ID: nht88-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PAUL SCULLY -- VICE PRESIDENT PETERSON MANUFACTURING CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/22/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM PAUL SCULLY RE INTERPRETATION OF EFFECTIVE PROJECTED LUMINOUS AREA, OCC - 1946

TEXT: Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of April 22, 1988, asking for a clarification of a letter that this Office sent Wesbar Corporation on March 16, 1988, with respect to the term "effective projected luminous area."

Wesbar had asked whether it could include the "illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens" (Wesbar's language) in its calculation of the 12 square inch minimum effective projected luminous area required by S4.1 .17 of Safety Standard No. 108. We replied that it could, assuming that the light shines through the reflector. You have pointed out that although a small amount of light escapes through a reflex reflector, the reflector is designed to return light fro m an outside source, rather than to direct light from a source inside the lamp, and that heretofore agency interpretations (e.g. on October 28, 1970, and October 28, 1979) had expressly excluded reflex reflectors from areas included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. Reflex reflectors are also excluded from the term by SAE J387 Terminology.

We appreciate your calling this matter to our attention. Previous interpretations by this Office clearly indicate that a "reflex reflector" is not to be included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. We also note that the SAE definit ion (paragraph 2, SAE J594f,

January 1977) is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108, stating that this item of equipment is one that provides an indication of vehicle presence by reflected light (rather than projected light). We are providing a copy of this letter to Wesbar so that it will be apprised of our reevaluation, and our conclusion that the reflex reflector portion of a lens cannot be included in the calculations of the projected luminous lens area.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CLARENCE M. DITLOW -- EXEC. DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 9-9-88 TO ERIKA JONES, NHTSA, FROM CLARENCE M. DITLOW, EXEC. DIR., CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY, OCC-2525; LETTER DATED 8-02-88 TO CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY FROM JOANNE P. DELL'AQUILA

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking us to "investigate" a service bulletin issued by General Motors to its dealers regarding rear seat lap/shoulder belt kits to be retrofitted in models from earlier model years. You objected to General Motors' decision not to provide retrofit kits for all models, because all earlier models have shoulder belt anchorages and because you question the statement in General Motors' service bulletin that rear seat lap/shoulder belts in certain models would not offer better pr otection for rear seat occupants than lap belts alone. You concluded by alleging that General Motors' "refusal to provide shoulder belt kits for selected models is effectively frustrating" the purpose of requiring anchorages for rear seat shoulder belts to be installed in cars made since 1972 and our policy of encouraging manufacturers to provide retrofit kits for rear seat lap/shoulder belts in older vehicles.

I disagree with your allegations. Let me begin by emphasizing that we continue to support the use of rear seat lap belts, the restraint system found in most cars on the road today. While rear seat lap/shoulder belts may be even more effective, numerous studies have confirmed that rear seat lap belts are effective in reducing the risk of death or serious injuries to occupants. Therefore, NHTSA continues to urge all motorists to use the available safety belt systems in their vehicles.

However, we are encouraging vehicle manufacturers to make rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits available for those consumers who desire them, such as Ms. Dell'Aquila. General Motors has indicated to us that such a retrofit kit is available for Ms. Dell'Aquila's 1988 Buick Regal. However, General Motors' bulletin to its dealers appears to indicate that retrofit kits are not available for those cars. To clear up any confusion, we have forwarded a copy of Ms. Dell'Aquila's letter to General Motors for their response.

2

The allegations in your letter, however, go far beyond Ms. Dell'Aquila's situation to suggest erroneously that her experience shows some failure of our efforts to ensure that rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits are widely available. As you were to ld in Administrator Steed's April 28, 1987 letter to you on this subject, NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to require all manufacturers to make rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits available for all older models. Absent such authority, t he agency has sought the voluntary cooperation of the manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them. The vehicle manufacturers' voluntary positive response to our encouragement is demonstrated by the current availabil ity of retrofit kits for a wide variety of model lines. In fact, the General Motors Information Bulletin enclosed with your letter shows that company has retrofit kits now available for more than 50 models of its cars, trucks, and vans.

The fact that retrofit kits are not available for all model lines produced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy. If a manufacturer makes a good faith determination that it is not ap propriate to make retrofit kits available for certain of its past models, that determination presumably reflects a thoughtful consideration of the characteristics of those individual models. We have no reason to question General Motors' determination wi th respect to a few of its past models.

ID: nht88-3.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DAVE ANDERSON -- SALES MANAGER, GIST ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKS

ATTACHMT: NOT INCLUDED

TEXT: This responds to your letter about Federal requirements for trailers. According to your letter, you are in the planning stages of becoming a manufacturer of, and dealer for, automobile trailers. The trailers would hitch to the back of automobiles and b e designed to carry cargo. You noted that in response to an earlier inquiry, you received a copy of the handout entitled "Information For New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." You stated that you are unclear just how this app lies to automobile trailers. You asked what you need to do to comply with any applicable Federal regulations, and what regulations apply to trailers of the kind you plan to build.

Trailers are considered motor vehicles under federal law. As a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer I dentification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. The procedure is specified in 49 CFR Part 567.

The following safety standards apply to trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number -- Basis Requirements, Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, trailers with certain braking systems must meet Safety Standard No. 106

Brake Hoses, Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, and Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. All of these safety standards are found in 49 CFR Part 571.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-3.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES

TO: GARY M. CEAZAN -- VICE PRESIDENT RIKEN-AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/16/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO MIKE KAIZAKI; STANDARD 119; UNDATED LETTER FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO E.W. DAHL; LETTER DATED 04/18/88 FROM GARY M. CEAZAN TO US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; OCC-1951; STANDARD 109,119

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ceazan:

This is in response to your letter asking whether tires marked with both an ETRTO (European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization) size designation and a different ISO (International Standardization Organization) size designation and a different ISO (Inter national Standardization Organization) size designation can legally be imported into the United States. As discussed below, such tires cannot be imported into the United States, because they do not comply with the applicable safety standards. I regret the delay in this response.

All new pneumatic tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.109), and all new pneumatic tires impo rted for use on motor vehicles other than passenger vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.119). Both of these standards prohibit "dual-size markings," or l abeling two different size designations on one tire.

In the case of passenger car tires, section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." (emphasis added). This agency expressly prohibited dual-size markings on passenger car tires in a preamble amending Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. This prohibition was expressly repeated in subsequent amendments that addressed the question of tire labeling under Standard No. 1 09; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974; and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.

In the case of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, there is no express prohibition in Standard No. 119 against dual size markings. However, section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "th e tire and size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." NHTSA has interpreted the use of the singular in the phrase "tire size designation," rather than the plural "tire size designations," to be a prohibition against marking more than one tire size designation on these

tires. See the enclosed copies of my January 7, 1988 letter to Mr. E.W. Dahl and my February 16, 1988 letter to Mr. Mike Kaizaki.

Since tires marked with two size designations would not comply with our tire standards, they could not legally be imported into the United States, according to the requirement specified in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Sa fety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). If you have any further questions about our tire standards or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-3.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: JOHN S. CROCKENBERG

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/26/88 FROM JOHN S. CROCKENBERG TO ERIKA Z JONES; OCC-1696 NCC - 20

TEXT: Dear Mr. Crockenberg:

This is in response to your letter of February 26, 1988, concerning antiglare plexiglass shields. I regret the delay in our response. You asked whether Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, o r any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applies to your product, a 4" x 6" x 1/8" parallelogram with rounded corners made of transparent bronze plexiglass with an attached 1/2" diameter suction cup. You noted that this device, which adheres to the interior of automobile windows, deflects obstructive sunglare where conventional sun visors cannot be placed. You also asked what other agency's regulations you should be aware of before you begin to manufacture and market this device, if none of ou r standards apply.

You are correct in assuming that Standard No. 103 and Standard No. 111 do not apply to your product. The only Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is relevant to your product is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. S2 states that one purpose of t his standard is to "ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility." S1 and S3 note that Standard No. 205 applies to glazing materials in both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I am enclosing an agency "fact sheet," which concerns the tinting of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I also am enclosing two previous NHTSA interpretation letters, which concern products similar to your antiglare shield. These letters to Susan House on December 20 , 1985 and to Jeffrey Richard on April 16, 1985 explain the effect of Standard No. 205 on a manufacturer of such a product.

In response to your second question, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This identifies other agencies whose regulations might be applicable to a new manufacturer's product s.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-3.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: DOUG COLE -- NATIONAL VAN CONVERSION ASSOCIATION, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/23/87 FROM DOUG COLE OF STEVE KRANTZKE; LETTER DATED 06/29/87 FROM JONATHAN JACKSON TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/22/87 FROM ROSE M. TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/08/87 FROM ROSE TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter asking about the test procedures of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materils. I regret the delay in responding.

In your letter, you explained that the National Van Conversion Association (NVCA) gathers samples of materials used for vehicle floor coverings, seat covers, etc., in van conversions to determine the compliance of the material with Standard No. 302. In your test program, you have found that many samples do not appear to comply. You said that a closer look at the conditions under which these samples were tested revealed that use of support wires affected whether many materials passed or failed the stan dard's test. You ask for clarification as to when support wires are used in Standard No. 302 testing.

The conditions and procedures under which Standard No. 302 compliance testing is conducted using support wires are stated in paragraphs S5.1.3 and S5.3(a) of the standard. Basically, these two paragraphs specify, respectively, that support wires are use d: (1) when testing a specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning," to keep the specimen horizontal; and (2) when testing a speciment that has an available width of not more than 2 inches, to position and mount the specimen on the U-shaped frames used in the test. Standard No. 302 makes no provision for using the wires other than in these two situations.

The agency follows the test procedure specified in Standard No. 302 when testing vehicles for compliance with the requirements of the standard. The agency uses heat-resistant wires as specified in S5.1.3 when there is a reasonable expectation that a tes t specimen will bend or curl while burning. NHTSA bases its determination about the likelihood of bending or curling on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the speciment, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience wi th materials similar to a test specimen.

I would like to point out that manufacturers are not required by Standard No. 302 to test the flammability of their vehicles in only the manner specified in the standard. The standard only sets the procedure that the agency will use in its complaince te sting. Thus, a manufacturer is not required to use wires only with specimens that are anticipated to bend or curl, or that are too small to fit in the test frame without wires. However, manufacturers must exercise due care in making their certification of compliance that their product will meet the standard's requirements when tested by the agency according to the specified procedures of the standard. Whether a manufacturer meets that due care standard when using heat-resistant wires in situations ot her than those described in Standard No. 302 is a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: nht88-3.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- SPECIFICATIONS MANAGER INDIANA MILLS & MANUFACTURING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/01/88 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM E. LAWLER; OCC - 2362

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Specifically, you noted that a final rule published July 6, 1988 (53 FR 25337) upgrades the safety belt requirements for heavy vehicl es manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. One of the new requirements for those safety belts is that, if an automatic locking retractor (ALR) is used, that retractor "shall not retract webbing to the next locking position until at least 3/4 inch of webbing has moved into the retractor." Standard No. 208 sets forth this requirement in section S4.3.2.2 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds, and in section S4.4.2.2 for buses. You asked whether an ALR that depended on a mechanism external to the retractor itself to prevent it from retracting webbing to the next locking position would comply with S4.3.2.2 and S4.4.2.2. The answer to your question is no.

The agency explained in detail the reasons why the final rule did not adopt the proposed requirement for all heavy vehicle safety belts to be equipped with emergency locking retractors only; see 53 FR 25338-25340. The proposed prohibition of ALR's in he avy vehicles was based on the tendency of current designs of ALR's to become progressively tighter around an occupant as the vehicle travels over potholes or other jarring surfaces of the road. However, NHTSA acknowledged in the final rule that some nev er designs of ALR's do not exhibit this tendency. In response to these newer designs of ALR's, the agency said:

Therefore, this rule has been expanded from the proposal, in order to permit ALR's with anti-cinch capability to be installed in heavy vehicles. For the purposes of this rule, anti-cinch capability is determined by examining the working of the retrac tor after it has locked after the initial adjustment of the safety belt. 53 FR 25339.

This language explicitly states that the "working of the retractor" is what determines whether an ALR on a heavy vehicle belt complies with the requirements of Standard No. 208. Since the focus is exclusively on the "working of the retractor," an ALR mu st comply with these requirements without depending upon any external mechanisms to assist it. Any ALR that cannot satisfy these requirements without the assistance of external mechanisms would not comply with Standard No. 208's requirements for ALR's o n heavy vehicles.

This conclusion is reinforced by the agency's statement that:

"NHTSA believes it is appropriate to measure compliance with this new 3/4 inch minimum webbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 208 under the same conditions currently specified for determining compliance with the existing 1-inch maximum w ebbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 209." 53 FR 25340.

The 1-inch maximum webbing travel requirement for ALR's is set forth in section S4.3(i) of Standard No. 209. Since Standard No. 209 became effective in 1968, the agency has determined whether ALR's comply with this requirement by examining the performan ce of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms. As explained in the final rule, the same procedure (examining the performance of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms) will be used to measure co mpliance with the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208.

In your letter, you requested that we issue an interpretation that any ALR that complies with Standard No. 209 can rely on the use of an external mechanism, such as your company's "Komfort-Lok," to comply with the minimum webbing travel requirements of S tandard No. 208 for ALR's on safety belts in heavy vehicles. I cannot do so, for the reasons explained above. Any ALR used on a heavy vehicle safety belt must satisfy the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208 by the working of the ret ractor itself, without the use of any external mechanisms.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM J. HENRICK -- GENERAL TIRE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/03/88 FROM WILLIAM HENRICK TO ERIKA Z JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Henrick:

This is in response to your letter of June 3, 1988, seeking an interpretation of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you stated that your company has reached an agreement with two foreign tire manufacturers to jointly produce a radial medium truck tire in one of your domestic facilities. You anticipate that all three entities will use the same "green" or "uncured" tires. Although your letter is not clear on this point, I am assuming that the sidewall on a given tire will con tain the name and the respective tire identification mark of only one company. You asked whether each of the three companies involved in this joint venture may secure its own identification mark required by Part 574 to identify its tires. The answer to your question is yes.

49 CFR @ 574.5 requires that "Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufacturers . . . by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification n umber containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section." The purpose of the tire identification number requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. To best effectuate the recall of noncomplying or defective tires, the agency recommends but cannot require each production plant to have its own tire identification number .

If the company that produced the tires in its molds (General in this case) wished to put its tire identification number on all of the tires produced for this joint venture, @ 574.5 would not prohibit it from doing so, since that company could certainly b e considered the manufacturer of all of the tires. However, if that company were to do so, it would be responsible for any recalls of these tires, including the tires sold by the other partners in the joint venture.

On the other hand, @ 574.5 does not prohibit each of the three partners in the joint venture from putting its own tire identification number on those tires produced for it by the joint venture. Each partner could be considered the "manufacturer," for pu rposes of @ 574.5, of those tires that it markets under its name. Each partner would then be responsible for any recalls of those tires produced by the joint venture on which its identification number appears.

I am enclosing 49 CFR Part 551 which requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the foreign company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the foreign company;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the tires which do not bear the name of the foreign company.

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the foreign company;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the foreign company, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or United States corporation; and

6. The full name and address of the designated agent.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

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: nht88-3.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/02/88

FROM: STEVEN W. CROWELL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM D. FALCON; REDBOOK A 35; STANDARD 201; 202; 205; VSA 108[A][2][A]; LETTER DATED 01/30/89 FROM WILLIAM D. FALCON TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 3107; LETTER FROM STEVEN CROWELL DATED 06/02/88 TO ELIZABETH DENNISTON -- EGOH BITTNER COMMISSIONER WALTHAM MASSACHUSETTS

TEXT: (Illegible Words)

It has come to my attention that (Ilelgible Word) 71.4.1 guidelines issued by The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies may be in need of amendment in order to reduce risk of injury and suit. The following information may be of ass istance to you.

This is a quote from a letter to me dated 9/13/85 from the Chief Counsel for The United States Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Jeffrey R. Miller. "The National Highway Traffic Safety Act of 1966 authorize s this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and equipment (sect. (Illegible Word) prohibits the sale or manufacture of new vehicles and equipment which do not meet those standards (sect. 108(a)(1)(A)), establishes civil penalties for n on-complying vehicles and equipment (sect. 109 (a)), and requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any non-compliances (sect. 154 (a))."

"In addition, the Act requires certification of compliance with applicable safety standards (sect. 114). This requirement applies to the manufacturers of equipment, with regard to those items of equipment and to vehicle manufacturers, with regard to the entire vehicle. Thus, if the auxiliary interior equipment is installed in a vehicle prior to the first sale, the equipment manufacturer must certify compliance with any safety standards applicable to the item of equipment, and the vehicle manufactur er must certify that the entire vehicle (including the items of equipment) complies with all applicable standards."

If you refer to the Act (Illegible Word) C.P.L. 89-562 sect. 567.7) you will find the following:

[A person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified shall affix to the vehicle an additional label containing the following information; the statement: "This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in whi ch alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year)."]

In light of the preceding information I wish to make the following recommendation. Rather than 71.4.1 reading "The safety barrier may be of wire mesh or heavy guage plastic. . .", I suggest it read; "The safety barrier must be one which has had a lab el or tag affixed to it which certifies compliance with all applicable safety standards and requirements established by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966."

Your perspective on this recommendation will be appreciated.