ID: 1984-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bob D. Troxel -- Vice President and General Manager, J.F. Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys (RVI Inc.)

TEXT:

Mr. Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager J. F. Enterprises, Inc. Box 583 Wakarusa, Indiana 46573

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, your company manufactures innerspring mattresses, some of which are used in motor vehicles. You noted that the mattress covers on those mattresses for use in motor vehicles must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, and that you had interpreted the mattress cover to consist only of the covering applied over the finished mattress. Hence, under your interpretation, Standard No. 302 would not apply to the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. However, you were told by several ticking manufacturers that a recent decision by this agency stated that ticking used on mattresses for use in motor vehicles must also satisfy the flammability requirements of the standard. It is correct that the ticking must satisfy Standard No. 302's flammability requirements.

The mattress cover has been interpreted by this agency to include both a covering put over a finished mattress and the permanent mattress ticking since Standard No. 302 became effective. Hence, the information that this was a recent decision by this agency is incorrect. For your information, I have enclosed a 1973 letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute setting forth this interpretation over ten years ago.

Should you have any other questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302 to your products, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure - 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys omitted here.

December 7, 1983

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Our company is a manufacturer of innerspring mattresses. A small percentage of our production goes to the Recreational Vehicle Industry. Of this portion of our business a portion goes into Motorized Vehicles (Mini Homes, Motor Homes, etc.).

I am told that you may be able to clarify an item pertaining to how these mattresses are affected by the FMVSS 302 Flammibility Standard. We have been informed that the DOC FF 4-72 Standard that all of our mattresses are manufactured under applies and FMVSS 302 applies only to mattress "covers". The term "cover" we understand applies to a covering applied over the finished mattress and not the ticking used as the outside of the mattress.

I have recently been "told" by several manufacturers of "ticking" that a recent decision has been made that the ticking must meet FMVSS 302 when the finished product is used in a Motorized Vehicle.

I am asking your help in clarifying this question of the FMVSS 302 as it applies to an innerspring (or poly) mattress used in a Motorized Recreational Vehicle.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager

BDT:csy

ID: 1985-03.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Warren F.B. Lindsley, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/22/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Leo Kagan

TEXT:

Warren F. B. Lindsley, Esq. Camel Square Suite 200E 4350 East Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 85018

This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of my staff, with reference to the center high-mounted stop lamp, in which you have asked "whether a light which pulsates a few times and then assumes a steady state meets the requirements of the code."

As Mr. Vinson explained to you, a center high-mounted stop lamp installed as original equipment on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1986, must be steady-burning in use, but is permitted to flash automatically with the hazard warning system. As of September 1, 1986, original equipment lamps must only be activated upon application of the service brakes, and can only be steady-burning. A "light that pulsates a few times then assumes a steady state" would not fulfill this requirement.

The standard does not cover aftermarket equipment for vehicles not originally manufactured with the center high-mounted stop lamp. For this application, the law of each State where a retrofitted car would be operated would determine the legality of a pulsating/steady state lamp. The agency, of course, would prefer that aftermarket equipment conform as closely as possible to original vehicle equipment specifications. We believe that standardization of rear signals minimizes the possibility of creating confusion to following drivers in situations where immediate action is essential to avoid a rear end collision.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

(See 8/22/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Leo Kagan)

July 3, 1985

ATTN: Attorney Taylor Vincent

Re: High Mounted Rear Brake Light Title 49 Revised October 1, 1984 Pages 243-244

Dear Mr. Vincent:

I appreciated talking with you recently about the above subject wherein you told me that the code required, after September 1, 1986, a steady state light in the rear of the car, not a flashing light.

My clients have asked me to inquire of you whether a light which pulsates a few times and then assumes a steady state meets the requirements of the code.

It is their position that initial short pulsating or flashing of the light followed by a steady state condition would alert the driver of a following vehicle quicker than a constant steady state condition.

Since an answer to this question is important to my clients, and has a bearing on their financial investment in the development of such a light, I would appreciate receiving your comments in the near future.

Very truly yours,

Warren F. B. Lindsley Patent Attorney

WFBL/mc

Mr. Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division Amco Manufacturing Corporation 7425 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

ID: aiam5363

"Dear Mr. Fabrycky: This responds to your letter about an aftermarke product you wish to manufacture. The product is a child safety seat buckle shield, which is intended to prevent a child from opening the buckle on a child restraint system. You state that your device would cover the buckle and prevent the child from gaining access to the pushbutton of a child seat buckle. To depress the pushbutton, the device requires that a latch be actuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle. You indicated that the device requires 'manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simultaneously.' Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have reservations about devices that interfere with the unbuckling of the seats. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and answers the questions in your letter about the effect of our regulations on your product. Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Safety Standard No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems,' which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard 213 before selling the product. Additionally, you are not required to get 'approval' from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self- certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, there are several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said in a rule on the force level necessary to operate child restraint buckles: The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985) It appears that your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency. In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In determining the effect of a buckle shield on a child seat's compliance with Standard 213, NHTSA would evaluate the performance of the seat with the buckle shield installed. Standard 213 specifies several elements of design with which a child restraint system is unlikely to comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. That section also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. Your device will not allow the buckle to release when the force is applied because it will cover the buckle and require force to be applied 'in many directions simultaneously.' Your device would thus cause the child restraint to no longer comply with that requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard 213 requires each material used in a child restraint system to comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.' If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device. The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restraint owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of their child restraints. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5650

"Dear Mr. Cuvala: This responds to your letter of September 10, 1995 concerning 'conference and display vehicles' you have been asked to manufacture for a client. The vehicles used are cargo vans with a gross vehicle weight rating of 9200 pounds. You convert the cargo area of the van to a product display and conference area. Your letter contained an illustration of the vehicle, indicating an L-shaped seating area behind the driver and front passenger seats. Your letter states that this area is not intended for transport of people. You asked whether such a vehicle must comply with 'seating and occupant orientation and restraint directives.' As explained below, the seats in such a vehicle would have to comply with federal standards on seats and seat belts if the modification is done prior to the first retail sale of the vehicle. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards prior to their sale or import. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Conversion Prior to Sale Your letter does not state whether the conversion of the cargo area of these vehicles is done before or after the first retail sale of the vehicles. Prior to the first retail sale of a vehicle, the vehicle is considered to be 'new.' If the conversion is done prior to the first retail sale, your company would be considered an 'alterer' under our regulations. A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards (49 CFR 567.7). The seats in a new vehicle must comply with federal regulations if they are 'designated seating positions.' A 'designated seating position' is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. While you indicate that the vehicles are not intended to transport people except in the front seats, the design of the seating area is similar to other vehicle seats. Therefore, it appears from their design that these seats are likely to be used and are therefore designated seating positions. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards which could be relevant to seats in these vehicles: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207), Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain limited exceptions not relevant to your conversion, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Standard No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation to minimize the possibility of their failure in a crash. Standard No. 207 does not require a specific orientation for seats. However, some of the requirements are different for side- and rear-facing seats like those illustrated in your attachment. Standard No. 208 specifies seat belt requirements for seating positions in vehicles. For the seats in the rear of your vehicles, Standard No. 208 would require lap belts at each designated seating position. Standard No. 210 specifies performance requirements for seat belt anchorages. Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the interior of motor vehicles. Standard No. 302 would affect not only the seats, but also installation of other materials in these vehicles. Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, the manufacturer is required to certify that the seat belts comply with Standard No. 209. If you do not manufacture the seat belts yourself, you should install only belts certified by their manufacturer. This is true regardless of whether the conversion occurs before or after the first sale of the vehicle. Conversion After Sale If the conversion is done on a used motor vehicle, you do not have to certify that the vehicle complies with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302. However, 49 USC 30122 provides, in pertinent part: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative, any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. . . . Thus, you could not convert these vehicles if the conversion affected a device or element of design, installed prior to sale, so as to cause the vehicles to no longer comply with any of the safety standards. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4240

Dear Senator Stevens: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Bridge Ernst, regarding our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.; In her letter to you, Ms. Ernst enclosed materials issued by th National Coalition for Seat Belts on School Buses which explained why the Coalition believes safety belts should be required by Federal law on all school buses. You asked us to discuss the main counter-arguments against such a requirement, and asked also whether any Federal legislation has been introduced recently to increase the safety requirement on school buses. I am pleased to respond.; I would like to begin with some background information on our schoo bus regulations. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of motor vehicle safety standards to improve school bus safety. Our school bus safety standards apply to various aspects of vehicle performance, including school bus windows and windshields, emergency exits, fuel systems and passenger seating and crash protection.; The safety belt issue your constituent raises involves the safet standard we issued for school bus passenger crash protection, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. Standard No. 222 requires that large school buses provide passenger crash protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of the school bus be improved with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area during an accident. They ensure that a system of crash protection is provided to passengers independent of their actions to use safety belts. Standard No. 222 requires safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since belts are needed on those vehicles to provide adequate crash protection.; The information from the Coalition that Ms. Ernst enclosed in he letter to you states that safety belts are needed on all school buses to protect children and keep them within their seating compartment in the event of a collision or rollover. We believe that effective passenger crash protection and containment is already provided by compartmentalization and that it would be inappropriate to issue a Federal mandate for safety belts on all school buses. While the effects of compartmentalization are expected to be greater in crashes involving front or rear impacts, the standard also has potential in side impacts and rollovers by minimizing the 'hostility' of the crash environment and by limiting the range of movement of an occupant in those two types of crashes.; For your information, I have enclosed a DOT report, 'Seat Belts i School Buses' (June 1985), which provides a thorough discussion of the safety belt issues raised by your constituent. As explained in the report, school buses in this country have compiled an excellent safety record. In addition to meeting compartmentalization requirements, large school buses incorporate more safety by virtue of their greater mass, higher seating height and high visibility to other motorists. Thus, the need for safety belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities is not the same as that for other vehicles, such as passenger cars. Because the safety record of large school buses is very good, we must conclude that a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts is not justified at this time.; The Coalition's material enclosed by Ms. Ernst included a statemen indicating that NHTSA 'supports local district seat belt programs.' NHTSA permits the voluntary installation of safety belts for passengers on large school buses if the purchaser wishes to have belts installed. We believe that such a decision should be made by individual schools and school districts that have made a reasoned assessment of their particular pupil transportation needs. However, because there are many effective ways to improve pupil transportation safety, such as improving driver training and school bus maintenance programs, it would be inappropriate for us to endorse local district programs for safety belts on school buses. Therefore, for purposes of clarification, we neither support nor discourage school districts' decisions to install safety belts on their large school buses.; You asked about any Federal legislation that had been recentl introduced to increase the safety of school buses. The Administration has not proposed any legislation affecting school buses. However, two bills were introduced in the 99th Congress concerning school buses. H.R. 3129 contained a provision calling for a school bus safety study to determine the measures most effective in protecting the safety of school children. H.R. 749 proposed incentive grants to the States encouraging the adoption and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in school buses. Neither H.R. 3129 nor H.R. 749 was enacted.; In addition, NHTSA has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amen Standard No. 222 by setting performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed in large school buses. If adopted, this rule would require safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses to meet Federal safety belt standards for strength and proper installation.; We are evaluating the comments submitted on our proposal and a fina decision on the rulemaking action is expected in the near future.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we ca be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4435

"Dear Ms. Byron: Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of you 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";

ID: aiam4565

"Dear Mr. Ditlow: This responds to your most recent letter to m concerning retrofitting of cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. In my November 1, 1988 letter to you, I explained that we have sought the voluntary cooperation of manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them and that the vehicle manufacturers have responded positively to our efforts. I also explained that the fact that retofit kits are not available for all model lines produced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy to encourage the manufacturers to make such retrofit kits available. In a November 7, 1988 letter, you asserted that my November 1 letter 'reflects such callous disregard and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers.' You stated that you would welcome a 'substantive response' to this letter. I am happy to be able to give you such a response. Let me begin by emphasizing that the lap belts in the rear seat of most vehicles on the road today are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on our analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode in a vehicle, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These facts illustrate that the fastest and most effective way to save the greatest number of lives and prevent the greatest number of injuries is to convince the public to use the safety belts, including the rear seat lap belts, that are in their vehicles every time they ride in those vehicles. Because of these facts, I do not accept your assertion that GM's policy of not providing rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits for a few of their past models will 'kill people.' To the extent that reckless assertions like this tell the public that they should not wear their rear seat lap belts, it is unfortunate that you have chosen to divert attention away from the overriding issue of convincing the public to use their safety belts, and instead chosen to mislead the public about the quality of their safety belts. Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this reason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. Additionally, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. As you may know, every domestic manufacturer and many foreign manufacturers now offer retrofit kits for many of their vehicle models. You objected to General Motors' (GM) statement in its Information Bulletin that retrofit kits are not offered for its 1978-88 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Buick Regal, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, or Pontiac Grand Prix, 'because GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered by the lap belt alone.' You asserted that since Leonard Evans, a GM employee, has concluded that lap/shoulder belts are significantly more effective than lap belts and since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, there is no 'possible scientific basis' for GM's conclusion. NHTSA's proposal reflects our tentative conclusion that rear seat lap/shoulder belts that are designed and installed at the factory have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone for vehicles in general. However, any particular vehicle model's floor pan design, seat stiffness, and seat design (as it relates to occupant posture) can affect the possibility of an occupant submarining under a lap/shoulder belt system in a crash. During the design and production of the vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer can take these factors into account to minimize the likelihood of such submarining and its associated consequences. However, this is emphatically not true for vehicles that were not originally engineered and designed to use rear seat lap/shoulder belts as original equipment. With respect to these vehicles, the effectiveness of a retrofitted rear seat lap and shoulder safety belt system may well depend on the belt system's compatability with the vehicle and the installation of the belt system. The suitability of a particular vehicle for retrofitting is therefore a complex question. It is our view that the judgment as to whether a retrofit lap/shoulder belt system should be installed in a particular vehicle is best made by a vehicle manufacturer, which is most familiar with the detailed seat and structural design and crash performance of the car. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 2743y

Mr. W. C. Glasscock
Sun-Cool & Co.
2201 North Fifth Street
Springfield, Illinois 62702

Dear Mr. Glasscock:

This responds to your letter concerning the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows. According to your letter, you have been involved in the window tinting business for many years but only recently became aware of the fact that Federal law prohibits businesses from adding tinting film to motor vehicle windows if it reduces the level of light transmittance below that required by the Federal standard. You expressed concern that there appears to be a conflict between Federal and state law in this area and that there has been a lack of enforcement of the Federal requirement.

We are pleased that you have become aware of the Federal requirement in this area and that you are apparently now complying with it. As you may have heard, we have brought suit against six tint businesses in Florida. Those cases are pending in Federal court. We also plan to take appropriate steps to enforce the Federal requirement in other parts of the nation.

I will now discuss the relationship between Federal and state law in this area. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not "render inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows "inoperative" within the meaning of Standard 205.

You stated that state laws differ from the Federal law, citing as an example an Illinois law which, according to your letter, allows tinting on the rear and sides of vehicles as long as the vehicle's owner has a letter from a physician licensed to practice in the state of Illinois that explains the medical basis for the need.

The "render inoperative" provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which after market tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

However, no state has the authority to grant any exemptions from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of state law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:ll/9/90

ID: 2905yy

Ms. Jessie M. Flautt
4405 Lafayette Street
Bellaire, TX 77401

Dear Ms. Flautt

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle.

You explained that you are under five feet, two inches and legally blind in one eye. You further explained that, due to the increased size of headrests in recent years, you are unable to locate a 1991 automobile which does not have headrests which impede your field of vision. You wish to arrange to have the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile reduced. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulation will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, 108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the headrest on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the headrest to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle. Many manufacturers are currently installing headrests in vehicles which exceed the minimum dimensions required by FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. I urge you not to have your headrest reduced below these dimensions if it is not necessary for your field of view.

If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA, 202 d:3/26/9l

ID: 2969yy

Ms. Jessie M. Flautt
4405 Lafayette Street
Bellaire, TX 77401

Dear Ms. Flautt

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle.

You explained that you are under five feet, two inches and legally blind in one eye. You further explained that, due to the increased size of headrests in recent years, you are unable to locate a 1991 automobile which does not have headrests which impede your field of vision. You wish to arrange to have the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile reduced. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulation will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, 108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the headrest on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the headrest to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle. Many manufacturers are currently installing headrests in vehicles which exceed the minimum dimensions required by FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. I urge you not to have your headrest reduced below these dimensions if it is not necessary for your field of view.

If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA, 202 d:3/26/9l