ID: nht93-1.50

DATE: February 26, 1993

FROM: Vincent Schulze -- Chief, Motor Carrier Inspection and Investigation, State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation

TO: Ron Havelar -- Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration

COPYEE: D. Webb

TITLE: RE: FMVSS No. 217 Bus Emergency Exits MC 83-93

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-2-93 from John Womack to Vincent Schulze (A41; Std. 217).

TEXT: Questions have arisen as to the interpretation of a position of FMVSS 217 pertaining to emergency exits on buses.

This office has always defined an emergency exit on a bus as a window or door that must open PERPENDICULAR to the surface of a bus, such as a car door, for example.

A bus company has presented a bus to this Department for inspection which has side windows that SLIDE OPEN as opposed to opening PERPENDICULAR to the bus surface. This office has rejected the bus for not meeting the requirements of FMVSS 217 (S5.4) which states that the push-out window or other emergency exit shall ... be manually extendable .....

My question is this -- can a bus meet the requirements of FMVSS 217 by having side sliding windows?

Thank you for your anticipated response.

ID: nht93-1.6

DATE: January 13, 1993 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Guy Boudreault

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/01/92 (EST) from Guy Boudreault to U.S. Dept. of Transportation; U.S. Senate Committee on Science, Commerce & Transportation; U.S. NHTSA; National Transportation Safety Board; U.S. Office of Motor Carriers

TEXT:

This responds to your letter expressing concerns about certain working conditions that you have experienced as a driver of a commercial vehicle, and asking about rules and regulations that apply to the adjustment of brakes on commercial vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to you.

By way of background information, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have issued a number of safety standards that apply to heavy vehicles, including ones on brakes and lighting. This agency does not have the authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles.

Your letter concerns in-service safety requirements for commercial vehicles and drivers, rather than safety requirements that apply to new motor vehicles. Within the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Motor Carriers, has the authority to issue motor carrier safety regulations for interstate motor carriers and drivers. Ordinarily I would refer your letter to that agency; however, your letter indicates that you sent the same letter to the Office of Motor Carriers as you sent to this agency.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-1.7

DATE: 01/13/93

FROM: JAMES L. VASKO

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-11-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JAMES L. VASKO (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: Brake lights are a very important part of the automobile. I have a Patent Pending on an invention called "FRONT BRAKE LIGHT SYSTEM". By utilizing the present turn signal lights without necessity and expense of adding new, complicated aparatus, but utilizes only the present lights and circuitry to notify the driver and or pedestrian in front of the vehicle that the vehicle is in braking mode.

My 23 years experience as a Fremont Firefighter has proven over and over again, if this has been incorporated in all vehicles 30 years ago, thousands of accidents, injuries and deaths could have been prevented, not to mention, the millions of dollars Insurance Companies would have saved.

I am interested in opening a dialogue with you and I will answer any questions you may have. This system will make driving safer and more predictible for every one, and we will be saving our own family and friends lives daily.

The "FRONT BRAKE LIGHT SYSTEM" IS A WIN WIN SITUATION, MEANING, A WIN FOR THE CONSUMER, AUTOMAKER AND INSURANCE COMPANY. As it stands now, embodiments suggested by other patents in the field are expensive and require considerable hardware compared to my state of the art simple method.

Looking forward to your response.

ID: nht93-1.8

DATE: January 13, 1993

FROM: John B. White -- Industry Standards & Government Regulations, Michelin

TO: General Counsel -- NHTSA

COPYEE: P. Jones -- Michelin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-27-93 from John Womack to John B. White (A41; Std. 109; Std. 119)

TEXT: From time to time we receive requests from various customers or potential customers for copies of the tests that we performed to certify that our tires comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations. Implied in these requests is that NHTSA requires manufacturers to perform the tests contained in the various standards (FMVSS 109, 119 and Part 575) in order to comply with those standards. Furthermore, some of these requests, including one recently from the Department of Defense, have indicated that these test results, along with test tires, are submitted to NHTSA who then provides the certification.

We would appreciate it if you would clarify this situation.

Your prompt reply will be appreciated.

ID: nht93-1.9

DATE: January 14, 1993

FROM: Jay Lee -- President, Pacific Agritrade Inc.

TO: Jackson Rice -- NHTSA, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-26-93 from John Womack to Jay Lee (A40; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT: We would like to import air bags for cars and light trucks from Korea. This air bag can be installed very easily and we are interested in having this product tested by your department.

Please advise us on what procedures we need to take to have this product tested and approximately how long it will take.

We are also interested in knowing what we can claim after we pass your tests.

ID: nht93-2.1

DATE: 03/01/93

FROM: THOMAS C. BALOGA -- MANAGER, SAFETY ENGINEERING, MERCEDES - BENZ

TO: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: JERRY SONOSKY -- HOGAN & HARTSON

TITLE: LONGER SEAT BELT FOR OVER-SIZE MERCEDES-BENZ OWNER

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-10-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS C. BALOGNA (A40; VSA 108 (a)(2)(A); STD. 209)

TEXT: This refers to my telephone discussion with Ed Glancy on March 1, 1993 concerning a longer seat belt.

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. has been contacted by the owner of a Mercedes-Benz car who cannot use the driver-side seat belt because of his large body size (approx. 500 lbs). Since our special order 12 inch longer belt is still too short, our factory has supplied a 30 inch longer-than-standard seat belt for installation in this man's car. The extra-long belt assembly will not comply with the following aspects of Standard 209:

- seat belt will not completely roll-up into B-pillar due to excessive webbing on spool;

- seat belt not tested for retraction spring durability therefore may not pass the retractor cycle test;

- no certification label is attached.

We ask that you please advise us as soon as possible whether NHTSA will, under these circumstances, exercise appropriate discretion in non-enforcement of Standard 209 for this special seat belt installation. This discretion would be similar to Chief Counsel interpretations concerning non-enforcement of Standards when special equipment for handicapped drivers is installed. Without this action from you, the man will not be protected by a seat belt. We know that requests for extra long seat belts are likely to continue and we ask that you please advise us whether Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. needs to advise you of each and every special installation or whether it is sufficient for us to keep appropriate records of the VIN etc. It is our intention to advise the owner to have the original belt re-installed before selling the car.

Thank you for your quick response.

ID: nht93-2.10

DATE: March 8, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Fredd Scheys -- President S.C.C. CARAT Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/27/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Fredd Scheys (A43; Sec. 1397(b)(2); Also attached to 1/25/95 fax from Fredd Scheys to John Womack; Also attached to 11/16/92 letter from Paul Rice to Fredd Scheys

TEXT: Dear Mr. Scheys:

This responds to your FAX of March 2, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have heard that Paul Jackson Rice is no longer Chief Counsel of this agency and you request confirmation that his letter to you of November 16, 1992, remains valid.

The opinion rendered you approximately 4 months ago remains unchanged and valid.

For your information, once an interpretation has been issued by this Office, it remains in effect regardless of who may be Chief Counsel. Generally, an interpretation is affected only if the statute or regulation upon which it is based is amended. The interpretation furnished you was based upon the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and 49 CFR Part 567. Neither the Act nor Part 567 has been amended since November.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-2.11

DATE: March 9, 1993

FROM: D. E. Dawkins -- Director, Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs, Chrysler Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: NHTSA Letter of February 18, 1993 Regarding the Chrysler Corporation Petition to Manufacture 10 Chesapeake Consortium Electric Vehicles

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-24-93 from John Womack to Dale E. Dawkins (A40; Part 555)

TEXT: This letter responds to your referenced letter and the subsequent phone conservation with Mr. Len Blazic of my staff on March 1, 1993.

Chrysler Corporation desires to manufacture ten Chesapeake Consortium Electric Vehicles (CCEV'S) that would have no discernable safety differences to the electric TEVan vehicles, which have already been granted exemption from three MVSS's. All compliance aspects of this program remain unchanged from that of the TEVan program. The only difference between the two programs of electric vehicle development is the propulsion motors and transmissions, as were outlined in our December 16, 1992 letter.

We believe that this will satisfy your need for additional information.

ID: nht93-2.12

DATE: 03/10/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: THOMAS C. BALOGA -- MANAGER, SAFETY ENGINEERING, MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

COPYEE: JERRY SONOSKY -- HOGAN & HARTSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO TELEFAX MEMORANDUM DATED 3-1-93 FROM THOMAS C. BALOGA TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 8353)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with respect to a special seat belt installation in a Mercedes-Benz car owned by a man who weighs approximately 500 pounds. You stated that the owner cannot use the driver-side seat belt because of his large body size and that your special order 12-inch longer belt is still too short. You indicated that your factory has supplied a 30-inch longer seat belt, but that the extra-long belt assembly will not comply with the following aspects of Standard No. 209:

--the seat belt will not completely roll up into the B-pillar due to excessive webbing on the spool;

--the seat belt has not been tested for retraction spring durability and therefore may not pass the retractor cycle test;

--no certification label is attached.

As you are aware, our agency is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by @ 108 (a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

In certain limited situations in the past where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability, NHTSA has stated that it would consider certain violations of Safety Act provisions as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. This is to advise you that we will take this position for the specific factual situation cited above, as we equate the special needs of a 500 pound individual with the needs associated with a disability. I note that we expect manufacturers to provide complying seat belts that are appropriate for the normal range of occupant sizes, including large persons. Mercedes-Benz appears to do this, as it provides a (presumably complying) special order 12-inch longer belt for large persons. We recognize that a 500 pound individual is outside the normal range of occupant sizes.

You stated that requests for extra long seat belts are likely to continue and asked whether Mercedes-Benz needs to advise NHTSA of each and every special installation or whether it is sufficient to keep appropriate records of the VIN. I note that if the agency was presented again with the same factual situation, we would expect to make the same decision. However, we would want to be advised of each such special installation. One of the factors behind our position is the special nature of the factual situation. If Mercedes-Benz wanted to provide extra long seat belts on a routine basis, we would expect it to provide a design that fully complies with Standard No. 209.

ID: nht93-2.13

DATE: 03/11/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: THOMAS L. WRIGHT -- COORDINATOR, TECHNICAL SUPPORT UNIT, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-29-92 FROM THOMAS L. WRIGHT TO PATRICK BOYD (OCC 8210)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Patrick Boyd of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, concerning window tinting. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Your questions relate to a January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the tinting requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You ask about the status of the NPRM. The agency received a large number of comments on this rulemaking. We have reviewed the comments and are analyzing the issues raised in this rulemaking.

You also ask about a statement in the NPRM about Federal preemption of state window tinting laws. You ask whether Federal law preempts a state law that permits add-on window tinting material for medical or aesthetic reasons.

As explained below, the answer is no, provided that the state law regulates conduct other than that regulated by Federal law. Your question was addressed in the NPRM's discussion of the Federalism implications of the proposed rule (p. 2507).

By way of background, NHTSA issued Standard 205 under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Section 103(d) of the Safety Act provides that:

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

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

Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides that:

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

The effect of this is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in @ 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

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

I have enclosed a copy of the Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows which you requested. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.