ID: nht90-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 1, 1990

FROM: Jamie McLaughlin Fish -- Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: Bob Graham -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

TEXT:

Thank you for your recent letter to Mr. John Womack, of our Office of Chief Counsel, on behalf of your constituent Mr. G. Nick Routh, the President of American Energetics in St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr. Routh wrote to you concerning Federal safety stand ards on light transmittance through motor vehicle windows.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards which require specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. One of our standards requ ires that a certain amount of light be transmitted through the windows (called glazing in our standard) of motor vehicles. The purpose of this standard is to ensure driver visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash .

Under Federal law, a motor vehicle manufacturer must certify that the glazing in its new vehicles meets the light transmittance requirements of our standard. Under the law, there are limitations on tinting vehicle windows after sale to the first purchas er. Here, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from modifying equipment installed for compliance with our safety standards, if the modification causes the vehicle or equipment to no longer comply with the safety st andards. Thus, these business establishments cannot add tinting film if it reduces the level of light transmittance below that required by the Federal standard.

The individual States have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be operated or registered in the States, provided that those requirements do not conflict with the requirements of Federal law. Several States have passed laws that prohib it the operation or registration of a vehicle in those States if the vehicle's glazing has a light transmittance below a given level. These State laws do not purport to legitimize conduct -- tint installation firms adding film to glazing so that light t ransmittance is below the level required by the Federal standard -- that is illegal under Federal law. Thus, there is no conflict between Federal law and these State laws, and the States may continue to enforce their operating rules.

Your constituent is president of a company that sells and distributes solar window film to be installed on automobiles. As indicated above, this film is not allowed to be installed by the above-mentioned types of businesses if it results in a lower leve l of light transmittance for the windows than is required by our standard.

Specifically, your constituent enlists your assistance in urging NHTSA to adopt a change in our safety standard for light transmittance. Changes to safety standards can be made by the agency in response to petitions. We have, in fact, been petitioned t o change the light transmittance requirement in our safety standard. In order for us to make a change in a standard, we must determine that sufficient facts are available to support a change. To obtain such information, the agency granted a petition (m entioned by your constituent) for a change in the light transmittance requirement, and published a request for comments on the issue.

However, the granting of this petition does not necessarily mean the standard will be changed. Rather, it indicates that we believed that a review of the current light transmittance requirements in our safety standard was appropriate.

Currently, the agency is completing our review of all the comments received. Based on our review and analysis of all information submitted to the agency, along with other data available, the agency will make a final decision on the appropriate regulator y action. The options include: proceeding with a notice of proposed rulemaking to change the light transmittance requirements; a termination of the rulemaking because our review and analysis did not indicate a change in the light transmittance requireme nts is appropriate at this time; or leaving the rulemaking open, with no final decision, and continuing research into the question of the appropriate level of light transmittance. This last option would mean that the standard would remain as it is today - thereby precluding the use of certain window film -- but the agency would indicate that further research is necessary before a final determination on the question of changing the light transmittance requirement can be reached.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht90-3.4

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Peter Brown -- President, KC HiLites, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 4-25-90 to NHTSA Chief Counsel from Peter Brown attached; OCC 4725 TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1990, asking for our "comments and approval" regarding an automotive lighting product that your company intends to market. The product is intended for use in a four headlamp systems with lens designations of "L", "LF" or "HB4" on the outboard lamps, and "U", "UF" or "HB3" on the inboard lamps. In normal operation, the lower beam is extinguished when the upper beam is activated; your device would ensure that the lower beam would remain activated when the upp er beam is used. You view this as permissible under S5.5.8 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Initially, let me note that we have no authority to "approve" any device or invention for use on motor vehicles. We advise whether such products are permissible under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but this advice must not be represented in advertising as Federal approval of the device or invention.

Section S5.5.8 of Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that "On a motor vehicle equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the photometric requirements of Figure 15, the lamps marked "L" or "LF" may be wired to remain permanently act ivated when the lamps marked "U" or "UF" are activated. Standard No. 108 further specifies that headlamps designed to conform to Figure 15 are the four-lamp sealed beam system Type F (S7.3.7(b)), and a four-headlamp integral beam system (S7.4(a)(1)). In addition, certain types of replaceable bulb headlamp systems may also be designed to conform to Figure 15 photometrics, as shown in recently- adopted Figure 26 (copy enclosed). Replaceable bulb headlamps are also required to have the HB Type number on the lens, as well as the "U" and "L" markings. Therefore, installation of your device on the headlighting systems mentioned above would be permitted by Standard No. 108, and you need not be limited to systems that use HB3 and HB4 light sources.

With respect to the copy on the material you submitted for review, it would be more accurate to reword the marking references to state "'LF', 'L', or 'L' and 'HB4' on the upper. . . and the corresponding designation 'UF', 'U', or 'U' and 'HB3' on the low er. . . ."

We also note your remark "Quad-Beam gives you this extra margin of lighting safety that the factory left out." There is no basis in fact for this statement. Some drivers prefer more foreground light, but there is no indication that the addition of the lower beam when the upper beam is in use has a positive effect upon lighting safety.

As you requested, we are returning your samples.

ID: nht90-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 1, 1990

FROM: Jamie McLaughlin Fish -- Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: Connie Mack -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-30-90 from G.N. Routh to C. Mack; Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from G.N. Routh to NHTSA c/o J. Medlin

TEXT:

Thank you for your recent letter to Mr. Tom Enright, our Regional Administrator for the southeastern States, on behalf of your constituent Mr. G. Nick Routh, the President of American Energetics in St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr. Routh wrote to you concern ing Federal safety standards on light transmittance through motor vehicle windows.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards which require specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. One of ourstandards requ ires that a certain amount of light be transmitted through the windows (called glazing in our standard) of motor vehicles. The purpose of this standard is to ensure driver visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle cras h.

Under Federal law, a motor vehicle manufacturer must certify that the glazing in its new vehicles meets the light transmittance requirements of our standard. Under the law, there are limitations on tinting vehicle windows after sale to the first purchas er. Here, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from modifying equipment installed for compliance with our safety standards, if the modification causes the vehicle or equipment to no longer comply with the safety st andards. Thus, these business establishments cannot add tinting film if it reduces the level of light transmittance below that required by the Federal standard.

The individual States have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be operated or registered in the States, provided that those requirements do not conflict with the requirements of Federal law. Several states have passed laws that prohib it the operation or registration of a vehicle in those States if the vehicle's glazing has a light transmittance below a given level. These State laws do not purport to legitimize conduct -- tint installation firms adding film to glazing so that light t ransmittance is below the level required by the Federal standard -- that is illegal under Federal law. Thus, there is no conflict between Federal law and these State laws, and the States may continue to enforce their operating rules.

Your constituent is president of a company that sells and distributes solar window film to be installed on automobiles. As indicated above, this film is not allowed to be installed by the above-mentioned types of businesses if it results in a lower leve l of light transmittance for the windows than is required by our standard.

Specifically, your constituent enlists your assistance in urging NHTSA to adopt a change in our safety standard for light transmittance.

Changes to safety standards can be made by the agency in response to petitions. We have, in fact, been petitioned to change the light transmittance requirement in our safety standard. In order for us to make a change in a standard, we must determine th at sufficient facts are available to support a change. To obtain such information, the agency granted a petition (mentioned by your constituent) for a change in the light transmittance requirement, and published a request for comments on the issue.

However, the granting of this petition does not necessarily mean the standard will be changed. Rather, it indicates that we believed that a review of the current light transmittance requirements in our safety standard was appropriate.

Currently, the agency is completing our review of all the comments received. Based on our review and analysis of all information submitted to the agency, along with other data available, the agency will make a final decision on the appropriate regulator y action. The options include: proceeding with a notice of proposed rulemaking to change the light transmittance requirements; a termination of the rulemaking because our review and analysis did not indicate a change in the light transmittance requiremen ts is appropriate at this time; or leaving the rulemaking open, with no final decision, and continuing research into the question of the appropriate level of light transmittance. This last option would mean that the standard would remain as it is today - thereby precluding the use of certain window film -- but the agency would indicate that further research is necessary before a final determination on the question of changing the light transmittance requirement can be reached.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht90-3.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 1, 1990

FROM: Rickey Bass -- Q.C. Manager, Terminal Service Co.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re High mounted stop lamp and identification lamp combination.

ATTACHMT: Attached to design drawing of lamp (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-24-90 from P.J. Rice to R. Bass (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Terminal Service Company would like to have your office give us a written interpretation of the current laws, to see if they would prohibit the use of a combination stop and identification lamp. The combination lamp in question would be used on Departme nt of Transportation certified cargo tank motor vehicles.

We realize that FMVSS 108 prohibits combining other clearance lamps with any tail or identification lamp. But, it also says that two or more lamps or reflective devices, and items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each item and associated equipment are met. FMVSS 108 also states the manufacturer is to determine if the function of the equipment is impaired.

Our stop and identification lamp would consist of three (3) separate single compartments, each having its own lens and dual filament bulb, located at the specified location for the identification lamp. A design drawing is enclosed for the purpose of ill ustration.

Terminal Service Company feels that with this design, the function of the identification light, at the rear of the cargo tank will be intact, although when the brake light is illuminated, the identification light will be brighter.

Your assistance would be appreciated.

ID: nht90-3.42

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 1, 1990

FROM: Kathleen DeMeter -- Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law

TO: William F. Canever -- Office of the General Counsel, Ford Motor Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-22-90 from P.J. Rice to W.F. Canever (A36; Sec. 501(8), Sec. 501(12); Also attached to letter dated 6-1-90 from W.F. Canever to S.P. Wood

TEXT:

This is in response to your two letters to Stephen P. Wood, as NHTSA's Acting Chief Counsel, dated June 1, 1990, regarding Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Each of these letters is marked "Privileged and Confidential," but neither one identifies the port ions for which confidentiality is claimed, or includes justification or an affidavit in support of Ford's request for confidential treatment.

On July 13, 1990, in a telephone conversation with Ms. Heidi L. Coleman of my staff, you indicated that these markings were made inadvertently, and that Ford does not seek confidential treatment for the contents of these letters. This information will, therefore, not be protected. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

ID: nht90-3.43

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tony Llama -- President, Davenport Enterprises

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 6-11-90 to S. P. Wood from T. Llama; (OCC 4894) and letter dated 6-12-90 to T. Llama from D. Sander

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of June 11, 1990, with respect to the allowability of a temporary importation of a vehicle from Panama that does not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Specifically, the vehicle is a "van" manufactured in the Soviet Union. Its Panamanian owner has requested that your company design and install a dual air conditioning unit for the vehicle. Once you have built and installed the unit, the van will be ret urned to Panama for evaluation and testing. You anticipate that the van will be in the United States for at least 90 days.

After our review of this matter, we have determined that it would be appropriate for you to enter the van pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 591.5(j), under the declaration that the vehicle is being imported solely for the purpose of research, investig ations, studies, or demonstrations. This declaration appears as Box 7 on the HS-7 importation form under which the vehicle will enter the United States.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

ID: nht90-3.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice, NHTSA

TO: T. Spingler, Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 7-19-90 to R. v. Iderstine from T. Spingler; (OCC 5014)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of July 19, 1990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking for confirmation of an oral interpretation provided you by Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, defines (section S3) a replaceable bulb headlamp as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sour ces." In Europe you fix the lens to the reflector assembly with a rubber seal and clips. For the U.S. market you propose to add "silicone-glue at four places between lens and housing to prevent removal of the lens." Mr. Medlin informed you that this w ould be a "bonded lens and reflector assembly."

The standard does not define "bonded", but the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable. Any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond for purposes of the d efinition. If the application of silicone glue at four places between the lens and the reflector assembly is sufficient to prevent manual separation of the lens from the assembly, then it would be a sufficient bond.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht90-3.45

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Reese Chappell -- Engineer, Auto Ventshade Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 2-20-90 to B. Felrice from H. R. Chappell; (OCC 4465); and photos (text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter asking how Federal regulations would apply to a product called a "Ventvisor" manufactured by your company. You enclosed a brochure that included pictures of the Ventvisor. Described as a rain deflector, the Ventvisor appears t o be a strip of molded tinted glazing material several inches wide that is secured on the window frame and running from the front around the top of side windows on motor vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how the requirements of this agency apply to this product.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, howe ver, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the 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. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes manufacturers' resp onsibilities under the Safety Act and how to obtain copies of this agency's standards and regulations.

Your company's product is described as made of "acrylic" and would appear to overlap a portion of the side windows of motor vehicles that are "requisite for driving visibility." Accordingly, this product would be a glazing material for use in motor vehi cles and would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205). Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANS Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways.

Standard No. 205 permits devices such as your company's Ventvisor to be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, or Item 11 glazing materials (the various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in Standard 205). Your company's use of acrylic would appear to be acceptable since this type of rigid plastic could have an Item 4 rating, and Item 4 glazing may be used as a wind deflector on the side window of any vehicle.

You should note that all Item 4 glazing must comply with Test No. 2 in ANS Z26, which requires the material to have a light transmittance of not less

than 70 percent. Your letter noted that one version of your Ventvisor is not tinted, while another version is tinted so that it has 47.5 percent light transmittance. This tinted version of the Ventvisor would appear to not comply with the light transmi ttance requirements of Standard No. 205. The standard also sets forth additional performance requirements for Item 4 glazing, as well as marking requirements for the glazing. If your company determines that the Ventvisor complies with the requirements o f Standard No. 205, it may certify each Ventvisor in accordance with the provisions of S6 of Standard No. 205.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any item of new motor vehicle equipment u nless the equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and is so certified by its manufacturer. It would be a violation of this section of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell the Ventvisor or any other glass or plastic wind defl ector to be mounted on front side windows, unless those products comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205. Federal law provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each such violation.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as the Ventvisor, also have responsibilities under the Safety Act for any defects related to motor vehicle safety that are determined to exist in their products. The Safety Act requires such manufacturers t o notify purchasers about any defects related to motor vehicle safety and to remedy such defects free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.46

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: S. Watanabe -- General Manager, Automotive Equipment Technical Coordination Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Richard L. Van Iderstine -- Safety Standards Engineer, NHTSA

TITLE: Re The effective date of the downward torque deflection requirements for external mechanical aiming of replaceable bulb headlamps (S7.7.5.1(a))

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 to S. Watanabe from P. J. Rice; (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like to have your advice on the effective date of the downward torque deflection requirements for external mechanical aiming of replaceable bulb headlamps (Paragraph S7.7.5. 1 (a)).

In our understanding, the effective date is September 1, 1990 and on or after this date, Lamp manufacturers (such as Stanley, not car manufacturer), have to manufacture the external mechanical aiming of replaceable bulb headlamps which conform the downwa rd torque deflection requirements (Paragraph S7.7.5.1 (a)). Are they correct understandings?

Your kind advice will be highly appreciated.

ID: nht90-3.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Samuel Kimmelman -- Engineering Product Manager, IDEAL Division, EPICOR Industries, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-31-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Kimmelman (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

When a new car, light truck or van is purchased and delivered to the buyer with a dealer installed trailer hitch and associated wiring, it is our understanding that at the time of delivery the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We further interpret the Standards to require the following:

1. The turn signal flasher must be certified as meeting the FMVSS-108 requirements of a variable load turn signal flasher, over a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer .

2. The hazard warning flasher must be certified as meeting the require- ments of FMVSS-108 over a load range of 2 lamps to the combined hazard warning loads of the vehicle plus the trailer.

3. The requirement to provide turn signal outage indication is voided due to the trailer towing capability of the vehicle.

Please inform us if the interpretations noted above agree with those of the Department of Transportation.