency window, it does not have to meet any force level or type of motion requirements.

You are correct that Standard No. 217 does not require emergency exits on school buses to have outside release mechanisms, with the exception in S5.3.3 for school bus emergency doors. We assume that there are release mechanisms for the pushout rear emergency windows located within the bus which meet all applicable requirements of Standard No. 217. If the emergency exit meets all applicable requirements of the standard, an outside release mechanism for a pushout rear emergency window, that is provided in addition to the release mechanisms required by the standard need not meet any force application and type of motion requirements.

Your second question was whether the outside handle on the pushout rear emergency window could be equipped with a key operated mechanism that disengages the handle from outside the bus for security purposes. The handle, even when locked from the outside, does not ever prevent operation of the window's release mechanisms from inside the bus. The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 217 does not prohibit the type of handle you described when all applicable requirements of the standard can be met.

Our answers given above apply to outside release mechanisms on pushout rear emergency windows on school buses and buses other than school buses.

An outside release mechanism on rear emergency doors on buses other than school buses would likewise not have to meet any force application and type of motion requirements, if the emergency door meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 217. The outside release mechanism can be equipped with the locking device you described, provided that Standard No. 217's requirements are met.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 49 CPR Part 517.217 Bus Window Retention and Release

Dear Mr. Berndt:

For purposes of FMVSS 217 the unobstructed opening a pushout window or other emergency exit, not required by S 5.2.3, must provide is defined as follows:

"...an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches."

When applying this requirement to a side pushout window with an adjacent seat, as shown in Figure 1 attached, we initially interpreted this requirement to mean the major axis A-B which is parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle as the major axis that must be kept horizontal. This interpretation required placing of the adjacent seat so that a 20 inch horizontal opening was maintained at the height the ellipsoid passed out the opening.

In certain body/capacity combinations, it requires uneven spacing of the seats to provide this clearance at pushout window locations required in certain states. Upon restudying the requirements, we have realized that the requirement is for a major axis to remain horizontal at all times. Since the ellipsoid is generated by rotating an ellipse about its minor axis, it is a circle in the top or bottom plan view and, therefore, has a multitude of major axes including A-B, C-D, E-F, as shown in the top view of Figure 1. Based on this, it is allowable to rotate the ellipsoid about axis C-D as shown in the side view of Figure 2 as long as axis C-D is kept horizontal at all times.

We feel rotating the ellipsoid about any major axis is allowed by the standard's wording as long as a major axis is kept horizontal, and that lt meets the intent of the standard and does not compromise safety in any way. We seek your confirmation of this interpretation as it will permit us to better meet our customer's needs by providing more flexibility in positioning seats adjacent to pushout windows.

Thank you for your consideration of this request and your early reply.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

dh/2057 Attachment

c: FMVSS 217 Correspondence File Jim Moorman David Carter

"INSERT GRAPHIC"

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 49 CFR Part 571.217 Bus Window Retention and Release

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The purpose of this letter is to make a correction in our December 6, 1984 letter discussing unobstructed opening requirements of FMVSS 217 and to request other interpretations regarding this standard. First, the reference in our December 6 letter should have been to 49 CFR Part 571.217 instead of 517.217. Please make this correction and accept our apology for any confusion this error may have caused.

Second, we request your confirmation of two interpretations regarding pushout rear window release mechanisms as follows:

1. FMVSS 217 does not require emergency exits to have outside release mechanisms, except for school bus emergency doors. Therefore, if we provide an outside handle to operate a pushout rear emergency window, it does not have to meet any force level or type of motion requirements.

2. Since an outside handle is not required on a pushout rear emergency window, we could provide a handle, with a key operated mechanism that allows the outside handle to be engaged or disengaged with the pushout window release mechanisms. Disengagement of the outside handle allows locking of the bus for security purposes but does not ever prevent operation of the release mechanism from inside the bus. We feel such a device therefore, meets the letter and intent of FMVSS 217.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Very truly yours, Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

fvc c: FMVSS 217 Correspondence File Jim Moorman David Carter

ID: 1985-03.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Corporal Frank Browne

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1985, concerning Federal regulations on safety belts in your patrol vehicles. You specifically asked about regulations affecting either the removal of the shoulder belt portion of a lap-shoulder belt system or the replacement of lap-shoulder belt systems with lap belt only systems. I hope that the following discussion answers your questions.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to all new motor vehicles sold in the United States. We have issued Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which requires the installation of crash protection systems, such as safety belts, in the front and rear seats of motor vehicles. We have also issued Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets performance requirements for safety belts used in motor vehicles. A copy of each standard is enclosed for your reference. As you know, each new motor vehicle sold to your Department must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including Standards Nos. 208 and 209.

The alteration of a safety belt system in a used vehicle is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. A copy of that section of the Act is enclosed. That section provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, 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 motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Thus, none of those commercial businesses could alter or replace the safety belts in your vehicles, if by doing so they would "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle or the safety belt system with Standard Nos. 208 and 209. Removal of a portion of a belt system or the substitution of a lap belt for a lap-shoulder belt would have that effect. Note that Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Therefore, your Department can remove or alter your safety belts in any manner without violating Federal law. Such removals or alterations could be affected by State law.

I urge you to carefully consider the effects of altering or removing safety belts, even though Federal law would not prohibit you from making such modifications yourself. Our accident and test data show that lap-shoulder belts are very effective in reducing deaths and injuries in vehicle crashes. Particularly since your officers face the possibility of pursuit situations, we believe that it is important that they have safety belt systems that will effectively protect them in a crash.

I hope this information is of assistance. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

CITY OF SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA

OCC-0924

July 5, 1985

Frank Browne Santa Ana Police Department

Dear Sirs,

We would appreciate receiving any information including laws, codes and provisions regarding passenger safety belts in our patrol units.

Our new units, as with all new vehicles, are equipped with lap and shoulder harnesses. We are interested in what the Federal codes states as to the possibility of removing either only the shoulder harness leaving the lap belt or removing the entire safety belt assembly and installing only a lap belt. In addition, we would also be interested in the laws regarding safety belts for the rear seats. If possible, we would appreciate a copy of the laws regarding safety belts.

Cpl. Frank Browne Supervisor- Property Services