ID: 1985-03.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert D. Bagg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Federal regulations that might affect a product you have developed. The information submitted with your letter describes the product as a collapsible partition that attaches to the rear of the front seat in a motor vehicle. The purpose of your product is to keep heat within the front portion of a car. The following discussion provides an explanation of how our standards would affect a device such as yours.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued several standards that apply or affect the use of your product. First, we have issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which applies to all glazing installed in a motor vehicle, including the glazing used in an interior partition. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference Standard ANS Z-26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highway," of the American National Standard Institute. A copy of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z-26 are enclosed for your reference.

Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also regulates the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in the standard. Under the requirements of this standard, an interior partition to be used on a passenger vehicle at locations requisite for driving visibility, such as the device you have developed, may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, Item 11A, or Item 14 glazing materials.

Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (i.e. those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraph S6.1 of the standard. In addition, section 6.3 of the standard requires each item of motor vehicle equipment to be certified pursuant to section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Standard No. 205.

Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, new motor vehicle equipment, such as interior partitions, must comply with applicable safety standards prior to sale. The manufacture, sale, or installation of a partition that does not conform to the standard, or the installation of a partition in a new vehicle in a location that is not authorized in Standard No. 205, would be in a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109(a), anyone who sells motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable safety standards is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Installation of your device could also be affected by Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Section 3.2 of Standard No. 201, sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat to protect the heads of rear seat occupants thrown forward in a crash. A copy of Standard No. 201 is enclosed for your reference. Therefore, if your device were installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, as equipped, complies with all standard including Standard No. 201.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment. That section provides, in part, 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 equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add your product to a motor vehicle, if that action would "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 201. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners can, themselves, add your product to their vehicles without violating Federal law. However, installation of your product by individual owners would have to be done in accordance with applicable State law.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under Sections 151 et seg., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. Again, Section 109(a) imposes a civil penalty upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in motor vehicle equipment. A copy of the Vehicle Safety act and an information sheet outlining the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers is enclosed.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

ENCLS.

7/5/85

Dear Mr. Each,

In a mush as I didn't talk to you over phone, I'm sending this copy of Invention What I would like to know is, would this most the gov't requirement legally to use in vehicles. Before the manufacture and what. I would like advise.

RoBagg

OHEONTA, N.Y.

Dat# 3,002,784

OCC 0944

FIG.1.

FIG.2.

FIG.4.

FIG.3.

FIG.5.

(Graphics omitted)

INVENTOR.

Robert D. Bagg

By: L. S. Saulsbury.

ATTORNEY

Robert D. Bagg An Automobile Heat Saver Partition (One Sheet of Drawing)

This invention relates to an automobile heat saver partition.

It is the principal object of this invention to provide a collapsible partition for automobiles adapted to be located in the automobile and attached to the rear of the front seat so as to keep the heat of the automobile within the front seat space thereby eliminating the necessity of heating the rear seat space when vacant so that the driver will be supplied with adequate heat during cold weather with below zero temperatures.

It is another object of the invention to provide a partition for automobiles which has a transparent top piece so that the partition while located in the rear of the driver will not impair the visibility of the driver through the rear view mirror.

It is still another object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles that is collapsible so that it can be stored easily in the trunk of the automobile when not in use or even left standing in a collapsed condition in rear of the front seat when not in use.

It is a further object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles that can be attached to the rear of the front seat and supported therefrom by a simple strap.

It is a still further object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles which will be made up in the form of a kit of few tube parts which can be readily assembled and fitted to one another and attached to the front seat of the automobile, and that is easy to disassemble and put into storage, the same consuming little space when disassembled.

Other objects of the invention are to provide a collapsible heat saver partition for automobiles, having the above objects in mind, which is of simple construction, inexpensive to manufacture, has a minimum number of parts, light in weight, easy to assemble, durable, of pleasing appearance, effective and efficient in use.

For other objects and a better understanding of the invention, reference may be had to the following detailed description taken in connection with the accompanying drawing, in which

Figure 1 is a side elevational view of a heat saver partition installed in an automobile upon the rear of the front seat thereof and constructed according to one form of the invention.

Fig. 2 is a perspective view of the partition and the seat to which it is attached by a strap,

Fig. 3 is an enlarged vertical sectional view of the partition as viewed on line 3-3 of Fig. 2 with illustration made as to the manner in which the partition may be collapsed,

Fig. 4 is a vertical perspective view of a heat saving partition formed of a plurality of tube parts according to another form of the invention, and

Fig. 5 is an exploded view of the partition shown in Fig. 4 and illustrating the manner in which they are assembled to one another.

Referring now particularly to Figs. 1 to 3, 10 generally represents the collapsible partition constructed according to one form of the invention comprising a bottom section 11 and a top frame 12 with a transparent window 13 therein and hingedly connected to the upper end of the lower section by hinges 14 and 15 so that the upper frame section 12 can be collapsed downwardly over the rear face of the lower section 11 at times when the rear seat space is to be heated as illustrated in Fig. 3 at 12' or when the partition is to be stored in the trunk space. Strap parts 16 and 17 are extended about the front seat to hold the partition against the rear face of the front seat. The window frame section 12 is held in its elevated position by a turn knob 18 secured to the lower section 11 on a pivot pin 19 near to the upper edge thereof and adapted when turned to overlie the lower edge to extend upwardly over the lower edge of the frame section 12 whereby the upper section will be held in its extended and raised position. The lower edge of the section 11 is cut away at 20 to accommodate the shaft hump in the floor of the automobile. The partition may be made of cardboard, plywood, plastic or metal.

Referring now particularly to Figs. 4 and 5, the partition is made up of aluminum tube parts. Pipe leg supports 22 and 23 have fitted to their upper ends thereof a transverse member 24 by its sockets 25 and 26 to the upper ends of which there is fitted legs 27 and 28 of a U-shaped member having a top portion 29. An elongated transparent plastic sleeve 30 shaped to conform to the U-shaped member is slid downwardly over the top portion 29 to provide a window partition through which the drivercan see. Plastic sleeve 30 is closed at the top and shaped to conform to the rounded ends of the top portion 29 of the U-shaped member. Separable straps 31 and 32 are respectively secured to the leg extensions 22 and 23 and can be fastened together by a buckle 33 about the front of the automobile seat in the manner illustrated in Fig. 4. In both forms of the invention the upper section or part of the partition is contoured to conform to the upper interior of the automobile.

It should now be apparent that there has been provided a heat saver partition for automobiles that can be collapsed or disassembled when not being used and which can be easily assembled, upon the rear of the front seat by simply connecting together straps about the front seat.

The legs and the transverse member constitute a lower section and the U-shape member with the transparent sleeve 30 constitute the upper section.

While various changes may be made in the detailed construction, it shall be understood that such changes shall be within the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appended claims.

WHAT IS CLAIMED IS:

1. A heat saver partition for automobiles comprising a lower section, strap means for detachably securing the lower section to the rear of and about the front seat of the automobile, a transparent second section releasably connected to the lower section and adapted to be elevated or lowered therefrom to provide a closure for the upper portion of the automobiles interior, said upper section conforming generally thereto.

2. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 1, said upper section being hingedly connected to the upper edge of the lower section and adapted to be collapsed downwardly thereover, and latch means for securing the upper section in its elevated position from the lower section.

3. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 2, and said lower section being cut away to accommodate the shaft hump on the floor of the automobile.

4. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 1, and said lower section formed of vertical pipes and a transverse member having sockets fitted to the upper ends of the pipes, and said upper section comprising a U-shaped member having legs adapted to be tight fitted into the sockets of the transverse member, and a transparent member conforming to the shape of the U-shaped member and slide fitted downwardly thereover.

ID: 1985-03.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/85 EST

TITLE: FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

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 MABEL Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBURG 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. THORNBURG 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 10/28/82 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA, N0A-30; LETTER DATED 04/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO ARMOND CARDARELLI; 7/30/90 LETTER FROM P. J. RICE TO B. DITTEMORE (A35; STD. 205); 6/14/89 LETTER FROM B. DITTEMORE TO NHTSA (0CC 3633)

TEXT: The increasing popularity of window tinting in recent years has led to many questions on the effect of Federal auto safety laws on this practice. Is tinting allowed? If so, by whom and how much? And what about state tinting laws? The following discussion provides a brief explanation of the Federal laws in this area.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued a vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including vehicle windows.

In 1967, the agency issued Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials in new motor vehicles and those sold as replacement equipment. In addition to establishing some new provisions, Standard No. 205 incorporates a widely recognized industry standard on the subject -- the "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways" of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Under the ANSI standard, window tinting is permitted, subject to specified performance requirements on light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing.

Windows in New Vehicles

A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that the glazing used in its vehicles conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 205. Any person who manufactures or sells a new vehicle which does not conform to any safety standard is subject to civil penalties and recall action under the Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, all windows required to driving visibility, whether clear or tinted, must meet all of the requirements of the standard, including those on light transmittance and abrasion resistance. The agency considers all windows in a passenger car, and the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, to be requisite for driving visibility.

Likewise, if a dealer or other person places tinting film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to the sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of tinting film and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the abrasion resistance and other requirements in the standard.

2

Windows in Used Vehicles

In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. The 1974 amendment (15 U.S.C. @ 1397 (a)(2)(A) provides, in part, 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. . . .

Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add tinting to windows in a motor vehicle, if that tinting would "render inoperative" the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties (of up to $ 1000 per violation) for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard. If any of those commercial businesses added tinting material which reduced the light transmittance of the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility to a level below 70 percent, the agency would consider that action's a "rendering inoperative" of the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205. The statute does not prohibit tinting by commercial businesses, but it does limit the use of tinting.

The Vehicle Safety Act does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners may, themselves, add any level of tint to the windows in their vehicles without violating Federal law. However, tinting done by individual owners would have to be done in accordance with applicable State law.

Effects on State Law

Federal law generally preempts any inconsistent state laws on the same subject covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)) provides:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority 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.

Thus, States may not establish provisions regarding tinting or other vehicle window requirements which are either more or less stringent than those provided by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. For example, a State law which specifies a transmittance level less than 70 percent for windows requisite for driving visibility in new vehicles would be preempted. The adoption or retention of such a State law would have no effect on the Federal prohibition of such an installation. Further, any

3

State law or regulation permitting manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses to install tinting materials on a vehicle after its first sale in violation of Standard No. 205 would also be preempted.

States may establish and enforce requirements identical to any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, including Standard No. 205. They may also, as part of their motor vehicle inspection regulations, prohibit vehicle owners from modifying their windows, through tinting or otherwise, in any way that would violate Standard No. 205.

ID: 1985-03.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mike Landgraf -- Land Design Group

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mike Landgraf Land Design Group 685 Lakebird Dr. Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Thank you for your letter of May 21, 1985, concerning Federal regulations that might affect a cargo system for hatch back cars that you are developing. You requested confidentiality for your specific product description and drawing. Since your design has not been marketed as yet, we are granting your request for confidentiality. The following discussion provides an explanation of how our standards would affect a device such as yours.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have not issued any standard that directly applies to a cargo system such as yours. However, use of your system could be affected by Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors) which sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors; a copy of the standard and an information sheet discussing the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers under our regulations is enclosed for your reference.

Standard No. 111 provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle. If the field of view of the inside mirror in a new vehicle is obstructed by anything other than head restraints or seated occupants, then an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger's side of the vehicle. Thus, if your product were installed in a new vehicle by a manufacturer or dealer prior to its sale to a consumer, and if installation of your product would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to ensure the vehicle was equipped with the necessary additional mirror required by Standard No. 111.

In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle by adding section 108(a)(2)(A) to the Act. That section provides, in part, 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 . . . .

Thus, if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business adds your product to a used vehicle and if its installation would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to install an outside passenger side mirror. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Thus, under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any equipment they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that equipment would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the performance requirements of Standard No. 111. They would, of course, still have to comply with any applicable State laws.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: 1985-03.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/14/85

FROM: C.RICHARD FRAVEL

TO: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

TITLE: RE: JOSEPH CIAMPA JR

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/27/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO BEVERLY B BYRON; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205 MEMORANDUM DATED 08/04/88 FROM ARTHUR J LOMART TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; LETTER DATED 08/01/88 FROM C. E. SHUE TO JOSEPH CIAMPH JR RE 0590630; LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM NANCY F MILLER TO BEVERLY B BYRON; LETTER DATED 08/25/88 FROM BEVERLY B BYRON TO NANCY MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/24/88 FROM JOSEPH L. CIAMPA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON

TEXT: This is to state that the a boy has been my patient for many years He has severe headaches when exposed to glare of sunlight therefore a digital solution is the use of sun shade in his automobile

ID: 1985-03.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 18, 1985

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Weinstein

TO: Robert J. Ponticelli -- President, American International

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/25/95 LETTER FROM ROBERT J. PONTICELLI TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11083)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ponticelli:

This replies to your letter of July 25, 1995, asking for an opinion "on the use of Electro-Luminescent Strip Lighting on motor vehicles." The device in, question "is an ornamental light which produces less than .05 candela/sq. inch." You have enclosed a brochure which shows the strip in use as a license plate frame and to mark the sides or perimeter of a vehicle. We assume that you are not asking about the license plate frame but only the "Lighted Pin Striping". The "Lighted Pin Striping" comes in "basic white" but once applied, seven colors of overlay tape are available to change the color. The brochure shows it in shades of blue and pink. You would like our views "on the installation of this product by regulated parties such as new car dealers and non-regulated entities such as aftermarket specialty shops and vehicle owners."

We are pleased to provide you with the interpretation you seek: The basic obligation of a new-car dealer is to deliver a new car that remains in compliance with all the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards for which its manufacturer has certified compliance. In other words, the dealer must ensure that none of its actions before the sale of a new vehicle create a noncompliance with a safety standard. Further, if a dealer alters a vehicle before sale other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations such as painting, is required to certify that the altered vehicle continues to meet the standards.

The Federal new vehicle standard that relates to your product is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. This standard permits a new car dealer to add supplementary lighting equipment such as the luminescent strip if the supplementary equipment does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The most common cause of impairment is lighting equipment that creates confusion with, or distraction from, the purpose of any item of required lighting equipment. Under Standard No. 108's lighting scheme, the color of lamps on the front of a vehicle are restricted to white and amber. On the side of the vehicle, side marker lamps and reflectors must be only amber to the front and red to the rear. Rear lighting is red or amber, with the color white permitted for the backup lamp only. The Lighted Pin Striping comes in a variety of colors. Your brochure shows one that is pink or red in color mounted on the front of a vehicle. We believe it possible that a motorist seeing a color of light on the front of the vehicle generally used on the rear or on the side at the rear could be distracted from the driving task. There is also the possibility that the strip would be bright enough to mask and thereby reduce the effectiveness of an adjacent front or rear turn signal, or stop lamp. In general, the agency tries to discourage the use of novelty lighting devices because of the uncertain reaction an unfamiliar light or reflection may cause in other drivers on the roadway. However, the determination as to whether installation of the lighting strip would impair the efficiency of required lighting equipment is initially that of the new car dealer who must determine whether his modifications to a new vehicle might take it out of compliance. Unless that determination is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not contest it.

With respect to sales in the aftermarket, installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business of the lighting strip would be prohibited if the use of the strip would, in the words of the statute, "make inoperative" any of the required lighting equipment. We tend to equate "make inoperative" and "impair effectiveness" so that the same considerations would have to be taken into account in installing the lighting equipment on a used as well as a new car. However, this prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner who, under Federal law, may install the lighting strip regardless of its effect upon compliance.

Nevertheless, even if novelty lighting equipment does not violate Federal law, the ultimate decision of its acceptability is that of the State in which the lighting strip is to be used. It is our understanding that, for example, that California requires any emitted or reflected light from the front of vehicles to be white or yellow in color, which would appear to preclude installation of the lighting strip in colors other than these. For an opinion on the treatment of the lighting strip under State laws, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: 1985-03.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Moriyoshi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and Control Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018

Dear Mr. Moriyoshi:

Thank you for your letter of July 2, 1985, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. You specifically asked whether a design alternative you are considering for an interior storage compartment would have to meet the requirements of S3.3 of the standard. An explained below, we would consider your design to be an interior compartment door assembly and thus subject to the requirements of S3.3 of the standard.

You described your design as an interior surface with an integrated map/magazine compartment. Your proposed design consists of a compartment with a rigid exterior surface that remains open at a fixed width. You said that when a motorist wanted to stow a thicker package in the compartment, the opening could be expanded to a greater width. The drawing accompanying your letter shows that the exterior surface (i.e., the surface nearest to a vehicle occupant) is hinged; the movement of the hinged surface is restricted by a spring. It appears from your drawing that of the spring broke or otherwise became disengaged in a crash, the exterior surface of the compartment would swing open on its hinge and be struck by a vehicle occupant. Such an action is similar to what could happen with the conventional hinged glovebox or other doors in a vehicle. We would therefore consider your proposed design to be a interior compartment door assembly.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel MAZDA July 2, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201, Occupant Protection In Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Miller,

Mazda has developed several design alternatives for interior storage compartments. Among them is the use of an interior surface with an integrated map/magazine pocket. In many past and current designs, auto manufacturers have utilized rigid molded plastic and flexible vinyl and fabric as the materials with which to provide a map/magazine pocket. On those circumstances, the map/magazine pocket was clearly interpretated by both the NHTSA and the manufacturers as being only a pocket and, therefore, not subject to the performance requirements of FMVSS 201, S. 3.3.

However, in consideration of the concept that Mazda is reviewing, the interpretation of the Standard does not appear so straightforward. Our proposed design consists of a pocket, in the usual sense, that remains open at a fixed width. In situations where a thicker package would be required to be stowed, the rigid pocket opening could be expanded to a greater width. After examination of this design, we have tentatively determined that this would not be considered an "interior compartment door assembly" in the literal sense as it would always be in the open position and subsequently not required to meet the conformance criteria of S. 3.3 of FMVSS 201.

Mazda requests that your office review this matter, with reference to the attached sketch, and indicate how the NHTSA would interpret this design.

Thank you. Sincerely, H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager HM/mLs Attachment

ID: 1985-03.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Edgar E. Clark

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edgar E. Clark 1900 24th Avenue No. St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

Thank you for your letter of May 13, 1985, concerning the effect of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, on fuel tank repairs. You explained that you have a 1977 Dodge Concord motor home in which a leak in a plastic fuel tank was apparently repaired by a dealer. You noted that a 1981 article in Popular Mechanics magazine stated that repairs to plastic fuel tanks are not permitted by Standard No. 301, and ask us to clarify the effect of our regulations. As explained below, the magazine article is not correct; a dealer can make repairs to plastic and other types of vehicle fuel tanks. As I am sure you understand, I cannot offer an opinion on the possibility of successfully repairing a damaged plastic fuel tank.

The agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, which sets safety performance requirements for vehicle fuel systems in new vehicles; a copy of the standard is enclosed. The standard applies to passenger cars, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV), trucks, buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. In addition, it applies to school buses with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 pounds. If your motor home carries 10 or less persons and is mounted on a truck chassis, it would be considered a MPV under our regulations. Thus, if your motor home has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and was manufactured after September 1, 1976, the effective date of Standard No. 301 for MPV's, then the fuel system in your vehicle would have had to meet Standard No. 301.

For the basis of this response, I am assuming that the damage, such as a puncture or crack, that caused the leak occurred after the sale of the vehicle to its first owner. Our safety standards only apply to new vehicles prior to their first sale. The only effect our safety standards have on used vehicles is through the application of 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section provides, in part, 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....

Thus, if a dealer knowingly alters the fuel system in a used vehicle, such as by adding an auxiliary fuel tank, the dealer would have to take sure that it did not render inoperative the tank's compliance with Standard No. 301. However, if after the first sale of a vehicle to the consumer its fuel tank is damaged, such as being punctured by an object in the road, so that the tank's compliance has been rendered inoperative, then neither our standards nor section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act applies.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

May 13, 1985

Natl Hiway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7 St SW Washington, DC 20590

Attn: Vehicle Safety Compliance Office

Gentlemen:

I recently purchased a used motor home - a 1977 Dodge Concord made by Champion and found that the gasoline tank had a leak. The tank is made of plastic and had been repaired by the dealer according to the former owner.

Now, according to a magazine article which I am enclosing I see that repairs to plastic tanks violate Safety Standard 301.

My question is: under the terms of this order do I have any recourse against the dealer who probably didn't even know there was such a regulation?

I feel the tank is very dangerous and should be replaced. So I would like to have your opinion and suggestion.

Thank you for your early attention.

Yours very truly,

Edgar E. Clark Phone 813-822-9139 1900 24th Ave. No. St. Petersburg, FL 33713

"My rupture," Fred writes. "I have had to replace my heater, and I know of several other GM owners who have replaced theirs because of trouble with the GM coolant-recovery tank to the COLD-level mark on the tank."

Fred became aware of trouble when he noticed coolant dripping from the heater case of his Vega. He removed the case and found the heater had ruptured.

"Fortunately, I did not have the heater on," Fred continues. "But my friend wasn't so lucky. One day, with the heater on, he smelled antifreeze, investigating, he found an inch-deep puddle of coolant on the floor of his Corvette."

According to Fred, the siphoning process of the recovery system doesn't work in correct proportion to the ejection process. When the radiator cools off, it draws in more coolant from the recovery tank than it expels into the tank when it's hot. Someone who constantly fills the recovery tank to make up for the drop in level is only adding more fuel to the fire, so to speak, by allowing the radiator to overfill.

Fred says excessive coolant in the radiator causes extraordinary pressure on the heater and heater hoses. Early evidence of this pressure is often seen as coolant seeping past tightly clamped heater hoses.

Fred's solution is to check the coolant level in the radiator with the engine cold. It should be 2 inches below the neck of the radiator. If it isn't, drain it until it is. Then keep it there.

Every few months, do check the radiator and add coolant, if necessary. In other words, forget about checking levels on the coolant-recovery tank.

Negative response

I have a 1976 Dodge W100 pickup truck. Its plastic gas tank has developed a leak in an easy-to-reach spot. Can you tell me how to repair it?--Jon Wilbur, Carlisle, Iowa.

Nope. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 stipulates that it is illegal to repair plastic gas tanks. Your only choice is to install a new one. Sorry.

GOT A PROBLEM WITH YOUR CAR?

Just ask Mort about it. Send your question to the Car Clinic, Popular Mechanics, 224 West 57th St., New York, N.Y. 10019. While letters cannot be answered individually, problems that are of general interest will be published in the column.

SERVICE TIPS

Ford Motor Co. tells us there may be a vacuum leak between the base of the carburetor and carburetor spacer of some 1977-78 Granadas, Monarchs, Fairmonts and Zephyrs with 200- and 240-cu. in. engines. A vacuum leak at this point leans out the fuel mixture and causes stalling and rough idling. The leak can usually be stopped by installing flat washers under each carburetor retaining nut and torquing retaining nuts 12 to 15 ft.-lb. Washers should have an inside diameter of 3/8 in. and be 1/16-in. thick.

If your 1981 Chrysler K-car makes a growl at low speeds, don't panic. Check to see what kind of tires are on the car. If they are Goodyear Viva fiberglass-belted tires, the growl is normal. According to Chrysler, growling noises are caused by "aggressive tread design which offers increased traction and improved handling characteristics."

GM cautions that starting-aid fluids, such as ether or gasoline, must not be injected into the air-intake system of cars and trucks having diesel engines. Their use will cause "severe internal engine damage."

Five Keys to Better Tire Mileage and Safety is the title of an informative pamphlet you can get free by sending a self-addressed, business-sized envelope to: Keys, Tire Industry Safety Council, Box 1801, Washington, D.C. 20013.

ID: 1985-03.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Douglas I. Greenhaus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Douglas I. Greenhaus Senior Attorney/Regulatory Affairs National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, VA 22102

Dear Mr. Greenhaus:

Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff. You asked us to confirm your understanding of how our regulations would affect the alteration of a new vehicle prior to its sale.

Your question specifically relates to a situation in which a dealer wants to switch, prior to sale of the vehicle, the bucket seats from one new motor vehicle to another new vehicle of the same model. You explained in a phone conversation with Mr. Oesch that changing the seats might involve some cutting and welding of the seats or their trucks. Under Part 567.7 (49 CFR Part 567.7) of our regulations, we would consider the dealer to be an "alterer". After completing the alteration, the dealer would be required by Part 567.7 to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Depending on the specific design of the vehicle seat and the actual alterations performed, the replacement of a seat would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and could be affected by Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Thank you for providing us with the information on glass tinting. I hope this information on vehicle alteration is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 WESTPARK DRIVE . MCLEAN, VIRGINIA 22102 July 8, 1985

Mr. Steven Oesch Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Agency Room 5219 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Thank you for the assistance which you gave me during our telephone conversation of Friday, July 5, 1985. In answer to your question concerning automobile glass tinting, I have asked the editors of "Automotive Executive", and they have indicated to me that no articles have yet been published.

In order to confirm your understanding of the regulations, let me state that it would appear that a dealer intending to switch the bucket seats from one model vehicle to another vehicle of the same model would be required to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and, in particular, would have to meet the seating and seat belt standards found at 49 C.F.R. Sections 571.207 and 210. The dealer would meet the definition of a "person who alters certified vehicles" as described under 47 C.F.R. Section 568.8 and as such would be required to certify compliance of his alterations with the safety standards. The dealer would thus be required to conform with the specific vehicle labeling requirement spelled out at 49 C.F.R. Section 567.7.

I again thank you and the Administration for your assistance, and I urge you to call me here at NADA should I in some way be able to aid you in the future.

Sincerely yours Douglas I. Greenhaus Senior Attorney/Regulatory Affairs. DIG/shb

ID: 1985-03.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Leo Kagan -- AMCO Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division Amco Manufacturing Corporation 7425 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1985, asking if a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The answer is no. Compliance with standard No. 108 is determined independent of whether the luggage rack is loaded. However, if the rack is installed before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, or if it is installed after sale by a person other than the vehicle owner, care must be taken to insure that the photometric and visibility requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps continue to be met with the unloaded rack in place. The lamp is intended to reduce the incidence of rear end collisions. Loading the rack in a manner that obscures the light will reduce the safety benefits that the lamp provides both the driver of the car, and of any vehicle that follows, and is a practice that should be discouraged. If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

July 19, 1985

Taylor Vinson-NHTSA

Kevin Cavey suggested I write for a legal clarification relating to #571.108. Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, & associated equipment high mounted stoplamp.

Since all passenger cars are to have a "brake" light (or high-mounted stoplamps) as of September 1985, would anyone having a luggage rack on the trunk lid (rear deck) and carry luggage that blocks out the brake light mounted either inside the car on the rear seat ledge or in an exterior location, be in any violation?

Thanks for your help if there is any question to what I've asked please call me on 800/423-2353.

AMCO MANUFACTURING CORP.

Leo Kagan, Director of Marketing, Automotive Division

ID: 1985-03.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Alan R. Kroner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Alan R. Kroner Republican Staff Illinois State Senate State Capitol Springfield, Illinois 62706

Dear Mr. Kroner:

Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1985, concerning Federal requirements for safety belts in modified vans and their effect on state safety belt use laws. I regret the delay in our response.

According to your letter, a handicapped individual purchased a van and had the front seat removed to permit him to operate the vehicle from his wheelchair. You first inquired whether the vehicle is required to be equipped with a safety belt under Federal law.

This agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, that requires the installation of occupant restraint systems in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. Depending on its seating capacity and use, a "van" would be classified under our regulations as a bus, truck or MPV. Regardless of that classification, the vehicle manufacturer is required to install a safety belt system for the driver's seating position. Belt systems may be required at other seating positions as well, depending upon the vehicle's classification. These requirements apply to any vehicle until its first sale to a consumer.

While our safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles, there are some statutory restrictions on subsequent alterations. If a van were modified after its first sale to a consumer, then section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. That section provides, in pertinent part:

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....

Accordingly, none of thoe commercial businesses could lawfully remove a safety belt installed in compliance with Standard No. 208, since such an action would "knowingly render inoperative" that safety device. This prohibition applies only to commercial businesses, not to individuals.

Vehicle owners may themselves remove a safety belt without violating Federal law. They would, however, have to comply with any State law on vehicle equipment.

Thus, in answer to your first question, a manufacturer of a van is required by Federal law to provide a safety belt system at the driver's position, and certain commercial businesses are prohibited from removing the belt.

You also requested our opinion as to whether the owner/driver of the modified van would be required to wear a safety belt under the new Illinois safety belt use law. We do not believe it would be appropriate for this agency to offer an opinion on that question, since it requires an interpretation of state law. You may wish to consult with the State Attorney General's Office or counsel for an appropriate State agency on the matter, as they are in a better position to discuss Illinois state law.

I appreciate your interest in safety belt usage and hope this information is of assistance to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure March 13, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

I have a question pertaining to the modification of a vehicle for the use of a handicapped individual. This individual is a parapalegic and confined to a wheelchair. He purchased a van, had a lift hoist installed and the front seat removed. He operates the van from his wheelchair. Is this vehicle required to be equipped with a seat belt under federal law? Illinois recently passed a mandatory seat belt use law. One of the exemptions granted under this new law (95 1/2 - 12 - 603.1 Ch. 8.) states that an individual is not required to wear a seat belt if the motor vehicle is not required to be equipped with seat belts under federal law. In your opinion would this gentleman be required to wear a seat belt?

Thank you in advance for your prompt reply. Sincerely, Alan R. Kroner