ID: 1985-02.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. B. Roosen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. B. Roosen Director of Transportation Richland County School District One 927 Whaley Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Dear Mr. Roosen:

This responds to your February 25, 1985 letter to me requesting information about our school bus regulations. You have been asked by your school district to purchase new 15-passenger vans for use on school related activity trips. You believe that our regulations require that 15-passenger vans sold as school buses must be certified as meeting the school bus safety standards. Your understanding is correct.

In your letter, you requested that we send you a copy of the regulation that requires manufacturers and dealers who sell new buses to schools to sell school buses that comply with our school bus safety standards. As explained below, this mandate is found in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and the 1974 amendments to that Act.

To begin, I would like to explain that our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that affect school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. You will find a copy of the Vehicle Safety Act enclosed. The 1974 amendment is incorporated in S103(i)(1)(A) and S103(i)(1)(B).

The Vehicle Safety Act contains the following definition of "school bus":

"Schoolbus" means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools. (Emphasis added.)

Section 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture and sale of, any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Since the 15-passenger vans you plan to purchase are included in the above definition, they are school buses subject to the school bus safety standards. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, any person selling you a new school bus must sell a vehicle that complies with the school bus safety standards. I have enclosed a December 31, 1975, Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033) which discusses the responsibility of manufacturers and dealers to sell complying school buses.

This agency also administers a set of guidelines for State highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564). These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program Standards, cover a wide range of subjects. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, recommends that a bus used to transport 16 or less students be identified with the words "School Bus" and comply with the standard's requirements for color, mirrors and signal lamps, or be devoid of all of these characteristics. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors ( as well as many other safety features) . Because it must have this equipment, a 15-passenger bus in a State whose law fully incorporates HSPS No. 17 would have to be painted and signed as a school bus. For a State that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS No. 17 will affect you only if South Carolina has adopted it and if South Carolina accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. Your State officials will be able to give you more information about other State requirements for school buses.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

February 25, 1985

Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

I have been requested by members of this school district to purchase commercial type 15 passenger vans. These vehicles will be used for the purpose of transporting school students on field trips and other social related functions.

I am of the opinion that this type equipment is not authorized for these purposes, since they do not comply with the school bus safety standards. I have no regulations or documentation to confirm this, which is my problem.

I would appreciate very much if you could send me the regulations or advise me where I might obtain this information concerning this subject.

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

M.B. Roosen Director of Transportation 803/799-1477

MBR/jl

ID: 1985-02.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/85

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ARMOND CARDARELLI -- DIRECTOR, SAFETY EQUIPMENT SERVICES AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

TITLE: NONE

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; REGULATIONS DATED 07/01/85 EST, FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cardarelli:

Thank you for your letter of February 1, 1985, concerning the application of Standard No. 205,Glazing Materials, to sun-screening materials used on vehicle glazing. I hope that the following discussion will answer your questions.

You first asked if Standard No. 205 regulates the use of sun-screening materials. Standard No. 205 affects the use of sun-screening materials in the following ways. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements that all glazing used in new motor vehicles and all glazing sold as aftermarket equipment for use in motor vehicles must meet. One of the requirements of the standard is that, as explained in more detail in response to your second question, all windows requisite for driving visibility must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Another is that glazing for use in those areas must meet specified requirements for resistance to abrasion.

Manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility, whether clear or tinted, conforms with the light transmittance of other requirements of the standard. Likewise, if a dealer or other person places sun-screening material on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material 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 other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.

Purchasers of new vehicles may alter the vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. There are no requirements under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which would limit such alterations. However, certain commercial establishments must not install alterations. However, certain commercial establishments must not install tinted film or other sun-screening material on windows if the combination of the sun-screening material and glazing cannot meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business

P2

shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of these persons may knowingly install a film or other sun-screening material on a used vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violators of this prohibition are subject to Federal civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

State laws which are inconsistent with these Federal requirements are preempted. Any State law or regulation which would permit any person to install sun-screening material on a new vehicle in violation of Standard No. 205 is preempted under section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act. For example, a State law which specifies a transmittance level less than 70 percent for windows requisite for driving visibility would be preempted. The adoption or retention of such a law would have no effect on the illegality of that installation under Federal law. Further, any State law or regulation that would permit manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses to install sun-screening material on a vehicle after its first sale in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act is also preempted.

Your second question asked which windows in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles must meet the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. In particular, you asked if the luminous transmittance requirements apply to opera windows and sun roofs. The specification for light transmittance applies to all windows, including opera windows, in a passenger car. It does not, however, apply to car sun roofs. As to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, it only applies to the windshield and the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver. Thus, none of these windows may be darkly tinted. However, the windows to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles are not required to meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement and thus may be darkly tinted.

Your third question asked if the luminous transmittance requirements apply to the windows behind the driver in passenger cars or station wagons if those vehicles are equipped with an exterior mirror on the right side of the vehicle. The answer is that those windows must still meet the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205.

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

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-03.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Moriyoshi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 28, 1985 Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018 Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding requirements for the center high-mounted stop lamp/ You reference an agency letter of July 30, 1980, to Volkswagen of America in which the Chief Counsel concluded that placement of the stop lamps and taillamps on the deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance requiring notification and remedy. You have asked, in essence, how this related to Standard No. 108's present allowance of a center high-mounted stop lamp mounted on a vehicle's decklid, hatch, or tailgate. The assumption underlying the agency's 1980 letter was that a defect could exist if all a vehicle's stop lamps and taillamps were mounted on the decklid, where their signals could be unobserved or obscured if the lid were in any position other than closed. The center high-mount stop lamp, on the other hand, while an item of required equipment, is nevertheless a supplementary stop lamp. Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamps remaining on the body. You have asked that we also discuss the implications of a stop lamp and taillamp constructed so that a portion is fixed to the body of the vehicle adjacent to the decklid opening and the remaining portion is mounted on the outboard area of the decklid. Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position, that is to say, with the tailgate, hatch, or decklid closed. However, in order to obviate any possibility of the existence of a safety-related defect, we recommend that the portion of the lamp that is mounted on the body itself comply with the minimum requirements of Standard No. 108 for a single compartment stop lamp or taillamp. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Original Signed by Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Donald W. Riegle

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 5, 1985 The Honorable Donald W. Riegle, Jr. SD-185 United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Attn: Mike Manual Dear Senator Riegle: This letter is in further response to your inquiry concerning school bus seating issues raised by your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr. I regret the delay in our response. Mr. Furr is interested in amending our safety standards to limit the number of passengers that a school bus may carry. He suggests reducing the passenger capacity of a standard 72-passenger school bus by the use of different seat configurations. I would like to begin by explaining that our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381-1426), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Vehicle Safety Act, Congress directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel systems. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. One of those standards is Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Your constituent is correct that our safety standards so not limit the overall passenger capacity of a school bus. This is because the agency is not aware of any safety problem associated with the way manufacturers rate the capacity of their buses. We believe that manufacturers should be able to design their school buses to carry any number of passengers, provided that the appropriate occupant requirements of Standard No. 222 are met. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 222 states that: The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number. The number of seating positions in a bench seat, expressed by "W," is calculated to determine the amount of force school bus seats must withstand in order to provide adequate crash protection for passengers. School bus seats must comply with the standard's requirements for forward and rearward performance by withstanding specified amounts of applied energy. The amount of energy applied to a particular bench seat is dependent on the number of seating positions. As that number increases, the amount of force the seat must withstand likewise increases.

In accordance with S4.1, a 39-inch bench seat is assumed to have 3 designated seating positions. We recognize that such seats may be occupied by fewer persons, but that calculation helps to assure that the seat provides adequate protection when occupied by the maximum number. School buses with 24 39-inch bench seats are therefore assumed to carry 72 passengers. The school bus manufacturer must ensure that each bench seat meets the forward and rearward performance requirements, and all other applicable requirements of Standard No. 222, based on the calculations of seating positions and the required force applications. Mr. Furr suggests alternative seating configurations for school buses. He suggests that bench seats on a school bus, currently designated by a manufacturer to carry 72 passengers, should be designed with rows of 47-inch and 31-inch bench seats. Mr. Furr believed that a 47-inch bench seat and a 31-inch bench seat could carry 3 and 2 passengers, respectively, for a total passengers capacity of 60 for the school bus. He suggests a change in the regulation to reflect this design change. NHTSA is not aware of any data indicating that there is a safety problem associated with the seating capacity of school buses to justify a rule-making action amending Standard No. 222. From our experience with Standard No. 222, some school districts appear to have concerns that actions reducing seating capacity in their vehicles might result in the need to purchase additional buses at substantial costs. Since we are not aware of any information indicating that a safety need exists to regulate the capacity of a school bus, we do not believe that it is necessary to amend Standard No. 222 in the manner suggested by Mr. Furr. Further, no amendment is necessary to permit local school districts to order seat configurations such as those suggested by Mr. Furr. The districts may do so now as long as manufacturers can ensure that their school buses meet all the applicable performance requirements of our safety standards. The second set of regulations administered by NHTSA was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401-408). Those regulations, which are more in the nature of guidelines, apply to state highway safety programs and cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), Pupil Transportation Safety, contains guidelines for the identification, maintenance, and operation of school vehicles. HSPS 17 does not set a limit on the seating capacity of school buses. It does, however, recommend that school districts design their bus routes to utilize fully the capacity of the bus, while avoiding standees. You may wish to consult with the State of Michigan to determine to what extent that state has adopted the provisions of HSPS 17. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding. I hope this information is helpful in responding to your constituent. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure: Constituent's Correspondence

ID: 1985-03.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: V. Stuart James -- Executive Vice President, X-Ten Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. V. Stuart James Executive Vice President X-Ten Corporation 855 Sansome Street San Francisco, California 94111

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 121 Air Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.121). Specifically you asked if the timing requirements of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 must be satisfied by trailers which are "heavy hauler trailers" within the meaning of S4. As Mr. Kratzke told you conversation, heavy hauler trailers are exempted from all the requirements of S5.3, including the timing requirements.

You stated that your company is manufacturing extendable container chassis trailers. The brake lines in those vehicles are designed to extend with the vehicle frame. S4 of Standard No. 121 defines, in part, a heavy hauler trailer as a trailer whose "brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame...." Thus, your trailer would be considered a heavy hauler trailer for the purposes of Standard No. 121.

Section S5.3 sets forth road test requirements, compliance with which must be certified for all trucks, buses and trailers. Generally, all trailers are required to be certified as complying with the timing requirements of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4. This general rule is limited by the last sentence of S5.3, which specifies, "However, a heavy hauler trailer and the truck and trailer portions of an auto transporter need not meet the requirements of S5.3." Emphasis added Thus, heavy hauler trailers are expressly exempted from all of the requirements of S5.3, including the timing requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

May 24, 1985

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

I refer you to our telephone conversation of Wednesday, May 22, 1985 reference X-Ten Corporation's extendable container chassis trailer, VersachassisTM. You may recall that a clarification is needed on the applicability of 49 CFR 571.121 Paragraphs S 5.3.3 and S 5.3.4. The trailer in its present form meets all requirements of 49 CFR 571.121 but may not meet the timing requirements detailed in these paragraphs.

It is X-Ten's submission that the trailer is not required to meet the timing specification because the trailer is classifiable as a "heavy hauler trailer" or other specially equipped trailer in accordance with 49 CFR 571.121 Paragraph S 4 "Definitions". One of the characteristics of a "heavy hauler trailer" is defined as having "brake lines designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame". This characteristic and language precisely describe the air line arrangement on X-Ten's trailer.

Further, Truck Trailer Manufacturer's Association Recommended Practice number RP 58-81 dated June 10, 1981 (copy enclosed) suggest that the trailer is exempt from the timing requirement. The method and series of decisions used to reach this conclusion are marked on the "flow chart" enclosed.

The trailer has a tare weight of approximately 8,200 pounds, a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 60,000 pounds, a Gross Axle Weight Rating intermediate (1) of 26,000 pounds, and a Gross Axle Weight Rating intermediate (2) of 34,000 pounds.

To summarize, X-Ten Corporation understands that the trailer is to comply with all aspects of 49 CFR 571.121 except Paragraphs S 5.3.3 and S 5.3.4 from which the trailer is specifically excluded. X-Ten would appreciate an opinion expressed by the Office of Chief Counsel to either confirm or refute this understanding.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, V. Stuart James Executive Vice President VSJ:eg

ID: 1985-03.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Yoshikazu Ito, Manager, Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Yoshikazu Ito, Manager Technical Operations Section Overseas Operations Dept. Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. Oguchi-Cho, Aichi Pref. 480-01 Japan

Thank you for your letter concerning the buckle release requirements of Standard No. 208. Occupant Crash Protection. I apologize for the delay in responding to it. You asked for an interpretation of the requirement in S4.5.3.3(a) of the standard that automatic belts must have an emergency release mechanism that is "readily accessible to a seated occupant." The following discussion addresses the specific questions you asked.

The purpose of the "readily accessible" requirement is to ensure that a seated occupant can quickly and easily grasp and then release the buckle in an emergency. You explained that you have been reviewing the accessibility of possible installation locations for the emergency release by using a 5th percentile female and 50th percentile male test dummy in various seating positions. You ask whether in determining if the buckle is readily accessible, you can move the pelvic portion of the test dummy or move the seat back to permit the grasping of the buckle.

The purpose of S4.5.3.3(a) is twofold. First, it is intended to make sure automatic belts are adjustable to fit a wide range of vehicle occupants, as specified in S7.1 of the standard. In addition, it is meant to ensure that the emergency release mechanism for the automatic belt is readily accessible to that same range of occupants. Thus, the release mechanism should be accessible to those occupants with the seat in any design position without the occupant having to take special steps, such as moving the seat back, to grasp and operate the release. I note that the drawing you attached to your letter indicates that your emergency release is located within the latchplate access zone specified in S7.4.4 of the standard. Although S7.4.4 does not apply to the emergency release mechanism of automatic belts, its purpose is to make it easy for occupants to reach the latchplate of a safety belt system. We would consider any emergency release mechanism required by S4.5.3.3(a) that is within the latchplate access zone of S7.4.4 to be readily accessible as long as the occupant does not have to take any special steps to grasp and operate the release.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

TOKAI RIDA CO., LTD.

ESL85/1-7955 February 22, 1985

Ms. Betrinere Stewart Library Technician Technical Reference Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Dear Ms. Stewart:

Although somewhat belatedly, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to your many kindest assistances extended to me when I visited your office. The information we received from you is very valuable.

In the meantime, we have some questions regarding how a sentence of Standard No. 208 should be interpreted, and its details are explained in the attachment.

Would you therefore please give us appropriate answer, and if you are not in a position to reply, you would kindly pass this question to a competent officer so that we may receive the answer.

Your favourable consideration in this matter would be much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.

Yoshikazu Ito, Manager Technical Operations Section Overseas Operations Dept.

YI/yi

Attachments

CC: Mr. T. Tanabe, TR/USO

Stipulation: S4.5.3.3, No. 208

An automatic belt furnished pursuant to S4.5.3. shall: (a) conform to S7.1 and have a single emergency release mechanism whose components are readily accessible to a seated occupant.

1. Background of the question:

In designing of a certain passive belt system to be installed on our customer's vehicles, a detachable type buckle for emergency release is built in.

When installing the system on the vehicles, it is difficult for a seated occupant to access to the buckle in some cases (See attachment). So we ask you to give us your appropriate interpretation on the following cases.

2. Question

-1. What is a meaning of the sentence, " ..... whose components are readily accessible to a seated occupant"?

(Our Interpretation)

"readily accessible to" means strictly that a seated occupant can grasp the buckle and then release it in case of emergency.

-2. When reviewing installation condition by using Alderson female dummy (5th percentile), at any seating position (forwardmost, neutral or rearmost), if it is difficult that the dummy access to the buckle, whether the following condition(s) are permitted or not:

a. an occupant (dummy) would be permitted to raise her pelvic portion slightly in order to grasp the buckle.

b. an occupant (dummy) would be permitted to bring down the seat-back in order to grasp easily the buckle.

-3. When reviewing installation condition by using Alderson male dummy (50th percentile), at forwardmost and neutral seating position, if it is difficult that the dummy access to the buckle, whether the followings are permitted or not:

a. the same to above condition - 2-a.

b. the same to above condition - 2-b.

ID: 1985-03.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; SOURCE UNAVAILABLE

TO: Mr. Donald H. Giberson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety 25 South Montgomery Street Trenton, New Jersey 08666

Dear Mr. Giberson:

Thank you for your letter of May 17, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the decorative etching of glazing in vehicles and how it may be affected by our regulations. You explained that the etching is apparently being done by using either vibrator tools with carbide tips, ultra high speed grinders, or sandblasters. You expressed concern that the integrity of the glass may be affected and in some cases the etching is in a position that obstructs the vision of the driver.

You further explained that glazing with etching that obstructs the driver's vision is rejected by your inspectors during New Jersey's annual motor vehicle inspection, but that glazing in areas not used for driving vision cannot be rejected for the same reason. You asked for our comments on this issue.

I hope that the following discussion of how our regulations could affect the practice of etching glass is of assistance. As you know, our agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new vehicles or sold as items of replacement equipment; a copy of Standard No. 205 is enclosed. If the windows are etched before the vehicle or the piece of replacement glazing is sold, then the person doing the etching would have to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the light transmittance requirement for glazing in areas requisite for driving visibility. We would be particularly concerned whether the etched items of glazing would continue to comply with the impact resistance requirements of the standard. Please note that impact tests have to be met by items of AS1, AS2, AS3, AS4, AS5, AS8, AS9, AS1O, AS11A, AS11B and AS14 glazing regardless of whether the glazing is used in an area requisite for driving visibility. Purchasers of a new vehicle or glazing may themselves alter the vehicle or glazing as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

If the etching is done in used vehicles, then Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may apply; a copy of that section of the Act is enclosed. That section provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may etch a vehicle's glazing if by so doing they would knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

May 17, 1985

Mr. Stephen Oesch Office of Chief Council NHTSA 400 - 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

It has come to our attention that the glazing on many vehicles registered in New Jersey, is being decoratively etched after it has been installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer. We know of three methods being used to etch the glass.

Most people are using vibrator tools with carbide tips, but others are using ultra high speed grinders or sandblasting techniques. The vibrators often leave grooves in the glass deeper than those which could be inscribed with a glass cutting tool.

We are concerned with this problem because the integrity of the glass may be affected and in some cases the etching is in a position that vision is obstructed.

I have enclosed three pictures of vehicles equipped with etched window glass. In each of these cases, the etching is in a position which will interfere with driver visibility. Therefore, the glazing would be rejected during annual inspection and the hazard eliminated.

Etching which is placed on glazing in areas not used for drivers visibility cannot be rejected for the same reason. Although there is a strong likelihood that the glass has been weakened, we are not sure how to handle such cases.

Your advice on this matter would be appreciated. If you need additional information, please advise. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director

DHG:WH:rc

Enclosures

cc: Edward Jettner, NHTSA Edward Gyarfas, NJ DMV

ID: 1985-03.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Lee Comeau, Associate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Lee Comeau, Associate Bureau of Educational Management Services New York State Education Department Cultural Education Center Room 3059 Albany, New York 12230

Dear Mr. Comeau:

This responds to your April 12, 1985 letter concerning the January 1985 school bus safety study prepared for the Canadian government (Transport Canada). You were particularly interested in the results of the study relating to safety belts in school buses.

The Transport Canada study found that "The use of a type I seat belt system in any current design of school bus may result in more severe head and neck injuries for a belted occupant than an unbelted one, in a severe frontal collision." You asked for our opinion as to the reliability of the findings, and whether they would be admissible in a court of law. You also asked whether a school district or bus manufacturer can be liable for negligence if a seat belt causes injury to a belted occupant.

I must explain that we are unable to issue an opinion regarding either the admissibility or effect of the Canadian study's findings in a court of law. This agency is responsible for establishing Federal motor vehicle safety standards and investigating alleged safety-related defects. We are not authorized to participate in or render advisory opinions on private litigation. The issues you raised would depend on the type of legal proceeding and the evidentiary rules of the particular court system, as well as other evidence that might be introduced in a lawsuit. questions concerning negligence and private liability would also have to be answered according to the law of the particular jurisdiction. Since these matters are usually governed by state law, I suggest that you consult with your attorney to discuss how New York law would apply.

As to whether the Canadian study is reliable, this agency is in the process of reviewing the study's findings. Thus far, we have no reason to dispute its conclusions, given the nature of the test conducted. The results of the study appear to be in agreement with some laboratory tests conducted within the United States, including sled tests conducted by the agency in 1978. Although the Canadian test results appear to be accurate, we would like to emphasize that the study involved only a severe (48 km/h) frontal barrier crash test. Questions concerning how safety belts would provide benefits in other types of crashes, such as side impacts or rollovers, were not addressed. In addition, it must be noted that the study was based on a test, not on real-world statistics. We believe that these factors should be taken into consideration when evaluating the results of the Canadian study and its implications for safety belts on school buses.

As you may know, our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) do not require the installation of safety belts on new large school buses, but any school district that wishes to have such belts installed is free to do so. We do require safety belts on smaller school buses, because we believe belts are particularly effective in protecting occupants in such vehicles. For larger school buses (those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds), we require "compartmentalization" -- i.e., high seat backs with extra padding -- to provide occupant protection, and we believe the concept works well.

In that regard, I note the Canadian study found that the requirements for compartmentalization required by Canadian safety standard 222 (CMVSS No. 222) "functions as intended during frontal impacts and provides excellent protection for occupants." FMVSS No. 222, our safety standard mandating compartmentalization in school buses, has requirements similar to CMVSS 222. We believe that the Canadian study further supports the effectiveness of the compartmentalization concept required by FMVSS No. 222.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

April 12, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey Miller, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

The Canadian government has recently released findings from crash tests that were conducted to test, among other things, the worthiness of seat belts on school buses. The results have been published and are enclosed for your review.

My purpose for writing is twofold:

1. Will you review the Canadian test crash data and determine if the findings are reliable and admissible in a court of law?

2. If the findings are reliable, can a school district, bus manufacturer or seat belt company be held liable for negligence in the event a belted occupant suffers injuries in a school bus accident which are directly related to the wearing of the seat belt?

Since New York has some districts who currently use seat belts and others who are considering the possibility, your timely reply to the inquiry will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lee Comeau, Associate Bureau of Educational Management Services Room 3059 Cultural Education Center Albany, Hew York 12230 (518) 474-4738

ss

ID: 1985-03.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bernard Cantleberry

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bernard Cantleberry 5958 Maplewood Road Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124

Dear Mr. Cantleberry:

This responds to your letter to this office, in which you sought approval from the Department of Transportation and this agency for your hydraulic brake lock. Neither the Department nor this agency have the authority to approve any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the manufacturer of the vehicles or equipment is required to certify that it complies with all applicable standards.

The requirement for manufacturer certification is contained in section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (hereinafter "the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1403) which reads as follows:

Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.

Under Section 114, motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers must them- selves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. The safety certification procedure thus differs from the government type approval procedure used in Europe. Under the European procedure, a manufacturer delivers its product to a governmental entity which tests the product and then determines whether it should be approved. If the product is approved, it may then be sold.

In the case of your hydraulic brake lock, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if you want to have the hydraulic brake lock installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the entire brake system with the hydraulic brake lock installed satisfied the requirements of Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.105; copy enclosed).

Generally speaking, the requirements of Standard No. 105 apply to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase in good faith, and not to aftermarket accessories for use with or in the vehicle. The general rule is that your hydraulic brake lock may be added to the vehicle after its first purchase, even if the addition of your brake lock causes the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105, without violating any legal requirements.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies : "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative 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...". The performance capabilities of the hydraulic brake system on the vehicle are considered an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 105. Thus, if any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business adds your hydraulic brake lock to a vehicle and knowingly causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 105, that person or entity has violated the section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibition. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108, and each installation which rendered inoperative compliance with Standard No. 105 would be considered a separate violation.

You should note that the prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design on his or her vehicle, and therefore hydraulic brake locks which are sold to and installed by vehicle owners need not be checked to see if they cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105. Of course, state product liability law would also affect the installation of your device. I suggest that you discuss this matter with a local attorney.

I would also recommend that you per form some testing or analysis to learn what effect the addition of your hydraulic brake lock has on the braking performance of vehicles on which it is installed. If its addition does not affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, the brake lock could be installed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses without violating any legal requirements. If the addition of the hydraulic brake lock causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 105, it may be sold as an aftermarket accessory, but may not legally be installed on a vehicle by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

May 6, 1985.

Office of the Chief Counsel: To Whom It May Concern;

Dr. Carl Clark of your dept. recommended that I write to you and put forth what I have and what I want in relation to an innovative Anti Theft device.

I realize that what I have designed is not completely new to the field , but the inner workings, construction , design of operation, safety factors and Anti Theft capabilities are phenomenal, along with other uses.

I am describing a dual hydraulic brake lock that is operated by dual vacuum actuators that work in direct opposite of the way that vacuum actuators operate.

The system is designed in such a way that even while driving down the road and you lose engine power the system does not shut down causing brake failure. The system is also designed that in case of an electrical failure in the vehicle while the brakes are locked you always have full control to open the system to allow towing which is controlled by the only nonpickable lock on the market, and I am not referring to the key system that is designed for the Mercedes with the dimples. The system is designed in such a way that prevents anyone from overcoming it to allow removal of the vehicle, short of cutting the brake lines and driving the vehicle away with the use of the emergency brake, but that all takes time and that generally is what the thieves don't have.

When the hydraulic lock is set it is the absence of vacuum that operates the device, overcoming the device due to my design is impossible.

I keep referring to design , in actuality the partially finished product has been installed on in automobile and has been in test for about two months. By partially finished , I mean that only a single system has been prototyped and was installed on a front wheel drive vehicle. The dual system has been designed and is entering its completed stages. The system works exactly the way it was designed and is operating with no problems.

The device is installed downstream of the differential valve on some models and installed in the brake lines of others that have no differential valve, such as on the one that I am testing it on. The device does not upset the original brake system in any way or does it cause a difference in brake pressure or operation of the original system.

The reason that I am writing to you dept. is that I am looking for sanction from the dept. is that I am Dept. Of Natural Highway Traffic Safety, unless they are one in the same, for my device.

The beauty part of my device is that In testing on and off the vehicle the device held the brakes in a locked up position for a period of approximately two weeks with no pressure loss, unlike two of the other devices that have been produced and that I hive tested and that bears D. O. I. approval.

I am that Service Manager of the largest selling Ford agency in the country and the level of integrity that flows from xxxxxx Mr. Sam Marshall down thru all of his personal is something that would institute a desire for safety in something as in this hydraulic brake lock,I would greatly appreciate your response and requirements pertaining to this device, and what steps I have to take to obtain your approval and sanction.

Thank you for your time and hopefully your assistance;

Bernard Cantleberry 5958 Maplewood Rd. Mayfield Hgts, Ohio 44124

ID: 1985-03.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: K. Weight

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. K. Weight 65 E. 200 N. Provo, UT 84601

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole concerning black windows in automobiles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since we are the agency that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We have issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements, including light transmittance requirements, for glazing used in motor vehicles. As explained below, FMVSS No. 205 limits the use of darkly tinted windows.

FMVSS No. 205 requires glazing, both tinted and untinted, in a new passenger car to transmit at least 70 percent of the light that falls on it. To give you an idea of what level of tinting is allowed, please consider the following examples. If a window were completely open, the light transmitted through the opening would be 100 percent; clear windows have about 90 percent light transmittance, while factory-equipped tinted windows in new vehicles have about 80 percent light transmittance.

Minimum visibility levels are necessary to allow the average driver to detect other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic and road signs under all lighting conditions. Were the light transmittance less than 70 percent, such as found in darkly tinted glazing, visibility would be reduced to the extent that it could pose a safety hazard. From your description, I assume that the light transmittance of the "black window" is less than 70 percent. A situation where the light transmittance is below 70 percent may be in violation of FMVSS No. 205.

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install tinting material in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the standard. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs dark tinting material in a used vehicle, then a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of these persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Owners of used vehicles may, themselves, alter their vehicles, so long as the vehicle adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may in this manner install dark tinting material regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying dark tinting material on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

5/4/85

Elizabeth Dole - PERSONAL National Highway Traffic Admin. 400 Seventh St. SW Washington. D. C. 20590

Dear Mrs. Dole:

I wrote you 4/26/85 re several safety questions I had.

I am wondering why black windows are allowed on automobiles now? With kidnappings, and failure for a police officer to see into a car, I am thinking these dark windows should be banned.

If I am writing to the wrong dept. please tell me who to write.

Very truly yours,

K. Weight 65 E 200 N Provo, Utah 84601