ID: 86-5.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. J. Leon Conner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. Leon Conner Manager Long & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 691 San Angelo, TX 76902

Dear Mr. Conner:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you asked wether this regulation requises the treadwear testing for a tire size to be conducted only with vehicles that specify the subject tire size either as the original equipment size or as one of the recommended optional tire sizes. The UTQGS does not contain any such provision.

The conditions and procedures to be followed in grading tires for treadwear under the UTQGS are set forth in S575.104(e). That section specifies tire loading conditions and rim dimensional requirements for the vehicles used in the treadwear testing. However, it does not specify that the vehicles used in the treadwear testing can only be used to test tire sizes recommended as either original equipment or optional tires on the vehicle when new. Accordingly, persons testing tires to determine the treadwear grade may mount the tires on any vehicle, provided that the tire and vehicle satisfy all the requirements of S575.104(e), relating to tire construction, inflation pressure, size designation, vehicle loading, and wheel alignment.

You stated in your letter that the UTQGS compliance test procedures, used by this agency for conducting its enforcement testing for treadwear grades, currently specify that tire sizes must be tested on vehicles that specify that size as either original equipment or recommended optional size. This specification may have been adopted after the following language appeared in a 1975 preamble to a final rule establishing the UTQGS:

Several commenters suggested that the rule specify all vehicles in a given convoy be identical, to reduce variations in projected treadlife...Variations in vehicle type, however, do not appear to produce significant variations in treadwear projections. Nevertheless, to minimize such variations, tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which they are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. 40 FR 23073, at 23076, May 28, 1975.

As explained above, the UTQGS regulation does not specify that the vehicles used in treadwear testing can only be used to test tire sizes recommended as either original equipment or optional tires on the vehicle. The agency's compliance test procedures are only the methods the agency itself uses to determine the appropriate treadwear grade for a tire. Persons outside the agency are not bound by any testing conditions and methods not set forth in the UTQGS itself. Such persons may, therefore, conduct their own testing in a manner different from that specified in NHTSA's compliance test procedures, provided that their testing satisfies all requirements of S575.104(e).

You also stated that the use of different vehicles for treadwear testing of tires will produce measurably different treadwear grades for the tire, even when all the vehicle factors are closely and properly controlled. As quoted above, NHTSA concluded that vehicle-to-vehicle variations "do not appear to produce significant variations in treadwear projections", when it examined this issue in 1975. However, the agency is currently reexamining the effects of vehicle-to-vehicle variations on treadwear projections, particularly with respect to front-wheel vs. rear-wheel drive vehicles and passenger cars vs. light trucks and vans. If you wish to provide some additional data on this subject, please forward the data to Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, at this address. We would be interested in analyzing whatever data form the basis for your belief that our 1975 conclusion was incorrect.

Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff, at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, if you have any further questions about our UTQGS.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office Of Chief Counsel, NAO-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Subject: Uniform Tire Quality Grading Testing

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are requesting clarification of the UTQG Stnadard relative to selection of test vehicles.

The UTQG Compliance Test Procedure requires that, "the vehicles must specify the tire size to be tested as standard equipment or approved alternate for that vehicle", i.e. government compliance testing will be performed with vehicles selected in this manner. It behooves the tester then to select vehicles in the same manner it would seem.

While outdoor road testing inherently involves a large number of variables it is apparent from our accumulated CMT data that different cars do produce different wear rates for a given set of tires and conditions, even when vehicle factors (wheel alignment, wheel loads, mechanical maintenance) are closely and properly controlled. It is therefore possible to bias the candidate tire grades measurably through selection of the control tire car, the candidate tire car or both. Use of certain larger vehicles produce faster wear of the CMT tires and consequently higher grades for the candidate tire; tested in the same convoy.

If the UTQG Standard allows the tester to choose any car in which he can attain the required wheel loads, manufacturers may seek the tester who can obtain the highest grades.

Hopefully you can clarify the intent of NHTSA on this matter. If we can be of assistance in any way please do not hesitate to call on us.

Sincerely,

J. Leon Conner JLC:bf

ID: 1918o

Mr. Byung M. Soh
Marketing Director
Target Marketing Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 59483
Chicago, IL 60659-0483

Dear Mr. Soh:

This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1988, with respect to two motor vehicle lighting products which you intend to import into the United States. You have asked "whether these devices require approvals from D.O.T."

First let me explain that the Department of Transportation does not "approve" or "disapprove" specific products. It does advise whether a product appears allowable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Your letter does not indicate whether you wish to market these devices as original equipment to be installed before initial sale of a motor vehicle, by either its manufacturer or dealer, or whether you intend to market them solely through the aftermarket. I shall address each situation. The Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to original equipment is Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. l08 allows additional motor vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lamps and reflectors required as original equipment. Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima permitted by the standard. In addition, a motor vehicle must remain in conformance with Standard No. l08 (and all other safety standards) until its first purchase for purposes other than resale. There is no Federal standard that applies to your devices as aftermarket equipment, but the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, original lighting equipment.

Your first device is called a "foglight converter." The advertising literature attached states that its function is to turn "the existing headlights...into foglights...." In our opinion, such a device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. l08 by rendering the headlamp function unavailable when the fog lamp converter is in use. We shall assume that the headlamp would be converted into a fog lamp meeting the specifications of SAE Standard J583 MAY8l Front Fog Lamps. None of the photometric test points of SAE J583 coincide with those specified for headlamps. Our further concern with this device is that a driver might fail to return to the headlamp mode from the fog lamp mode, and operate the vehicle with reduced frontal lighting.

The situation differs with respect to the aftermarket. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not perform modifications that render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment such as headlamps added pursuant to a Federal safety standard. We believe that the installation of the converter could affect the operability of the headlamp within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. However, we note that the foglight converter is advertised as "easy for any driver to attach to any vehicle." As an owner is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the owner is not restricted under Federal law from modifications to his vehicle. He is, however, subject to the laws of the States in which his vehicle is registered and operated. We are not conversant with how State lighting laws might affect use of the foglight converter, and you may wish to obtain an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

We have several other comments as well. The literature you enclosed depicts the foglight converter attached to what appears to be the European-designed H-4 bulb. Standard No. l08 does not permit headlamps with H-4 light sources to be sold for use on 4-wheeled motor vehicles. In addition, the application of the device where motion is translated from the lamp's exterior to the interior by a linkage in the bulb base would affect compliance with the requirement that the bulb base withstand a pressure differential of l0 psi. Additionally, creating a hole or passage for a linkage has the potential of rendering the headlamp noncompliant with Standard No. l08's requirements for certain environmental tests, such as resistance to dust, corrosion, and humidity.

Your second device is a "headlamp intensity modulator," adjusting a headlamp beam "automatically from low to high beam through a middle beam." According to your literature, when a sensor notes the beams of an oncoming car 500 meters ahead the upper beam gradually passes through a middle beam and diminishes into a lower beam when the vehicles are 150 meters apart. This device is also advertised as capable of owner installation, and without the modification of any vehicle parts. The system appears to operate by a switch. This device directly conflicts with Standard No. l08, and its use would create a noncompliance with it. Headlamps are defined as producing upper and lower beams, and means must be provided for switching between these beams. Use of the device would alter upper and lower beam characteristics from those required by Standard No. l08, and in effect create an infinite number of beams while passing from a conforming upper beam at one extreme to a conforming lower beam at the other. This precludes its use as original equipment. We believe that its aftermarket legality would be limited. Although Federal law would not preclude an owner from installing it, the instructions are sufficiently complex that in our opinion many purchasers would seek help from a "dealer" or "motor vehicle repair business," which could not be legally given. There would also remain the question of legality with State laws.

These appear to be innovative devices and we regret that we cannot be more encouraging.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:9/l3/88

ID: 14164x.gen

Ms. Connie L. Stauffer
President
Lift-Aids, Inc.
2381 Pecan Ct.
Fort Worth, TX 76117

Dear Ms. Stauffer:

This responds to your letter asking for interpretations regarding the permissibility of modifications which affect compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I apologize for the delay in our response. You tell us that you are a modifier of vehicles for the disabled and sometimes must alter equipment for the use of your customers.

In general, repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards. After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies 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 this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

In situations where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of an individual with a particular disability, we have, where appropriate, been willing to consider certain unavoidable violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and issued a letter to that effect. However, it is often possible to make modifications in a way that does not degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard.

The situation currently before you concerns relocation of the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL), required by Standard No. 108, specifically on the 1997 General Motors G Van, on which you want to "raise the rear doors." As you understand it, "we can relocate the light as long as we reposition it in such a way that it is still visible for its intended purpose." You ask whether we can "clarify that in more detail."

Raising the CHMSL above its original location does not, by itself, create a compliance problem since Standard No. 108 sets no upper limit for the mounting height of CHMSLs. In its new location, however, the CHMSL must not be obscured or tilted; Lift-Aid must ensure that the lamp remains in compliance with the location, visibility, and photometric requirements of Standard No. 108. This means that, as relocated, the lamp(s) must remain on the vertical centerline not less than 34 inches above the road surface, and must not be obscured by any other motor vehicle equipment so that the photometric and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108 continue to be met. If this is insufficiently clear to you, you may FAX a photo of your intended location to us (FAX 202-366-3820)and we will be pleased to advise you further. You may also telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

You also asked about several other situations, identified below, and ask what the "proper documentation" would be.

1. Removal of air bags from steering wheel at customer's request for the following reasons:

1. Adding a spinner or driver knob to wheel that may rupture the air bag or that may become a projectile when air bag deploys.
2. Occasionally we have to add a steering wheel column extension to bring the steering wheel closer than the normal position for persons with limited arm movement.

2. Removal of the new female side seat belt pretensioner on the new 1997 Ford van in order to install a 6 way driver power seat base that enables a disabled person to transfer into the driver seat.
3. Occasionally we have to move the rear sofa back to make room for the wheelchair lifts which also affects the seat belts.

If you believe that certain modifications must be made to accommodate the needs of an individual with a particular disability, and that the modifications cannot be made without violating the "make inoperative" provision discussed above, you may write to us and request a letter stating that we will not enforce that provision. The letter should identify the specific facts at issue and why you cannot avoid violating that provision. It should also demonstrate the that proposed modifications minimize the safety consequences of the noncompliances. I note that the modifications you have identified could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

With respect to removing an air bag because a spinner or driver knob has been added to the wheel, I note that it is not clear that it is desirable to remove an air bag in the situation you describe. I have enclosed for your information a copy of a recent report titled "Air Bag Interaction with and Injury Potential from Common Steering Control Devices."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108

d.9/22/97

ID: 17557.drn

Mr. Harry C. Gough, P.E.
Automotive Engineering Professional Specialist
Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles
60 State Street
Wethersfield, CT 06161

Dear Mr. Gough:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217's retroreflective tape requirements for school bus rear emergency doors.

You enclose a photograph of a school bus rear exit door which shows that the retroreflective tape above the door opening is interrupted by the words "Emergency Door." Your letter states that the gap caused by the words is 16 inches (40 centimeters) long. In the retroreflective tape outlining each of the two sides of the emergency door, there also are gaps in each of the four corners that would have been formed had the two horizontal tapes and two vertical tapes met. You ask three questions, restated below, about whether gaps are permitted in the tape.

Question 1: Is there an interpretation of the language in S5.5.3 of FMVSS 217 allowing the gap retroreflective tape as heretofore described?

Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, specifies emergency exit identification requirements at S5.5. School bus emergency exit identification requirements are at S5.5.3, and state:

(a) Each school bus emergency exit ... shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit," as appropriate, in letters at least 5 centimeters high, of a color that contrasts with its background. For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the door....

 * * *

(c) Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a retroreflective tape with a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters and either red, white, or yellow in color ...

In previous NHTSA compliance tests conducted on school buses manufactured by Thomas Built Buses and by Blue Bird Body Company, the agency found gaps in the retroreflective tape similar to what you describe in your letter. NHTSA's Safety Assurance office determined in those tests that the requirements of Standard 217 were not violated. The agency determined that there was not enough space at the top of the exit to place the words "Emergency Door" and the 2.5 centimeter tape without either: (a) taping part of the upper door trim and rivets; or (b) taping over the "School Bus" designation. Both of these alternatives were deemed undesirable. Taping over trim and rivets would likely reduce the wearability of the tape, and taping over the school bus designation would reduce the clarity of the sign. Thus, the gaps were permitted.

Without knowing the exact measurements of your school bus, we cannot make a determination that placement of the tape, as you described, is acceptable. However, if the space is limited as it was on the buses that NHTSA evaluated, then interrupting the tape with the "Emergency Door" designation is an acceptable means for a manufacturer to try to meet both S5.5.3(a) and (c). You can send us the measurements of the vehicle if you wish, for us to further review the matter.

Question 2: If the gaps are allowed then how large of a percentage of a given perimeter edge would be acceptable.

In July 7, 1993 and June 8, 1994 letters to Blue Bird and Van-Con, respectively, NHTSA permitted interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges, handles and tail lights. However, NHTSA said that the tape must be able to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Also, the tape must be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter.  In these letters, NHTSA did not establish a specified "percentage" of an exit perimeter or of a side of a perimeter that must be outlined to be deemed acceptable.

In the school bus emergency door in your photograph, I note that there are gaps in the tape at the four corners where the two horizontal tapes and the two vertical tapes should meet. If there are no rivets or curved surfaces or other impediments to placement of the tape, as described in the July1993 letter to Blue Bird, tape must be applied so that the horizontal tapes and the vertical tapes meet, forming corners.

Question 3: If the size of the gap at the top edge of the rear door, as previously indicated, is interpreted as excessive then can the words "Emergency Door" be relocated to the top half of the door or alternately can a section of retroreflective tape be located immediately above the words "Emergency Door."

As noted in our answer to Question 1, it is possible that the gap is permitted, depending on the measurements of your bus. Concerning your specific question about possibly relocating the emergency door identification, NHTSA has a longstanding interpretation that the emergency door identification can be on the top half of the emergency exit door. (See, September 22, 1978, letter to Mr. Tydings, Thomas Built Buses.)

I note that in a March 16, 1995, letter to you, then-Chief Counsel Philip Recht enclosed copies of our June 8, 1994, letter to Van-Con, Inc., and March 28, 1994, and July 7, 1993, letters to Blue Bird Body Company. For your convenience, I am again enclosing copies of those letters.

I hope this information is helpful. In the future, it would help us in responding to you if you would provide a telephone number at which you can be reached. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures (4 letters)
ref:217
d.9/2/98

ID: 1766y

Mr. Les Schreiner
Fresia Engineering Inc.
700 E. Main Street
Suite 1618
Richmond, VA 23219

Dear Mr. Schreiner:

This responds to your letter asking whether some vehicles you plan to import into the United States are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. These vehicles consist of snow removal vehicles and aircraft towing vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, Fresia's vehicles are subject to the safety standards only if those vehicles are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

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

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretation that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

Applying these principles to the vehicles shown in the brochures enclosed with your letter yields the following tentative conclusions.

1. The vehicles identified as "aircraft towing tractors" would not appear to be motor vehicles, assuming that these vehicles are designed and sold solely for use off the public roads.

2. The vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment" appear to fall into two categories. a. One of the categories consists of the models identified as the "F10 NF" and the "Vomero TO-TB-TA-TR," "Fresa Laterale," and "Fresa Integrale HP 200-170" models. These vehicles would not appear to be motor vehicles, because their maximum speed appears to be 20 mph or less and they have a configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road. b. The second category consists of all the other vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment." All the vehicles in this category look like conventional trucks with either snowplow blades or snowblowers attached to the front of the truck and appear capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. We have consistently stated that trucks with snow blowers or snowplow blades on the front end are motor vehicles, and are subject to all of our safety standards applicable to trucks. For your information, I have enclosed an April 7, 1983 letter to Mr. Takeo Shimizu on this subject.

I have identified our conclusions as tentative for several reasons. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying any particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified the vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classifications in the course of any enforcement actions. The agency does, however, tentatively state how it believes vehicles should be classified for the purposes of the safety standards.

Additionally, the tentative opinions expressed in this letter are based on the literature enclosed with your letter. We may change the tentative opinions expressed in this letter if we have occasion to examine the vehicles themselves or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicles.

Since you are considering importing some vehicles that would appear to be "motor vehicles" into the United States, I have enclosed some additional materials for your information. One is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles, which highlights the relevant statutes and regulations that apply to such manufacturers and explains how the manufacturer can get copies of the relevant statutes and regulations. The other item is a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This booklet summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to trucks.

Your letter also indicated that your company would be interested in any "approval procedure or testing process NHTSA would administer" to get your company's vehicles on a qualified products list. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is itself responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ ref:VSA d:4/3/89

ID: 1984-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ivie -- Manager, Support Section, Motor Vehicle Division Department of Transportation (Oregon)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 27, 1984, to Mr. Frank Turpin, which was forwarded to my office for reply, asking several questions concerning our regulations on certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The following discussions answer your questions.

You have asked first if there are any provisions in Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, for or against the use of blue warning lamps on police vehicles, if the lamps are steady burning rather than rotating. You have been unable to answer this question by referrals either to Standard No. 108 or SAE materials. Because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act allows States and municipalities to impose higher standards than the Federal ones for vehicles procured for their own use (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), the agency has generally deferred to the judgment of governmental bodies in their equipment specifications.

You have not stated whether the blue warning lamps would be supplemental to the vehicle's existing lighting, or replacing some item of the vehicle's original equipment. If the lighting is supplemental (e.g., roof-mounted as are the warning lamps on police vehicles in this area), Standard No. 108 permits it if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). Thus, a roof-mounted lamp, whether steady-burning or rotating, would appear permissible. If, however, the warning lamp was adjacent to a stop lamp or headlamp, or replaced a lamp such as a taillamp, a question of impairment could arise, and the burden would be on a State to demonstrate it had adopted a higher standard of performance.

Your second question asked whether there is a specific statement in our regulations or elsewhere which prohibits the attaching of materials to vehicle windshields and windows. The following discussion explains the effect of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and section 108(a)(2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) on tinting films and other materials placed on windshields and other windows.

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 and other films 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 darkly tinted films 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. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

You mentioned that you have recently received an inquiry from the U.S. Air Force concerning the placement of identification decals on a vehicle. We have received a similar inquiry and I am enclosing a copy of our response.

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

ENC.

Department of Transportation MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION

July 27, 1984

NHTSA

Attention: Francis J. Turpin

Dear Frank:

We would appreciate your help on some questions we have concerning federal regulations/requirements on certain vehicle equipment items.

1. Are there any provisions for or against use of blue warning lamps on police vehicles, if the lamps are "steady burning" -- non flashing or rotating? We were unable to find any information regarding this in FMVSS 108 or in the SAE Standards covering vehicle lighting.

2. Is there a specific "statement" in the federal regulations or elsewhere that prohibits attaching material to vehicle windshields/windows? Presently it is not allowed by our state laws, if "the material prohibits of impairs the ability to see into or out of the vehicle." The availability of various window tinting materials and screening causes constant inquiries from law enforcement, manufacturing companies, repair shops, and individuals regarding this law. Also, we have recently received inquiries from the U. S. Air Force on placing their Identification Decals on windshields of Air Force personnels' private vehicles.

We respond to the window glazing inquiries with information from FMVSS 205 and ANSI Z26. (Ie, the 70% light transmittance requirements.) Also, we mention Section 108 (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, concerning rendering inoperative of vehicle equipment. But, we would like to also be able to provide a definite federal prohibition, with possible penalties, etc.

Thank you for any assistance you can give us.

Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section

ID: 1983-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Eldon Rudd; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Rudd:

This responds to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Jan Wilson, asking whether Federal law restricts motorists from having darkly tinted films installed on the window of their automobiles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. 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. Seventy percent transmittance is required in all areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes the windshield and all windows in passenger cars. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, use of such films on motor vehicles in certain cases would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance requirements of the standard (most of these films do reduce light transmittance below 70%). If a vehicle manufacturer or 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 (i.e., has to certify that the glazing still has transmittance of at least 70%).

Regarding vehicles that have already been purchased, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381) 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 solar film on a vehicle for its owner if the vehicle glazing would no longer meet the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this provision could subject the manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business th civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note, however, that under Federal law the vehicle owner may alter his or her vehicle as is desired. This agency does not govern use of vehicles by owners; this is left to the States. Thus, under Federal law, an owner could install solar film on his or her vehcile whether or not such installation affected compliance with Standard No. 205.

In summary, Federal law does not preclude Mrs. Wilson from having darkly tinted film on her passenger car, provided she installed the film herself. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business (including an auto tint shop) installed the film for Mrs. Wilson, they are in violation of Federal law if the glazing no longer meets the 70% light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. The State of California is, of course, free to prohibit vehicle owners from operating vehicles with darkly tinted glazing in its jurisdiction.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

DATE DETAILS

1/3/83 Mrs. Wilson is the daughter of Saxton Pettit whom she says was a very good friend of the Congressman. He used to own the Basket House in Scottsdale. Mrs. W. said the Basket House was America's largest basket store. Her father is now deceased. Mrs. Wilson would like the Congressman' help in acquiring a special pass to enable her to drive from Arizona to California with tinted windows on her car. Apparently Mrs. W. goes through an extension of UCLA for medical treatment. She was stopped on the highway and given a citation for driving in California with tinted windows as the law in California is such that you cannot drive with tinted windows if they don't comply with the designated degree of tint. The ticket amount is $75. She said she called the courthouse in California and explained her situation and asked for a special pass to drive in California. She doesn't think she should have to take off the tint just to drive in California. She said she was told that she could remove the tint, but still have to pay the citation or she would have to drive with her windows rolled down while in California. She thinks these answers are absurd and she doesn't think it fair that she was slapped with such a high fine without even getting a warning first. She said the highway patrolman told her he was just doing his job. She tried to explain that she was unaware of the law and that she only travels to California for treatment. Mrs. W. also said her lawyer tried to talk to the courthouse, but to no avail. I explained to Mrs. W. that this is a state law of California and that there is nothing the Congressman can do as he handled matters on the federal level. I said she would have to comply with our laws. She then said that the highway patrolman told her that this is a federal law. I said I didn't think so, but would forward this to our W.O. for verification. I also suggested she write the Cong. a letter asking him to contact the State of California as it is policy to have a request such as that in writing. She said she is a very sick woman, and doesn't want to take the time and effort if she doesn't have a valid case.

ID: 1983-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Patricia Hill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Patricia Hill 2150 Hacker Road Howell, Michigan 48843

Dear Ms. Hill:

This responds to your March 23, 1983, letter asking five specific questions relating to Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your questions and their answers are listed below:

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

"Erratic burning," as that term is used in the standard, relates to incidents where the material may soften or bend at the flaming end in a way that would not allow for uniform burning. Erratic burning, therefore, includes, but is not limited to, nonuniform burning as indicated in S5.1.3 of the standard where the use of support wires is mentioned.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

In actual practice, a test specimen is observed while burning during a compliance test to FMVSS No. 302. If the specimen is found both to soften and bend at the flaming end during testing and also fails to meet the minimum burn rate requirement, a retest is performed using support wires.

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive ammendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications of Standard No. 302.

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

We are not certain of the question that you are asking. The material would not have a flaming end to bend prior to ignition of the bunsen burner. If by this question you mean to ask what we would do about non-flat test specimens, the agency always attempts to test flat specimens only.

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications to TP 302-02.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 23, 1983

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter requests an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

Section 5.1.3 of the subject standard states that a test specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic (emphasis added) burning" is supported by a series of thin, heat resistant wires during testing.

Paragraph 10.2.2 of the NHTSA Laboratory Procedures for Flammability Compliance Tests, TP 302-02 dated June l973 allows a series of "thin (sic) heat resistant wires . . . to support specimens which tend to soften and bend at the flaming end." Paragraph 10.4.1 allows the use of support wires "If bending or curling of the specimen during test is anticipated (emphasis added)." I note that there is no mention of an "erratic-burning" condition in TP 302-02.

In your May l2, l976 letter to Mr. C.C. Setter you stated that the NHTSA intended to issue an interpretive amendment limiting the use of support wires during testing. You also stated that the NHTSA's experience indicated that use of support wires yielded significantly different burn rates. It is axiomatic that use of support wires will yield a slower burn rate. I interpret the text of your letter to mean that support wires could be used in some instances to influence whether a test specimen meets or fails to meet the burn rate requirements of the subject standard. I interpret the intent of your letter in part to counter a 1971 preamble stating that use of support wires had no significant effect on burn rate.

There is reason to believe that most of the domestic automotive manufacturers routinely use support wires for all testing intended to demonstrate or prove compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 302. Rationale to support this practice is apparently based upon a liberal interpretation of "erratic burning" in the subject standard and "anticipated" in the NHTSA test procedure. For instance, it is possible to anticipate bending or curling of the flaming end of a specimen prior to the start of a test without regard for historical data.

I am not aware that the NHTSA has performed any flammability testing for enforcement purposes in recent years.

Following is a list of my specific requests for interpretation.

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive amendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

I trust that this letter will be viewed in a constructive light.

Sincerely,

Patricia Hill

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: 1985-04.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Norman Friberg, P.E. -- Manager, Product Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, NJ 07647

This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated June 27, 1985, for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Paragraph S4.3 of the standard requires that a specified placard show the recommended tire size designation. Volvo has provided labels on approximately 3,200 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state "185/65R15" but the correct information is "185/70R14." However, Volvo intends to mail correct placards "to owners of all affected vehicles."

By providing the corrective placard, Volvo will remedy the noncompliance. Because the noncompliance will no longer exist, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moot. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Volvo will provide owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek renotice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.

The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and do not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.

Our records indicate that Volvo is in technical noncompliance with 49 CFR Part 575, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, by failing to file a report within 5 days of its determination of the existence of the noncompliances. We will, however, treat the submission of information in your petition as a Part 575 report. Part 575 also requires 6 quarterly reports on the progress of recall campaigns. In your situation, the campaign will be accomplished in a single mailing. We ask that you furnish the agency with a report of the number of letters sent and the number of letters returned as undeliverable in lieu of the Part 575 quarterly reports.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 27, 1985

CERTIFIED MAIL

Hon. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

Re: Petition For Inconsequential Non-Compliance

In accordance with the provisions of 49 CFR S556, Volvo submits herein a petition for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Safety Act, on the grounds of that the the subject non-compliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

FULL NAME ADDRESS OF APPLICANT

Volvo North America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07637

a Delaware corporation

DESCRIPTION OF NON-COMPLIANCE

It has come to our attention that the tire information placard, as required by FMVSS No. 110 Sect. 4.3, installed on about 3,200 l985 model year Volvo 740 Turbo Diesel passenger cars, may contain the incorrect tire size designation.

The correct tire size designation for these vehicles is 185/70 R 14, whereas the labels read 185/65 R 15.

DATA AND VIEWS SUPPORTING PETITION

Volvo believes this error to be inconsequential because the other information regarding these tires, vehicle capacity weight and inflation pressure, are the same for both tire types. Thus, an owner could not inadvertently overload his vehicle as long as he did not exceed the weight shown on the existing placard.

If an owner were to attempt to mount a 185/65 R 15 tire on the 14-inch rim supplied with the car, he would find it to be impossible, and a quick check of the other tires on the car would show that a 13-inch tire is required.

Even in the unlikely event that an owner mounted a 15-inch tire and rim in one or more locations on the vehicle, it would not result in any significant adverse vehicle characteristics since the rolling radii of the two tire sizes are very close to each other, differing only by approximately 1.1%.

We request your earliest possible decision on this matter. In the meantime, Volvo intends to send correct tire pressure placards to owners of all affected vehicles. -

Please have your staff contact me if you have any questions regarding this petition.

Sincerely yours, Product Planning & Development Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance NF: cmr cc: B. Holthe W. Shapiro P-O Beiring S. Bengtson G. Leoj R. Mercer

July 10, 1985 Hon. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Petition for Inconsequential Non-Compliance Clarification

Dear Ms. Steed:

This is to supplement my letter of June 27, in which we requested exemption under 49 CFR S 556 on the basis of inconsequential non-compliance.

Please be advised that, as stated in page 2 of the letter, a tire placard (reference FMVSS No. 110 S4.3) containing correct tire size information will be sent to all owners of record of affected vehicles. This label will be of the peel-off, adhesive type. Instructions for affixing this label in place of the original label will be included.

We trust that this will serve to clarify our intent in this matter. Sincerely yours, VOLVO CARS Of NORTH AMERICA Product Planning & Development Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance NF:jy cc: P.O. Beiring S. Bengtson