ID: 1982-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation; State of Hawaii

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MABEL Y. BULLOCK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205, VSA 103 (D), VSA SECTION 108 (A) (2) (A); LETTER FROM MABLE Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINTING, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATING WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THRONBURG AND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DATED 05/06/88 FROM DAIRL BRAGG TO WILLIAM S. HIATT; LETTER DATED 04/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO ARMOND CARDARELLI; REGULATIONS DATED 07/01/85 EST, FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

TEXT:

Mr. Lawrence T. Hirohata Vehicle Equipment Safety Specialist Department of Transportation State of Hawaii 79 South Himitz Highway Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dear Mr. Hirohata:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether persons who apply tinted films to motor vehicle glazing would be considered motor vehicle distributors, dealers or repair businesses and thus be prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act from rendering inoperative components that have been installed on vehicles pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The answer to your question is yes. The persons you described fall within classes of persons listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) and the application of tinted film to motor vehicle glazing can constitute "rendering inoperative." Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides that:

"No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard,.... For purposes of this paragraph, the term "motor vehicle repair business" means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Without knowing more about the film appliers you described, we find it difficult to determine the number of classes into which they would fall. However, the film-appliers are clearly considered to be dealers. This conclusion is based on the definitions of "motor vehicle equipment" (section 102(4)), and "dealer" (section 102(7)). The tinted film is an item of motor vehicle equipment since it is an "accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle." Therefore, any person who sells the tinted film primarily to persons, typically vehicle owners, for purposes other than resale is a dealer. The status of such a person does not change because he or she also applies the film to motor vehicle glazing.

The film appliers you described may also be motor vehicle repair businesses. You stated that the film appliers argue that they are not repair businesses. Implicit in their argument is a narrow interpretation of the term "repair." We don't believe that such an interpretation was intended by Congress since it would frustrate Congress' stated purpose in attempting to ensure that safety equipment remains operative over the life of the vehicle. The only type of person mentioned in the legislative history as being permitted to render safety equipment inoperative is the owner of the Vehicle on which the safety equipment is installed. In addition, we believe that the references in the history to service, maintenance and replacement further suggest that a narrow interpretation was not intended.

The agency has consistently stated in its past letters of interpretation that the installation of tinted films on vehicle glazing constitutes rendering inoperative if the installation destroys the glazing's compliance with the light transmittance requirements of Safety Standard No. 205. The legislative history of section 108(a)(2)(A) provides that "render inoperative" includes permanent removal, disconnection or degradation of the safety performance of any element or design of a vehicle (Conference Report). Therefore, the activity described in your letter definitely falls within the scope of section 108(a)(2)(A).

In conclusion, it is the agency's opinion that businesses which are installing tinted films on motor vehicles and thereby destroying the glazing's compliance with the light transmittance requirements of Safety Standard No. 205 are in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As such, the businesses are liable for civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

Our Office of Enforcement is currently investigating the practice of applying tinted film to motor vehicle glazing. Accordingly, we have forwarded a copy of your letter and the advertisement to that office for its action.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Hugh Oates

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to reiterate my telephone request of August 5, 1982 relating to the federal interpretation of the phrase "motor vehicle repair business" as used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act).

In Hawaii, there are numerous businesses engaged in the trade of applying film or liquid tinting materials to motor vehicle window glass for a fee. All window glass, including those required for driver visibility, are tinted to a shade where under normal sunny condition the occupants or objects inside the vehicle cannot be readily visible from outside the vehicle. The minimum 70% luminous transmittance required for driving visibility as recommended in the American National Standard (ANS) Z26.1 and referenced by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 205 are being rendered inoperative by these businesses.

We believe these businesses may be in violation of the Act. However, the operators of these businesses contend that they are not in the motor vehicle repair business because they do not repair anything mechanical. They perform only superficial facelifting of vehicle exterior.

In your opinion, would you consider these businesses as a motor vehicle repair business within the scope of the Act? Can these businesses also be considered as a distributor or dealer of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined in Section 102(4), (6) and (7) of the Act?

Enclosed is a typical advertisement offering a special for auto glass tinting by a business here in Honolulu. This ad appeared in the August 13th issue of a weekly classified ad.

We would appreciate any legal opinion or assistance you can share with us to effectuate a solution to this monstrous problem.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA Vehicle Equipment Safety Specialist

ID: 1985-03.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steven W. Crowell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 13, 1985 Mr. Steven W. Crowell 29 Mansfield Street Allston, MA 02134 Dear Mr. Crowell: Thank you for your March 8, 1985 letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch of this office asking several questions concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency. I sincerely regret the delay in responding to your letter; however, I hope the following discussion will be of assistance to you. You first asked whether our safety standards apply to auxiliary interior equipment installed in motor vehicles. The answer is yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and equipment (103), prohibits the sale or manufacture of new vehicles and equipment which do not meet those standards (108(a)(1)(A)), establishes civil penalties for non-complying vehicles and equipment (109(a)), and requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any non-compliances (154(a)). A copy of the Act is enclosed for your information. In addition, the Act requires certification of compliance with applicable safety standards (114). This requirement applies to manufacturers of equipment, with regard to those items of equipment, and to vehicle manufacturers, with regard to the entire vehicle. Thus, if auxiliary interior equipment is installed in a vehicle prior to first sale, the equipment manufacturer must certify compliance with any safety standards applicable to the item of equipment, and the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the entire vehicle (including items of equipment) complies with all applicable standards. You also asked specifically about the applicability of certain safety standards to interior partitions: Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (dashboards and seatbacks), No. 205, Glazing Materials (windows), and No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (safety belts and other restraint systems). Only Standard No. 205 directly applies to interior partitions. However a vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicles comply with applicable safety standards, even if an interior partition or other auxiliary equipment is installed. For example, Standard No. 111 requires that a rearview mirror provide a minimum field of view for a driver. If the rearview mirror does not provide that field of view (due to an interior partition or any other reason), the Standard requires an outside rearview mirror. Each safety standard describes the types of vehicles and equipment systems to which it applies; copies of Standards N. 107, 111, 201, 205 and 208 are also enclosed for your information. The safety standards apply to new motor vehicles ad new items of motor vehicle equipment, and the responsibility for assuring compliance rests with the manufacturer. However, the Act also includes some restrictions on vehicle modifications after the first sale to a consumer. Under 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not "render inoperative" any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, modification of a vehicle by such a person must not render any safety feature inoperative. The owner or other user of a motor vehicle, however, may modify the vehicle without concern about possibly violating a Federal safety standard because the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to such users. State law should always be considered before modification, however, because it may limit the alteration of a vehicle by its owner or other users. You also ask whether the Act and our safety standards apply to various types of vehicles and ownerships. The Federal safety standards apply to all new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that are introduced into commerce in the United States. All the types of vehicles you mention, such as taxicabs, police cruisers, and utility vans, are within the Act's definition of "motor vehicle" (102(3)), so they are subject to all forth the types of vehicles to which it applies. There is no exception for the manufacture of vehicles for government or commercial use, Also, as discussed above, the user of a vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, may personally modify his or her vehicle without violating Federal law, but users should check State law. You also inquired, in cases whether the Act and safety standards do not apply, as to who might be liable for personal injury or property damage resulting from the use of interior partitions. As noted above, the Act applies to all new motor vehicles, so each new vehicle is required to comply with all applicable safety standards. However, the Act does not govern liability questions, regardless of whether a safety standard does or does not apply to a given vehicle or item of equipment. Liability issues are governed by State tort law; you may wish to consult with a local attorney to discuss the liability laws in your State. In addition, you asked how the pre-emption provision of the Act, (103(d)) would affect a State motor vehicle inspection law requiring safety belt retention for passenger cars, but not for commercial vehicles. That pre-emption provision prohibits any state safety standards for vehicles or items of vehicle equipment which are not identical to Federal safety standards covering the same aspect of performance. While that provision would not apply to the situation you describe -- since there is no Federal safety standard requiring the retention of safety belts -- the restrictions in the Act on subsequent vehicle modifications (108(a)(2)(A), discusses above) would apply. Since safety belts are required items of motor vehicle equipment under Standard No. 208, the statutory provision would prohibit certain commercial enterprises from removing those belts, whether from passenger cars or from commercial vehicles. Thus, no State law could legalize the removal by such businesses of federally required safety belts, since such a law would conflict with 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Of course, State law may require the retention of safety belts for any or all classes of motor vehicles. Finally, you asked whether prohibiting motor vehicles from interstate commerce would effectively avoid the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act. Such prohibition would not affect a manufacturer's obligation under the Act to certify the vehicle and assure compliance with all applicable safety standards. The Act is not limited to vehicles which are actually used in interstate commerce (i.e., those that cross State lines). Instead, it requires compliance with safety standards for all new vehicles and items of vehicle equipment which are manufactured, sold or introduced in interstate commerce (108(a)(1)(A)). In our view, that provision indicates Congress' intent to cover all new motor vehicles. As a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that any vehicle would never be in interstate commerce at some time during its lifetime. For example, the delivery of the vehicle from its place of manufacture to its original place of sale will generally involve movement in interstate commerce. Also, a manufacturer has no way of knowing where its vehicles may subsequently be used. In addition, whether or not the vehicles are actually used in interstate commerce, their subsequent use on public roads substantially affects interstate commerce and therefore is subject to Federal law. I hope these answers are helpful. We appreciate your interest in State safety belt use legislation, and again I apologize for the delay in responding. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Oesch of my office (202-426-2992). Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 8240a

Trooper Bob Dittert
Texas Department of Public Safety
10110 NW Freeway
Houston, TX 77092

Dear Mr. Dittert:

This responds to your inquiry about how the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affect State laws applicable to the same aspect of performance. You were particularly interested in our requirements for window tinting. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. After providing background information, I will answer the specific questions raised in your letter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Standard 205, "Glazing Materials," issued under the Safety Act, has requirements that limit the amount of tinting that can be placed on windows in new vehicles. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Under 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, no person shall manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not meet all applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces.

The prohibition in 108(a)(1)(A) against selling complying vehicles and items of equipment does not apply to a vehicle or item of equipment after its first sale to a consumer. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act applies to modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Please note that the "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

I would now like to apply this background to the particular questions raised in your letter.

Question One: "Are the CFRs law and enforceable only by federal agents?"

NHTSA's regulations and safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations and standards apply without State ratification to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces these regulations and safety standards.

Question Two: "Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?"

The FMVSS's apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, and not to used vehicles or equipment. NHTSA may bring enforcement actions against manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of equipment that do not comply with applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA also enforces the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act against commercial entitites that modify new or used vehicles in a manner that violates the "render inoperative" provision. We also note that NHTSA can investigate safety defects in new or used vehicles or items of equipment.

Question Three: "Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFRs?"

We understand you to ask this in the context of window tinting requirements, since elsewhere in your letter you ask whether a Texas law that allows light transmittance of 35 percent violates Federal law.

Your question relates to 103(d) of the Safety Act, which states:

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

Whether State law is preempted under 103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the manufacture of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture or sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard 205.

As stated above, Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses (108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act). The effect of 108(a)(2)(A) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting - that is illegal under Federal law.

Question 4: "Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp `black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?"

You are correct that 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act regulates the modifications of only the commercial entities listed in that section of the Act, and that the Safety Act does not prohibit an individual from modifying his or her vehicle such that it no longer complies with the FMVSS's. The States may have requirements governing the modification of a vehicle by individual owners.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205#VSA d:5/5/93

ID: nht79-1.22

DATE: 12/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 19, 1979

NOA-30

Mr. R. M. Premo Director, Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 3555 St. Johns Road Lima, Ohio 45804

Dear Mr. Premo:

This responds to your November 12, 1979, letter asking whether several joints in your school bus must comply with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. All of the joints concern what you have called maintenance access panels.

As you are aware, the agency has discovered through its compliance testing that most school bus manufacturers have taken advantage of the maintenance access panel exemption from the standard. The result is that many joints in school buses are not as secure as they should be and, during an accident, might result in injury to children being transported in those buses. The agency is very concerned about this practice and is considering methods of limiting the maintenance access panel exemption.

Your letter asks the agency to consider the fact that the panels whose joints you are questioning are plastic and not metal. Therefore, you conclude that the edges are not sharp, and even if the panels come unfastened in an accident, their edges will not be likely to injure the occupants of your buses.

The standard establishes joint strength tests that apply uniformly to all joints regardless of the material used in the panel. While it may be true that plastic panels are less likely to injure occupants of buses when a panel becomes disconnected during an accident, Standard No. 221 addresses other safety areas beyond preventing the sharp edges of panels from cutting occupants. Joint strength is necessary for the vehicle integrity during accidents. This is as important as preventing cutting edges from panels. Accordingly, the agency will continue to subject all joints falling within the parameters of the standard to the requirements of the standard without regard to the material used in a panel.

With respect to the questions posed in your letter, you first ask whether the right and left hand windshield pillar covers must comply with the standard. You indicate that a hose runs behind one pillar cover and a cable control runs behind the other. The agency has indicated that the installation of a wire, hose or cable behind a wall does not make that wall a maintenance access panel. Accordingly, the agency concludes that the joints connecting the pillar cover panel are subject to the standard.

Your questions 2, 4, and 5 refer to panels that cover motors which you indicate must be serviced. The motors include the windshield wiper and heater motors. The agency is unable to determine from your pictures and sketches whether all of the joints surrounding these motors are subject to the standard. The joints connecting panels that must be removed for routine servicing of a vehicle's motors would not be considered as joints subject to the standard. However, these joints must be the minimum necessary for routine servicing of the motors. In compliance testing your vehicles, the agency will only exempt those joints that are necessary for routine servicing. We will not exempt adjacent panel joints simply because wires run beneath them.

In your third question you describe a dash trim panel that covers a wiring harness, some chassis cowl mounting bolts, and an entrance door cable. The agency needs more information to make a formal determination with respect to this panel and its joints. Our inclination based upon the information that you have presented is that these would be joints subject to the standard, because the removal of this panel is not required for routine maintenance.

Your final question asks whether the entrance door control cover must comply with the standard. You state only that must be removed to remove the dash trim panel. As we stated in the last paragraph, we believe that the dash trim panel joints may be required to comply with the standard. If this is the case, it may also be necessary for the door control cover joints to comply with the standard. The key factor in determining whether this panel's joints must comply with the requirement is whether the panel must be removed for routine maintenance. You have not proven such a need in your letter, concerning the need for these joints to comply with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 12, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain rulings that the seven parts listed below will comply with the exclusions allowed under S.4 of FMVSS 221 as they relate to the need for maintenance.

The parts are made from a flexible plastic material called polypropolene. The purpose is to cover many unsightly conditons of components required to be installed, some due to assembly of the body to the chassis, and others required by either federal or state regulations. It is our opinion that a very important secondary purpose is accomplished in that due to the flexibility and rounded corners of the plastic parts, many edges and corners of steel parts will gain additional protection. Additionally if the parts were to come loose during an accident, which is unlikely unless of a violent type, they could do little, if any, physical injury due to the flexibility of the material.

(1) Right-hand & Left-hand Windshield Pillar Covers

(a) The left-hand pillar requires the running of an air or vacuum line to the top of the windshield to operate a mechanical wig wag signal that informs the driver of a drop in air pressure in the brake system and is required in some states.

(b) The right-hand pillar has a cable control anounced to the windshield pillar that connects the driver operated door control to the mechanism at the top of the doors to operate the entrance doors.

(2) Left-hand Dash Trim

This part must be removed to service the windshield wiper motor, mechanism and wiring.

(3) Dash Trim - Center.

Covers a wiring harness, some of the body to chassis cowl mounting bolts that need to be retightened occasionally and entrance door control cable.

(4) Right-hand Dash Trim

Requires removal to service the right-hand windshield wiper motor, mechanism, wiring for the windshield motor, right-hand heater and door control cable.

(5) Right-hand Heater Cover

Must be removed to service the motors, blower, and heater cores.

(6) Entrance Door Control Cover

This covers the body of the door control which houses the switches that operate a part of the roof light warning system and stepwell light. It also must be removed along with the door control assembly in order to remove the center dash trim.

Our planning is to use these parts in production January 1980, but final decision will be based upon your rulings.

We definitely are of the opinion this adds to the enterior safety as well as appearance, but requires decisions before the expense of tooling for these parts.

A photograph is enclosed showing a prototype with the subject parts installed.

Due to tooling lead time and present date, your prompt reply is requested.

Very truly yours,

R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

RMP:cr Enclosures (2)

Photographs Dwg. #LO-21782-D

ID: nht88-2.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WARD W. REESER -- PROJECT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/04/87 TO TAYLOR VINSON FROM W.W. REESER, OCC-1383

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reeser:

I am writing in response to your December 4, 1987 letter in which you described Caterpillar Inc.'s worldwide program to review lighting used on Caterpillar product lines in order to standardize the devices. You specifically asked if any of Caterpillar's lighting devices were covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FVSS) 108. You enclosed descriptive literature on the Caterpillar product line. I regret the delay in responding to your question.

It must be noted at the outset that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." Therefore, Standard 108 and all of our other regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehi cle qualifies as a "motor vehicle" under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Section 102(3) of the Act defines "motor vehicle" as: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufact ured 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. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles because Congress clearly did not intend to include them in its coverage. 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 o f highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways 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-ro ad operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact use d on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

As noted above, this agency has consistently interpreted "motor vehicle" to exclude vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel. Therefore, the track-type tractors, excavators, track-type loaders, tracked pavement profilers PR-450, PR-750B and PR-1000, concrete slipform pavers & auxiliary equipment, finegraders, front shovels, swing machines, tracked skidders D4H and D5H are not considered to be "motor vehicles."

In your letter, you described the Caterpillar line of construction and industrial equipment as basically for off-highway use: "There are occasional uses on the highway for such equipment as motor graders, but obviously none of this equipment is designed for normal highway use or for the transportation of people." Despite their use of the highway, some vehicles are expected from the motor vehicle classification. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers , and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered "motor vehicles."

Although many items in the Caterpillar product line have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles, the product literature enclosed with your letter did not provide sufficient information on the maximum speed capabilit ies or intended uses (i.e., strictly off highway or occasional on-highway use) of the motor graders, off-highway tractors, articulated dump trucks, wheel tractors, compactors, landfill compactors, wheel loaders, integrated toolcarriers, backhoe loaders, pavement profilers PR-75, PR-105 and PR-275, asphalt pavers & auxiliary equipment, compaction equipment, skidders, pipelayers, scrapers, and off-highway trucks to enable me to make a determination whether these would be considered "motor vehicles." Howev er, I believe that the guidelines for classifying vehicles that are set forth above will allow you to determine if these are "motor vehicles." If they are, they must comply with safety standards, including Standard 108, applicable to trucks.

The lighting devices and other features of "motor vehicles" would be required to comply with the FMVSS (49 CFR Part 571). As you are aware, Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR @ 571.108) specifies requirements f or original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment necessary for signaling and

for the safe operation of motor vehicles during darkness and other conditions of reduced visibility.

Finally, the product literature included several items which did not appear to be self-propelling, including the asphalt drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment items TSF-54 and TSM-54. These products fall within NHTSA's jurisdiction if th ey are "trailers" as that term is defined at 49 CFR @571.3. That section defines "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

Based on the depiction in the brochure, the equipment appear to be designed for carrying property (drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment) and for being drawn by another vehicle. Therefore, whether the equipment are trailers depends on wh ether they are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act and on whether the vehicles the equipment are designed to be drawn by are "motor vehicles." Specific information has not been provided about the intended uses of the equipment. If they make frequent use of the highways, and stay at one particular job site for a limited amount of time, the items mentioned above would be motor vehicles, and woul d fall within the definition of "trailers." Trailers are subject to Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If, on the other hand, the equipment are intended to be drawn by vehicles that are not motor vehicles, or the equi pment stays at a job site for extended periods of time and it travels on the highways only to move to another job site for an extended stay, the equipment would not be considered motor vehicles.

It is important to note that NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product.

I hope the information provided above will be useful to you and to Caterpillar, Inc. If there are any further questions or if you need further information, please do not hesitate to write to me.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KUNIO SHIMAZU -- GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. OFFICE - TOYOTA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: FEBRUARY 26, 1988 LETTER FROM SHIMAZU TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you were concerned with the requirements for positioning automatic safet y belts on the test dummy prior to dynamic testing. You noted that, before conducting compliance testing of vehicles with automatic belt systems, section S10.5.2 of Standard No. 208 necessitates the following step: "Ensure that the upper torso belt lies flat on the test dummy's shoulder after the automatic belt has been placed on the test dummy." You asserted that this section does not clearly specify the belt path or how the belt is to be positioned on the dummy's shoulder. You further expressed your concern that, during the agency compliance testing, test personnel might believe that they are prohibited from adjusting the belt path on the dummy after the door has been shut for any reason other than the belt's failure to lie flat on the test dummy's shoulder. You asserted that, if NHTSA does not adjust the belt path as you have suggested for its compliance testing of vehicles with automatic belts, the compliance testing will be insufficiently representative of "real-world" performance of the automa tic belts.

Standard No. 208 does provide for adjustment of automatic belts only if the belt fails to lie flat on the test dummy's shoulder. Belt systems that require some additional deliberate actions by the vehicle occupant to provide effective crash protection f or the occupant are not automatic belt systems within the meaning of Standard No. 208, as explained below.

Standard No. 208 has always permitted manufacturers to comply with its requirement for automatic crash protection by any means that "requires no action by vehicle occupants." See 35 FR 14941; September 25, 1970. Automatic safety belts that require no ac tion by vehicle occupants are one means of satisfying the requirement for automatic crash protection. On April 25, 1974 (39 FR 14593), the agency issued an interpretation of this concept, in which the agency said that it would not consider a belt

system that had to be manually moved out of the way by the occupant to be an "automatic" system within the meaning of Standard No. 208. The following discussion also appeared, at 39 FR 14594:

The question of what constitutes "no action by vehicle occupants" in a vehicle equipped with (presumptively) passive belts is best considered in two stages: (1) Entry and exit from the vehicle, and (2) positioning of the belt for safety and comfort.

* * *

The second question relates to the usefulness of the system once the occupant has been seated. The essence of a passive system is that it provides at least the minimum level of protection without relying on occupant action to deploy the restraint. A t this stage, then, the question is whether an occupant who has seated himself without taking any "additional action" is in fact protected in a 30 mph impact. This can be measured by conducting the impact tests with the belt positioned on the test dummy in the orientation that results when a human occupant enters the vehicle according to the first test described above. It would not be required that the belt position itself for maximum comfort of the human occupant, if it met the safety requirements. For example, if the belt were to fall across the upper arm instead of the clavicle, but still passed the test, the system would be considered conforming.

After further consideration, the agency tentatively concluded that its interpretation might have been too stringent in suggesting that a belt system that had to be manually moved out of the way by an occupant to enter or exit the vehicle would not be con sidered an automatic belt system for purposes of Standard No. 208. The agency sought public comment on this tentative conclusion in an April 12, 1985 notice (50 FR 14580). The four commenters that responded to this request all concurred with the agency 's judgment that the 1974 interpretation was too stringent, and the agency revised its interpretation in a November 6, 1985 rule (50 FR 46056). The following discussion appears at 50 FR 46064:

. . . The concept of an occupant protection system which requires "no action by vehicle occupants," as that term is used in Standard No. 208, is intended to designate a system which will perform its protective restraining function after a normal proce ss of ingress or egress without separate deliberate actions by the vehicle occupants to deploy the restraint system. Thus, the agency considers an occupant protection system to be automatic if an occupant has to take no action to deploy the system but w ould normally slightly push the safety belt webbing aside when entering or exiting the vehicle or would normally make a slight adjustment in the webbing for comfort. . . . (Emphasis in original)

This interpretation was added to the end of Standard No. 208 to make clear that a belt system requires "no action by vehicle occupants" if the occupant must slightly push the webbing when entering or exiting the vehicle or if the occupant must make a sli ght adjustment to improve comfort. This interpretation neither said nor implied that a belt system

that must be adjusted to provide effective occupant protection would be considered an automatic belt system for the purposes of Standard No. 208. Indeed, since the vehicle occupant would have to take separate deliberate actions to deploy such a belt syst em, the interpretation makes clear that such a system would not be considered an automatic belt system.

The positioning procedures for automatic belts reflect this understanding of what constitutes an "automatic" belt system. Such procedures were added to Standard No. 208 in a September 5, 1986 final rule (51 FR 31765). The following discussion appeared in the preamble to that rule: In the agency's NCAP testing, the only adjustment NHTSA has made to an automatic belt once it has been deployed on the test dummy is to ensure that the belt is lying flat on the test dummy's shoulder when the belt is in its final position. The agency is adopting the same procedure for the Standard No. 208 compliance test. 51 FR 31766.

An adjustment to ensure that the belt webbing is not twisted on the test dummy's shoulder is the sort of adjustment that would normally be made by a vehicle occupant for comfort. Hence, this type of adjustment in compliance testing is consistent with th e November 6, 1985 interpretation of automatic belt systems for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

NHTSA intentionally did not provide for any further adjustments of automatic belts prior to Standard No. 208 compliance testing, because automatic belts require no action by vehicle occupants. Any belt systems that need some further adjustments to offer effective occupant protection require some action by vehicle occupants, and therefore are not automatic belt systems for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

ID: nht88-3.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: HIROSHI KATO -- MMC SERVICES INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/19/88 FROM HIROSHI KATO TO ERIKA Z JONES; OCC - 1916

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kato:

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

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

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

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

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with

special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle". Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which th e vehicle is to be operated.

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

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

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

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

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

You stated that your advertising and promotional materials will state that your vehicle should be used only for off-road purposes and will not depict or suggest that the vehicle can be used on-road. This factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht88-3.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BEVERLY B. BYRON -- CONGRESS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/24/88 letter from Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr. to Beverly B. Byron; 8/14/85 memo from C. Richard Fravel to Whom it May Concern; 8/4/88 memo from Arthur J. Lomart to Whom it May Concern; 8/1/88 letter from C.E. Shue to Joseph Ciampa, Jr.; 9/12/88 letter from Nancy F. Miller to Beverly B. Byron; 8/25/88 letter from Bevery B. Byron to Nancy Miller; 11/29/89 (est) letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to John D. Dingell (A34; Std. 205); 9/22/89 letter from John D. Dingell to Jeffrey R. Miller; 8/25/89 letter from Constance A. Morella to Norman Y. Mineta; 7/31/89 letter from W. Marshall Rickert to Constance A. Morella; 7/8/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Norman D. Shunway (Std. 205)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Byron:

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

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

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). These require ments include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

2

Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the safety standards. Thus, we assume that Mr. Ciampa's car as delivered to him complied with Standard No. 205's requirement for at least 70 percent light tra nsmittance in all of its windows, including the side windows that are now the subject of dispute.

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

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

Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, n o provision of Federal law or this agency's regulations prevents Mr. Ciampa himself from tinting his side windows.

However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. It would seem that the State of Ma ryland has exercised its authority to prohibit windows being tinted in the way that Mr. Ciampa's are. The wisdom and fairness of applying that prohibition to individuals with Mr. Ciampa's condition is something to be decided by the State of Maryland, no t the Federal government. Contrary to the statement in Mr. Ciampa's letter, we have never told Maryland or any other State how to administer their laws and regulations with respect to the operational use of vehicles in the State.

3

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ref:VSA#205

SECTION 1. Section 25251.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

25251.5 (a) Any motor vehicle may also be equipped with a system in which an amber light is center mounted on the rear of a vehicle to communicate a component of deceleration of the vehicle, and which light pulses in a controlled fashion at a rate whi ch varies exponentially with a component of deceleration

(b) Any motor vehicle may be equipped with two amber lamps on the rear of the vehicle which operate simultaneously with not more than four flashes within four seconds after the accelerator pedal is in the deceleration position and which are not lighte d at any

ID: 86-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/86

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

TO: Mr. B.K. O'Neil

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a product you manufacture. Your letter and the literature you enclosed describe your product as a modified acrylic tinted shield which fits over the front end of a passenger car. According to the pictures you enclosed with your letter, your shield fits over the headlights of some vehicles, in others it apparently only covers the front turn signals. I regret the delay in our response. As discussed below, your product could be affected by two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

The agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance and marking requirements for glazing materials used in a vehicle. Auxillary wind deflectors are among the items of glazing materials covered by the standard. The agency has applied the standard to the type of wind deflector that is used at a location necessary for driving visibility. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that wind deflectors do not obstruct or distort the vision of a driver. Thus, for example, the agency has said in a letter of October 2, 1985, to Mr. Rosario Costanzo that the standard would apply to a wind deflector designed to be mounted in the side window of a vehicle. The literature you enclosed shows that your product, which is a type of plastic shield, is not mounted in a location necessary for driving visibility and thus would not be covered by Standard No. 205.

Installation of your product in a new vehicle prior to its first sale would be affected by Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which sets, among other things, minimum candle power requirements for headlamps and turn signals. In addition, paragraph S4.1.3 of the standard prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Furthermore Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J580, Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, which is incorporated by reference in paragraph S4.1.1.36 and Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, prohibits styling features in front of headlamps when the lamps have been activated. Thus, S4.1.3, S4.1.1.36, and Tables I and II prohibit the use of fixed transparent headlamp covers as original equipment on motor vehicles. Part 567, Certification, of our regulations provides that a person that alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards. Thus, an alterer could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If a version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the alterer must certify that the vehicle lights will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Persons violating the certification requirement are subject to a civil fine of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a commercial business could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If the version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the business must assure that the vehicle lamps will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Commercial businesses that violate section 108(a)(2)(A) are subject to a civil penalty of $ 1,000 per violation.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Also, any modifications made by a vehicle owner would have to comply with applicable state law.

In addition, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which outlines those requirements.

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

Sincerely,

ENC.

January 22, 1986

Department of Transportation

Attn: Erika Jones Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones:

I have been in contact with Mr. Ed Glassie of your department, and he suggested we contact you for clarification on our product.

AUTOBRA I manufactures a modified acrylic (Plexiglas DR(R)) auto bra, as per the enclosed literature.

I would like to find out if we are approved by D.O.T., or in fact, our product would need approval under your guidelines.

Please peruse our literature and samples, and advise me of your comments.

AUTOBRA I, INC.

B.K. O'Neill Vice President/Marketing

ENC.

P.S. Although there are presently four or five other manufacturers of auto bras in America right now, we are unfamiliar with their position as to D.O.T. compliance. The only difference between us is the type of plastic used.

(Graphics omitted)

Autobra shield has been designed to provide the following innovative features not available with most front end protection: STYLING Autobra shield's aerodynamic styling actually enhances your automobile's appearance.

MOUNTING Mounting Autobra shield is fast and secure without modification to your automobile.

ACCESS Autobra shield provides easy access to your hood or bonnet without total removal of the shield.

PROTECTION Autobra shield's solid acrylic construction provides maximum protection to your automobile from stones, bugs and other flying debris.

SAFETY Abrasion, mildew and damage to body finish of the covered area are eliminated because Autobra shield mounts away from the surface of the automobile.

MAINTENANCE Autobra shield wipes clean with soap and water providing easy maintenance.

Autobra shield's acrylic construction is resistant to the WEATHER elements; RESISTANCE consequently removal of the shield in inclement weather is virtually eliminated.

Autobra shield is available in light tint acrylic for Porsche 911, 930; BMW 318/325, 320; Toyota Celica, Tercel, Pick-Up; Fiero; Corvette; Mustang GT, and other select automobiles.

2177 Andrea Lane Ft. Myers, FL 33908 Florida (813) 482-5603 Toll Free 1-800-445-2886

Dealer inquiries welcomed

ID: 86-6.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Bridget Ernst, regarding our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In her letter to you, Ms. Ernst enclosed materials issued by the National Coalition for Seat Belts on School Buses which explained why the Coalition believes safety belts should be required by Federal law on all school buses. You asked us to discuss the main counter-arguments against such a requirement, and asked also whether any Federal legislation has been introduced recently to increase the safety requirement on school buses. I am pleased to respond.

I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of motor vehicle safety standards to improve school bus safety. Our school bus safety standards apply to various aspects of vehicle performance, including school bus windows and windshields, emergency exits, fuel systems and passenger seating and crash protection.

The safety belt issue your constituent raises involves the safety standard we issued for school bus passenger crash protection, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. Standard No. 222 requires that large school buses provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of the school bus be improved with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area during an accident. They ensure that a system of crash protection is provided to passengers independent of their actions to use safety belts. Standard No. 222 requires safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since belts are needed on those vehicles to provide adequate crash protection.

The information from the Coalition that Ms. Ernst enclosed in her letter to you states that safety belts are needed on all school buses to protect children and keep them within their seating compartment in the event of a collision or rollover. We believe that effective passenger crash protection and containment is already provided by compartmentalization and that it would be inappropriate to issue a Federal mandate for safety belts on all school buses. While the effects of compartmentalization are expected to be greater in crashes involving front or rear impacts, the standard also has potential in side impacts and rollovers by minimizing the "hostility" of the crash environment and by limiting the range of movement of an occupant in those two types of crashes.

For your information, I have enclosed a DOT report, "Seat Belts in School Buses" (June 1985),"which provides a thorough discussion of the safety belt issues raised by your constituent. As explained in the report, school buses in this country have compiled an excellent safety record. In addition to meeting compartmentalization requirements, large school buses incorporate more safety by virtue of their greater mass, higher seating height and high visibility to other motorists. Thus, the need for safety belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities is not the same as that for other vehicles, such as passenger cars. Because the safety record of large school buses is very good, we must conclude that a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts is not justified at this time.

The Coalition's material enclosed by Ms. Ernst included a statement indicating that NHTSA "supports local district seat belt programs." NHTSA permits the voluntary installation of safety belts for passengers on large school buses if the purchaser wishes to have belts installed. We believe that such a decision should be made by individual schools and school districts that have made a reasoned assessment of their particular pupil transportation needs. However, because there are many effective ways to improve pupil transportation safety, such as improving driver training and school bus maintenance programs, it would be inappropriate for us to endorse local district programs for safety belts on school buses. Therefore, for purposes of clarification, we neither support nor discourage school districts' decisions to install safety belts on their large school buses.

You asked about any Federal legislation that had been recently introduced to increase the safety of school buses. The Administration has not proposed any legislation affecting school buses. However, two bills were introduced in the 99th Congress concerning school buses. H.R. 3129 contained a provision calling for a school bus safety study to determine the measures most effective in protecting the safety of school children. H.R. 719 proposed incentive grants to the States encouraging the adoption and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in school buses. Neither H.R. 3129 nor H.R. 749 was enacted.

In addition, NHTSA has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 222 by setting performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed in large school buses. If adopted, this rule would require safety belts voluntarily installed on mew large school buses to meet Federal safety belt standards for strength and proper installation. We are evaluating the comments submitted on our proposal and a final decision on the rulemaking action is expected in the near future.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

September 24, 1986

David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

One of my constituents, Ms. Bridget Ernst, has recently informed me of her support for seatbelt requirements on school buses. I have enclosed some information from the National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses which she has brought to my attention. I would appreciate your comments on the safety issues they raise.

Has any legislation been introduced recently on the federal level to increase the safety requirement on school buses? What are the main counter-arguments?

Thanks for your assistance in this matter of concern.

With best wishes,

Cordially,

TED STEVENS

Enclosure

Oct 22, 1986

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Bridget Ernst.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate you contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.,

Sincerely,

Edward J. Babbit Director, Office of Congressional Affairs