ID: 1983-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Duane W. Duvall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Duvall:

We have received your letter of October 27, 1943, informing us of your plans to provide a front-end replacement kit for 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas. You have asked whether incorporating a 1973 bumper and mounting hardware will meet safety regulations. You have also asked for a copy of front lighting requirements, and for information on how you may certify your kit for national distribution.

As you have not provided us with a description of all equipment items in the kit, I can offer only general guidance. There are very few requirements for fabricators of kits intended to modify used vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are of two types: those that apply to vehicle systems, and those that apply to individual equipment items. The so-called "bumper standard" is an example of a systems standard. Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, which applied to passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1972, and Sept. 1, 1978, did not directly apply to the bumper itself but established a level of damage resistance to be met by the vehicle in low-speed frontal impacts.

On the other hand, the vehicle lighting standard applies to both lighting systems and replacement lighting equipment. The primary statutory obligation of a kit supplier lies in this area--to determine if any item of equipment in the kit is covered by an equipment standard, and then to insure that the item meets the standard. For example, Standard No. 104, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, required 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas to be equipped with sealed beam headlamps. Here unsealed European headlamps to be furnished as part of the kit, that sale would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Other equipment standards cover brake hoses, tires, brake fluids, glazing, and seat belts. Usually the manufacturer of equipment items covered by standards will certify compliance with Federal requirements by marking them with the symbol "DOT". In that event, no recertification by the kit supplier is required. A further important obligation of a kit supplier is to insure that safety-related defects are absent, or do not develop, in any motor vehicle equipment that he fabricates. If such occur, he is required to notify purchasers and remedy the defects.

There is also a provision of the Safety Act that has some relevance to your operation. Although a vehicle owner may modify his car in any manner he chooses, a restriction is established on modifications by others. That restriction is that "no device or element of design" added to a vehicle enabling it to comply with a safety standard shall be "rendered inoperative in whole or in part." Thus, were a repair shop to remove the Vega front end and replace it with yours, the shop must insure that the Vega upon reassembly remains in compliance with the standards that originally applied to it. Although the kit supplier is not required under the Safety Act to insure that the Vega continues to comply with Standard No. 215, such insurance obviously assists the modifier in meeting its Federal responsibilities, and your incorporation of a 1973 bumper and attachments is helpful. The modified Vega must also continue to meet Federal lighting requirements, such as being equipped with front side marker lamps, and having no cover or other object over the headlamps when they are in use.

To assist you, I enclose copies of Standards Nos. 108 and 215 as they were in effect on October 1, 1977, the requirements were substantially the same for the other years in which you are interested. There is no charge and I am returning your check. If you have further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

October 27, 1983 Office of Chief Council 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

To Whom it May Concern:

A local agency referred me to this administration for some information that I need. Please send the proper pamphlets or publications.

I am designing a fiberglass front-end replacement kit for Chevrolet Vegas, years 1971-77. The rear will be unchanged, I plan to incorporate a 1973 bumper and mounting hardware, will this meet safety regulations?

I also need front exterior lighting regulations, and the procedure to certify this kit for national distribution.

Your prompt response is sincerely appreciated. I am enclosing $2 for any postage or duplication fees.

Thanks, Original signed by Duane W. Duvall (206) 766-6845 901 North Beach Rd.

Bow, VA 98232

ID: 1983-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: TWI Inc. -- Bill Perzinsky, President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Capt. Perzinsky:

This is in reply to Your letter of October 14, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of my staff regarding your F-S-700 A flasher. The device is essentially a slender bar of lights mounted on the rear panel shelf of a passenger car. The left and right sides blink to indicate turns in the appropriate direction. The entire bar lights up when the brake pedal is applied. You ask for our "approval" of this device.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting forbids the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Stop lamps are required by the standard. They must be red. They must go on when the brake pedal is applied. The stop signal put out by the F-S-700 flasher is amber, not red. Therefore, an amber signal coming on at the same time as a red one would impair the effectiveness of the red stop lamp by creating confusion.

The Federal lighting standard allows either amber or red turn signal lamps. There is obviously a potential for confusion if your amber light device is on a vehicle whose turn signals are red. But an even greater problem with interior-mounted lamps, whatever their color, is the reflection that they cause in the rear glass, particularly when it's raining or snowing, interfering with the rear vision of the vehicle's driver.

For the reasons given above the F-S-700 A flasher causes us some concern. Further, you should investigate whether the laws of the jurisdiction where you wish to sell this device will permit its installation and use.

Sincerely,

Oct. 14th, 1983

Dear Mr. Vinson:

We are sending you a flyer of our new product. F-S-700 A 4 star flasher.Would like to know if this type of light would meet standard safety.I would like to send you a sample of this light, as you would be amazed what this light can save lot of lifes and accidents.

I have one installed in my car, every one that see me with it wants on his car. I can't sell them until I get approval from Highway Traffic Safety. Please Let me hear from you at your earlest convenient time, thank you. If you need a sample let me know.

2. Flyers enclosed

Sincerely,

Capt. Bill Perinszy President TWI INC.

ID: 1983-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 12 1983

NOA-30 Mr. Shizuo Suzuki Nissan Research & Development, Inc. 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 707 P.O. Box 57105 Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This responds to your letter of September 22, 1983, regarding the applicability of Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, to a power window switch separated from and located in front of a conventional armrest. Additionally, you ask for clarification of the definition of an "armrest" under paragraph S3.5 of the standard.

Upon review of your sketches of the power window switch and conventional armrest, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that this switch does not come within the scope of the meaning of the term "armrest." The design and location of the conventional armrest would apparently preclude uyse of the structure housing the switch as an armrest. Therefore, the power window switch is not subject to the requirements of S3.5 of Standard No. 201.

In support of your contention that S3.5 does not apply to the power window switch, you refer to an oral interpretation of 1976 concerning assist straps and armrests. Please note that this agency is not bound by any oral interpretations as to the requirements of Federal safety standards. Although agreeing with Nissan's conclusion that Standard No. 201 is not applicable to the diagrammed power window switch, this agency did not base its determination on the stated oral interpretation of 1976.

Further, you ask for a clarification of the definition of an "armrest." The term "armrest" is not defined under Standard No. 201. The basic meaning of "armrest" in Webster's New Third International Dictionary is "a support for the arm." To define this term further would only serve to limit this agency's ability to respond adequately under Standard No. 201 to future innovations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC. Washington, DC 20037 September 22, 1983 Ref: W-024-S Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing on behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. to request an interpretation concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact" (49 CFR Part 571).

Nissan's question is whether or not the requirements of S 3.5 question of MVSS 201 are applicable to the power window switch which is located in front of a conventional arm rest as shown below:

"INSERT"

Furthermore, it would be most helpful if you could clarify the definition of an "Arm Rest."

The Engineering Staff of Nissan think that the power window switch does not need to meet the requirements of MVSS 201 for the following reasons:

* The power window switch cannot be used as a conventional arm rest. Moreover, there is a conventional arm rest.

* When Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. asked for an oral interpretation in 1976, concerning whether the assist strap shown below had to meet the requirements of MVSS 201, NHTSA replied as follows:

* If the assist strap is integrated with the arm rest, the assist strap must meet the requirements of S 3.5 of MVSS 201.

* However, if the assist strap is separated from the arm rest, and even if both parts are combined when installed on a door, that assist strap does not need to meet the requirements of S 3.5 of MVSS 201.

"INSERT"

Thank you for your prompt reply in interpreting this matter for me.

Very truly yours,

Shizuo Suzuki Washington Representative Safety

SS:kms

cc: Mr. Steve Oesch Chief Counsel Office

ID: 1983-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of New Jersey Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/18/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Champion Home Builders Co. (Std. 217)

TEXT:

Mr. Vincent L. Lobascio Senior Investigator, Motor Carriers State of New Jersey Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Inspection Box 10009 Newark, New Jersey 07101

Dear Mr. Lobascio:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, in which you questioned a prior interpretation of Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR S 571.217). You noted that you disagree with an August 18, 1983 interpretation addressed to Champion Home Builders, which stated that doors may be considered as emergency exits for the purposes of section S5.2.1, provided that those doors meet the requirements applicable to emergency exits. I have enclosed a copy of this interpretation for your information.

You stated in your letter that you agree that doors may be counted as emergency exits, but only if the requirements of S5.2.1.1 are met. In other words, the only time doors can be counted as emergency exits in your opinion is when a bus has at least one side door for every three designated seating positions. That statement reflects an incorrect interpretation of the requirements of section S5.2.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 217 sets forth requirements for the provision of emergency exits in buses. Section S5.2.1 contains the requirements applicable to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds. This is the group of vehicles your letter addresses. Section S5.2.1 requires that all buses provide side exits and at least one rear exit (a roof exit may be substituted for the rear exit). S5.2.1 places no limit on the types of openings that may be used as exits. As noted in my August 18 interpretation, the agency has never stated that doors could not be counted as side exits, provided that they met all other requirements applicable to emergency exits. Section S5.2.1.1 allows, as an alternative to complying with the requirements for side exits and a rear exit, the exclusive use of side doors as emergency exits. Under section S5.2.1.1, buses may be equipped with one side door for every three designated seating positions. This section in no way limits the availability of side doors as side exits under section S5.2.1; it merely adds a special case for buses not equipped with a rear exit or roof exit.

You went on to state your opinion that a particular manufacturer's bus does not comply with the requirements of section S5.2, because the door designated as an emergency exit does not satisfy the requirements applicable to emergency exits. I am sure that you understand it is impossible for this agency to determine, based on photographs and a description of the bus, whether a bus certified as complying with those requirements in fact does not comply. Our enforcement personnel will specifically check one of these buses to ensure that they do comply with Standard No. 217.

I thank you for your efforts to ensure the safety of bus passengers, and hope that you will contact us again if you believe that some model of bus fails to comply with the requirements of a Federal standard. The cooperation of State officials is essential to this agency's efforts to improve safety on the public roads.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enc. 8/18/83 letter from Frank Berndt to John G. Sims (omitted here).

September 28, 1983

Mr. Stephen Kratzke Office of Chief Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

This letter follows recent conversation with you and relates to the application and intent of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 regarding bus window retention and release. The objective of this correspondence is to bring about a clear interpretation of the subject standard which my agency, Motor Carrier Inspection of the New Jersey Department of Transportation, is committed to enforce.

It is understood that Arcola Bus Sales of East 15 Pleasant Avenue, Paramus, New Jersey 07652 has received an opinion from you which states that the front entrance door (s) can be included in meeting the requirements of S5.2. Please be reminded that the subject vehicles are all over 10,000 lbs. GVWR and accordingly all FMVSS-217 requirements apply except for S5.2.2, the latter section applicable to buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.

In my conversation with you on September 22, 1983, you stated that FMVSS-217 does not exclude doors with respect to meeting the emergency exit requirements of S5.2 and you further stated that no area of the requirements excludes doors on vehicles over 10,000 lbs. GVWR. I pointed out that I agreed with you that doors could be included, but that the requirements of S5.2.1.1 must be met, said requirement very clearly stating that a bus having a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. may satisfy the unobstructed opening requirements by providing at least one side door for each three passenger seating positions in the vehicle. The vehicles in question do not provide such an arrangement, but merely have one push-out window on each side, plus a right front entrance door of the "scissor type" having a lever assembly actuated by the driver and a "sedan type" door on the driver's side. The vehicles all have a GVWR of 11,000 lbs. or over. (Please refer to enclosed photographs showing the type vehicle and doors, etc.).

The two push-out windows on the subject vehicles (one on each side) measure 28 1/4" x 22 1/2", giving a total opening of 635.6 sq. in. Accountable area cannot exceed 536 sq. in. Seating ranges from 19 to 21 (or over), not including driver. S5.2 states designated seating positions". It does not state that the driver's seat is not a designated seating position). Computations with respect to 19 ro 20 seats indicate a 40% requirement for each side as being 509.20 sq. in. and 536 sq. in. respectively. Since no emergency exit can be credited for more than 536 sq. in. the subject vehicle requires more than the one emergency exit on each side, if seating is over 20.

The following sections of FMVSS-217 are respectfully brought to your attention along with the matters in dispute:

S5.2.1.1 as per Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 173-Wed., Sept. 6, 1972 this section allows for doors to satisfy the requirements if at least one side door for each three passenger seating position is provided. This section does not state that a front entrance door, not adjacent to any seat will meet the requirements, this includes the driver's sedan type door. The section is explicit in it's intent and wording and is not meant for a bus of the subject type.

S5.2.2 applies to buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less and allows doors (c) which may meet the unobstructed opening requirements of S5.2. The subject vehicles are all over 10,000 lbs. GVWR.

S5.3.1 relates to release mechanisms and areas of their locations. The front entrance door on subject vehicles have a lever actuated (by driver) mechanism and it is felt that FMVSS-217 is not intended to include such a mechanism as a release mechanism especially since any damage to same could render such mechanism inoperable and thus not allow the door to be readily opened for use as an emergency exit.

S5.3.2 relates to the window retention test and force applications (low and high force applications) allowing for the manual release of the exit by a single occupant and states the "push-out motion" of an emergency exit as being outward and perpendicular to the exit surface. The doors on the subject vehicle do not meet this requirement.

S5.4 states very explicitly the requirement regarding the emergency exit extension. This section clearly states that after the actuation of a release mechanism (S6) and before and after the retention test required (S5.1) and using the reach distances and force level factors stated (S5.3.2), the push-out window, or other emergency exit shall be manually extendable by a single occupant. The front entrance door, it is felt, does not meet this requirement. Further the requirements of S5.5.2 are not met by the front entrance door (s) in that markings are required (legible from stipulated areas). The aisle leading to the door is not occupied by passengers.

In summation, the following is presented for your review:

In the Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 173, Wednesday, Sept. 6, 1972, International Harvester requested and was granted an exemption from requirements of S5.2.1 for its Stageway Coach Conversion because that vehicle provided at least one door for each three passenger spaces in the vehicle. Section S5.2.1 was amended to provide that buses having a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. may alternatively meet the unobstructed openings requirement by providing at least one door for each three passenger spaces provided. This was done because the vehicles in question are equipped with transverse seats having a door at each seat location. This is not the case in a bus. Nothing in the Federal Register refers to buses, unless the same requirement is not applicable to doors.

Furthermore, it is questionable whether a front entrance door can be readily opened in an emergency since there are other mechanisms involved which may prevent a passenger from doing so, thus defeating the intent of S5.3.1 and S5.3.2. In addition the front entrance door in the case in question, has not been proven to meet the requirements of S5.4 and S5.1, relative to emergency exit extension and retention test. S5.3.2 clearly explains the manual release of an emergency exit by a single occupant and that the emergency exit shall open outward and perpendicular to the exit surface and states the force applications. The front entrance door of the Vehicle in question has not been proven to meet this requirement.

The exemption given to International Harvester was explicit. The Vehicle in question does not fall into that category. I feel if NHTSA wishes to allow this it should first test the vehicle under the provisions of FMVSS-217 and ascertain that all sections therein are strictly adhered to. I do not feel that the vehicle (front entrance door) will meet the requirements. The exemption was not meant for buses, in the normal sense of the word, unless a door is provided for each three passenger seat spaces. The front entrance door of a bus is located forward of the passenger compartment, in most cases.

Inasmuch as the Motor Carrier Inspection Section of the New Jersey Department of Transportation is a regulatory body enforcing the safety regulations adopted, it is imperative that a complete clarification based on the "intent" of requirements be made. The safety of passengers with respect to emergency egress is a prime concern of our agency. It is respectfully requested that a thorough evaluation of FMVSS-217 be made as it pertains to the matter at hand and that we will receive an expeditious answer to this correspondence because of it's importance.

Thank you kindly for your cooperation in this matter.

Yours truly,

Vincent L. Labascio, Senior Investigator, Motor Carriers

cc: S. T. Messina, Supervisor, Motor Carriers

NOTE:

Please direct all correspondence to the below named office.

State of New Jersey Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Inspection Box 10009 Newark, New Jersey 07101

ID: 1983-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bertman; Johnson and Sahli

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

John Bertman, Esq. Bertman, Johnson and Sahli 401 Twelfth Street (Route #54) P.O. BoX 440 Hammonton, New Jersey 08037-0440

Dear Mr. Bertman:

This responds to your recent letter to this office, seeking information on retreaded passenger car tires. You asked for the name of the retreader of a tire with the code letters "BJE" marked on the sidewall. That retreader is Trio Tire Service, Inc. of Clementon, New Jersey. You also asked if there were any regulations applicable to the retread of radial tires. All retreaded passenger car tires (whether bias or radial) must be certified by the retreader as complying with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S 571.117). I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information.

Should you have any further questions or need further information in this area, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address and at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

October 10, 1983

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Retread Radial Tire Bearing Markings: DOT R BJE R33 481 Our file no. 9479-1B

Gentlemen:

Will you please advise me of the manufacturer or the retread manufacturer of the tire bearing the above markings.

Please also advise me whether or not there are rules, regulations or standards regarding the retread of radial tires and forward a copy to me. If there is any charge, please advise.

Very truly yours,

John Bertman

ID: 1983-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Young; Member of Congress

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Robert A. Young Member of Congress 4150 Cypress Road St. Ann, MO 63074

Dear Mr. Young:

Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the potential hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the use of opaque glass in automobiles. Through the exercise of its motor vehicle safety authority, the agency has addressed a part of this potential problem. However, given the limitations on the agency's authority, additional State action is needed to eliminate this potential problem.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. 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) and abrasion resistance. The specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

In past interpretation letters, the agency has said that solar film and other materials used to make windows opaque are not glazing materials themselves and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion resistance requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to the first sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter the vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting or other film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not the installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed to comply with a Federal safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a tinting or other film on a vehicle for an owner if that action would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance perfomance of the vehicle's glazing. Violation of the render inoperative provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to ,000 for each violation.

State law, rather than Federal law, governs the operational use of vehicles by their owners. Thus, it is up to the States to preclude owners from applying tinting or other films to their vehicle windows. A number of States have already adopted such laws. The agency would be glad to provide technical assistance on glazing requirements to the appropriate Missouri highway safety officials working on this problem.

I hope this explains the agency's authority to address the potential problems posed by tinting and other films. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosure Constituent's Letter

Ms. Diane Steed Administrator-Designate National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed,

Enclosed is a letter from Mr. James Stewart, Director of the National Institute of Justice, in regard to potential safety hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the presence of opaque glass in automobiles. As you will note, Mr. Stewart feels your Agency might be of some assistance in this matter.

I would appreciate your review of the potential dangers of this situation. Please advise me of your findings by writing my district office in St. Ann, Missouri.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Robert A. Young Member of Congress

RAY:wv

Enclosure

The Honorable Robert A. Young House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Young:

This is in response to your letter on behalf of Overland Police Chief Eddy Williams concerning the problem of opaque glass in automobiles.

As a former chief of the detective division of the Oakland, California, Police Department, I can appreciate Chief Williams' concern about this possible hazard to law enforcement officers. At present, the National Institute of Justice has no information on this problem. However, I have asked my staff to look into the matter and will keep you apprised of our findings.

Meanwhile, I would suggest that Chief Williams contact the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, regarding this growing danger. The NHTSA conducts programs relating to the safety of motor vehicles and provides Federal matching funds to assist States with their motor vehicle safety programs. Perhaps the NHTSA could help in alerting States and automobile manufacturers to the danger opaque glass in autos presents to police officers who must stop and approach such vehicles without being able to see the persons inside.

Thank you for your interest in the well being of the Nation's public safety officers. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

James R. Stewart Director National Institute of Justice

ID: 1983-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Maryland State Police

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

B.E. Diehl, Captain Commander, A.S.E.D. Maryland State Police 6601 Ritchie Highway Glen Burnie, MD 21062

Dear Captain Diehl:

This responds to your letter of November 11, 1983, asking three questions about the use of sun screening devices on vehicle glazing materials. The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. The interpretations of Standard No. 205, Glazing materials, stated in this agency's letters to the State of Hawaii concerning the use of sun screening device on vehicle glazing materials will be uniformly applied by the agency from State-to-State. If you are aware of vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair shops that are in violation of those interpretations, please provide that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

2. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements for all glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Those performance requirements may vary depending on where in the vehicle the glazing is used. For example, only glazing materials used at levels requisite for driving visibility must comply with the luminous transmittance requirements.

3. Standard No. 205 specifies abrasion resistance requirements for glazing materials. Therefore, the use of solar screening materials, which do not meet the abrasion requirements of the standard, would render inoperative the glazing materials compliance with the standard.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Tom Ridge; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 21, 1983 The Honorable Tom Ridge House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Ridge:

This responds to your letter of November 28, 1983, requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. William H. Hull, Sr. Mr. Hull is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. He believes that this is a dangerous practice because it prevents police officers from seeing inside the vehicles. You asked if we were considering the issuance of a regulation outlawing the use of such film and, if so, when such a regulation might be promulgated.

While our authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) enables us to limit the practice of installing tinted film on vehicle windows, it does not permit us to issue a regulation prohibiting every individual from engaging in that practice. As explained below, while commercial establishments are prohibited from adding the film, we cannot prohibit a vehicle owner from doing so.

Pursuant to the Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. 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) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

Tinting films such as the type referred to in Mr. Hull's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard.

A vehicle manufacturer or a dealer may place the film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle only if that manufacturer or dealer is able to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

However, vehicle owners may not go to a commercial establishment to have the film installed for them. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to,$1,000 for each violation.

The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mr. Hull may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing tinting film on their automobile windows.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

November 28, 1983

The Honorable Elizabeth H. Dole Secretary U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Secretary Dole:

I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. William H. Hull, Sr., of Erie, Pennsylvania, regarding his interest in outlawing certain equipment on automobiles, specifically black plastic window coverings allowing occupants to see out, but preventing individuals from looking into the car. Mr. Hull takes an active interest in police work and feels cars equipped with these heavily tinted windows can pose a serious threat to the safety of a police officer, mainly by preventing him from observing activities inside a suspect car.

In view of Mr. Hull's interest, I would appreciate being advised if the Department has given consideration toward outlawing the use of this equipment, and if this has indeed occurred, do you have an indication when such a regulation may be promulgated.

Thank you, in advance, for your kind cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Tom Ridge Member of Congress

TJR:ef

ID: 1983-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jeff S. Brantner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1983, to the Urban Mass Transit Administration, which was forwarded to this agency for reply, concerning legal requirements regulating window stickers. The following discussion addresses the Federal requirements applicable to sticker or other films applied to glazing materials in motor vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. 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) and abrasion resistance.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that films such as the type referred to in your letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Please contact Stephen Oesch of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-1834).

SINCERELY,

Arthur E. Teele Jr. Urban Mass Trans. Admin.

November 9, 1983

Dear Mr. Teele.

I have designed an automobile sticker that I feel is very catchy and will hopefully be on the rear windows of a large number of vehicles. I do have a question though, regarding the legal size of a window sticker. My tentative design is three (3) inches high by sixteen (16) inches wide. I feel that the width is not as critical as the heighth as far as a visability restriction is concerned, yet I would like to keep it legal in order to avoid any trouble.

I will appreciate any help that you can give me, since this means a great deal to me. Thank you, in advance, for your time and effort.

Jeff Brantner

ID: 1983-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Corporation -- William K. Sweeney, Assistant General Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William K. Sweeney Assistant General Counsel Grumman Corporation 445 Broad Hollow Road Melville, New York 11747

Dear Mr. Sweeney:

This responds to your letter of November 22, 1983, regarding the application of Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) to the new Kubvan minivan you intend to manufacture and distribute. You state in your letter that the Kubvan is a minivan designed primarily for delivery and utility service. You ask whether the Kubvan must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt protection system under S4.2.2.2 of the standard.

You state that Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right hand drive models of the Kubvan. The right hand drive models are intended for use by the United States Postal Service (USPS). You add that Grumman Olson also plans to sell right hand vehicles to any and all interested customers.

Section 4.2.2.2 requires trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to provide a lap and shoulder belt protection system, except for those "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service." As correctly stated in your letter, all Kubvans sold to customers other than the USPS must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt assembly. However, based on the, intent of S4.2.2.2 and the unique operating needs of the USPS, right hand Kubvans sold to the USPS need only be equipped with a lap belt system.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 22, 1983 Frank Berndt, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, 49 CFR Section 571.208

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing to you at the suggestion of Mr. Steven Wood of your department.

I represent Grumman Olson, a division of Grumman Allied Industries. Inc., and a manufacturer of aluminum truck bodies. As I indicated to Mr. Wood, Grumman Olson is now embarking on the manufacture and distribution of a new minivan completely built by it at its own facilities. This minivan is called the Kubvan (R), and is designed for delivery and utility service. A specification sheet on the Kubvan minivan is enclosed for your information.

Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right hand drive versions of the Kubvan, the latter for use by the United States Postal Service. A number of other potential customers, including Canada Post Corporation, have expressed interest in the right hand drive Kubvan, and that expression of interest necessitates my writing to you.

Specifically, a question has arisen concerning the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, 49 CFR S 571.208. Paragraph S4.2.2 of the safety standard sets out the basic occupant crash protection required for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; namely, a lap and shoulder belt protection system. Certain classes of light trucks are excluded, such as "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service...". Vehicles of the latter type are permitted to carry a lap belt system only.

Grumman Olson is desirous of selling the right hand drive Kubvan to customers other than the United States Postal Service (USPS). As we interpret Paragraph S4.2.2, it basically equates light trucks with passenger cars, in terms of crash protection. USPS vehicles were specifically excluded (and permitted to be equipped with lap belts only) because of their unique operating environment (i.e., generally lower speeds, frequent stops, and the need for the driver to exit and enter the vehicle quickly, and/or reach out of the vehicle to service mail boxes).

Given this interpretation, Grumman Olson would be entitled to sell right hand drive Kubvans to any and all interested customers, provided that all such vehicles are equipped with a full lap and shoulder belt restraint system, except for those sold to the USPS. However, the wording of Paragraph S4.2.2 literally implies that if Grumman Olson were to sell right hand drive Kubvans to parties other than USPS, the vehicle might not technically qualify as one "designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service". This, in turn, might mean that Grumman Olson (a) would be required to equip all right hand drive Kubvans with lap and shoulder belt restraint systems (including those destined for the United States Postal Service, which would render the vehicle unsuitable for their use), and/or (b) would be required to retrofit any right hand drive Kubvans presently in USPS inventory with lap and shoulder belt systems (such vehicles not having a lap belt system only as permitted by the Paragraph). We feel this end result is inconsistent with the intent of Paragraph S4.2.2.

I have had telephone discussions with Mr. Wood and with Mr. Bob Gardner of NHTSA's engineering staff, relative to interpretation of the Paragraph in question. Both of these individuals felt that our analysis of the Paragraph was consistent with its intent and expressed no difficulty with (1) our selling right hand drive Kubvans (equipped with lap and shoulder belt system) to customers other than the USPS and (2) our continuing to sell right hand drive Kubvans to the USPS, with lap belt system only (and without the need to retrofit any vehicles presently in USPS inventory). I asked Mr. Wood about the possibility of a formal response from NHTSA approving our interpretation of Paragraph S4.2.2, and he suggested that I write to you to request such a response.

I would, therefore, appreciate your discussing this matter with Mr. Wood, and, if you agree, arranging for a letter from your office to me, concurring in our interpretation of Paragraph S4.2.2 and approving sales of right hand Kubvans as set out in the previous paragraph.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

WILLIAM K. SWEENEY Assistant General Counsel

WKS:mz