ID: 16689b.nhf

Mr. George W. Hicks
Ingenium Services
3889 Mildred Avenue
Rochester Hills, MI 48309-4269

Dear Mr. Hicks:

This responds to your letter requesting permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to modify a 1996 Braun Windstar II (Windstar) for a client who has progressive muscular dystrophy (MD). I apologize for the delay in my response. You explain that you need to replace the power seat base originally installed in the Windstar with the smaller power seat base from a 1989 Kneelcar your client drove for six years. You explain that the size of the Windstar's power seat base interferes with your client's ability to drive and requires her to exert considerable physical effort transferring to and from the driver's seat, which you state is problematic due to your client's physical condition. You explain that, with the smaller power seat base from the Kneelcar, your client will only have to exert minimal physical effort transferring to and from the driver's seat. Further, you explain that, due to its smaller size, the Kneelcar's power seat base does not interfere with your client's ability to drive.

While NHTSA cannot provide the specific relief you seek, since we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the seat base on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA 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 to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Removing the original power seat base and replacing it with the power seat base from the 1989 Kneelcar could affect compliance with four standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. For example, Standard No. 208 requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the original power seat base and replacing it with a smaller one could affect the vehicle's ability to meet the injury criteria specified in Standard No. 208. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that replaces the original power seat base with the Kneelcar's power seat base to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to safely install and secure the power seat base to the Windstar. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

You may be interested in knowing that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.5/113/98

ID: 1982-2.6

DATE: 04/19/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M.A.N. Truck & Bus Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 1, 1981, letter asking whether it would be permissible to attach a label to a door stating "To Open Door In Emergency Pull Down". You indicate that the door is not an emergency door in compliance with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. You question whether the addition of the label in conformance to a contract with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) would make the door an emergency door that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA requires that door to be so labelled because it desires the door to be used as a means of escape.

The standard states that buses shall be equipped with a minimum number of emergency exits and that all emergency exits shall be labelled properly and comply with the requirements of the standard. One purpose of the standard is to provide sufficient emergency exits. Another purpose is to provide uniform emergency exit markings and operating instructions. You have stated that your vehicle has the requisite number of emergency exits, properly marked, so that the door in question is not required in counting the total number of exits for purposes of complying with the standard.

As you know, not all doors are required to be emergency exits. For example, the front entrance door of a vehicle need not be an emergency exit. If it is not labelled an emergency exit, it need not comply with the requirements of the standard relative to emergency exits. Similarly, the door to which you refer need not comply with the emergency exit requirements if it is not labelled as an emergency exit. However, since your proposed label refers to the emergency nature of the door, it appears to place the door within the category of an emergency exit that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA intends the door to be used as an emergency exit and the label will indicate to riders that the door is suitable for such purposes. You may not, therefore, refer to the door as an emergency door unless the door complies with all of the requirements.

SINCERELY,

M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORPORATION

October 1, 1981

General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

I am writing today to ask for your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217 to the extent that it affects the language of an instructional decal that we intend to affix at the front and rear entrances of our new series of articulated transit buses.

As we understand it, FMVSS 217 is a standard whose intent is to prescribe the amount of emergency exit area to be provided on buses, the nature of the emergency exits to be provided, and the way in which such exits must be identified.

We further believe that the vehicles we are preparing to manufacture in the United States more than meet the requirements of the standard. That is, through a combined use of push-out side windows and escape roof hatches that function and are identified according to FMVSS 217, the escape area requirement is exceeded. Therefore, we believe that the main passenger doors are not also required as emergency exits to qualify the bus under the 217 standard.

However, the language of the specification describing the buses of our current contract with the Chicago Transit Authority demands that additional escape area be provided by the main entrances. Manual operation of the main doors is accomplished via a two-step procedure. First, an operator with a red ball handle, located overhead on the door engine compartment, is pulled to release the air pressure that keeps the door closed. Second, the door panels are pushed open by the passenger. (For a better idea of the conditions at the entrances, please refer to the enclosed sketch.)

CTA further requires that this manual operation of the main doors be described in the following way by an instructional decal that is placed in close proximity to the red-handled operator:

TO OPEN DOOR IN EMERGENCY PULL DOWN.

It is the language of this decal that concerns us. Specifically, though the bus easily exceeds requirements of FMVSS 217, without the inclusion of the main doors as emergency exits, we are unsure that those doors could qualify as emergency exits under 217, and we therefore seek assurance from your office that the use of the word "emergency" in the decal does not violate the standard, as you interpret it.

We thank you in advance for your early response to this question.

Joseph R. Karner Project Engineer

cc: M. R. HOWARD; L. K. MIKALONIS; G. E. PICKETT; L. ROGERS; K. M. SIMON

NOTE: THIS IS A GENERAL CONFIGURATION SKETCH, NOT INTENDED TO ACCURATELY PORTRAY THE DOOR AREA.

(Graphics omitted)

SKETCH OF DOOR ARRANGEMENT M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORP. (CTA) DRAWN BY: J. R. KARNER 10-1-81

ID: 10491

Mr. Howard J. Levy
Used Tire International
837 S.E. 8th Avenue, Suite 202
Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Dear Mr. Levy:

This responds to your letter to Dr. Ricardo Martinez, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), referring to a bill before the Puerto Rico Senate. The bill would require all used tires imported into Puerto Rico to have a minimum of 5/32 inch tread depth and would impose a tax of $10 per tire.

You stated that the proposed requirement is 3/32 inch more than is "required by U.S. law," and that if the proposal became law it "would mean the end of the Used Tire industry on the island." You asked, "Does the NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested this agency's help in this matter.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the laws and regulations that we administer. As discussed below, however, those laws and regulations will not be of help to you with respect to your concerns about the proposed Puerto Rico law.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by Federal law (Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act)) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. It also prohibits commercial businesses from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment with a safety standard.

NHTSA's safety standards do not, however, apply to used vehicles or equipment. (I note that if a used tire is imported as motor vehicle equipment, the tire must have complied with the safety standards at the time of its manufacture.) Instead, the individual states have the authority to regulate used vehicles and equipment. Also, the Office of Motor Carriers within the Federal Highway Administration has the authority to regulate commercial vehicles and equipment operated in interstate commerce. (Your statement that the proposed Puerto Rico tread depth requirement is 3/32 inch more than is "required by U.S. law" appears to be referring to a requirement specified by the Office of Motor Carriers, Federal Highway Administration, for commercial vehicles. See 49 CFR '393.75(c)).

I will now turn to your question concerning whether NHTSA has jurisdiction over the laws being considered by the Puerto Rican Senate. The Safety Act includes one provision which addresses Federal preemption of state laws. That provision (49 U.S.C. '30103(b)) specifies that when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state (including Puerto Rico) may maintain a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard. (States may, however, specify higher standards for vehicles or equipment obtained for their own use.) Therefore, if a state specified a particular requirement for new tires that was different from one specified for the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the state law would be preempted. Moreover, a state law could be impliedly preempted if it frustrated the purposes of the Safety Act.

While we have not reviewed the specific text of the Puerto Rico bill, we do not believe the Safety Act is relevant to the particular concerns you raise in your letter. In order for a state law to be preempted under 49 U.S.C. '30103(b), it would have to apply to new vehicles or equipment. However, you are concerned about state requirements for used tires, not new tires. A state law which applied to used vehicles or equipment could be impliedly preempted if it had the same practical effect as a state law for new vehicles/equipment that would be preempted under 49 U.S.C. '30103(b), i.e., the law in question had the practical effect of requiring vehicles/equipment to be designed in a certain manner. However, neither a general tax on imported used tires nor a tread depth requirement that applied only to imported used tires would have any practical effect on the design of new tires.

Based on consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have therefore concluded that the proposed bill that you describe would not raise any preemption issues relevant to the importation of used tires. Since this opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to your concerns.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:109#119 d:1/17/95

ID: 04-004579drn

Stephen E. Selander, Esq.
Senior Counsel
Warner Norcross & Judd LLP
2000 Town Center, Suite 2700
Southfield, MI 48075-1318

Dear Mr. Selander:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your clients (Morbarks) products, portable brush chippers, are "motor vehicles" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, including the TREAD Act. We will identify the relevant factors that should be considered in making such determinations.

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

"[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."

We have issued a number of interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

You provided information about several models of brush chippers. You write that:"Eight of the models have axles, tires and wheels, and can be easily moved around a site or from site-to-site by towing."

You stated that Morbark believes that its portable brush chippers are not covered by the Vehicle Safety Act or the TREAD Act. You stated that Morbark brush chippers are designed primarily for use off-highway in helping to clear sites of trees and brush by chipping the brush, tree limbs, and small tree trunks.

You also stated that Morbark believes that its portable brush chippers are not trailers as defined in 49 CFR 571.3. That regulation defines trailer as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

We have reviewed the videotape you enclosed with your letter. We note that in some instances, the Morbark brush chipper and vehicle towing the chipper were depicted as parked on the side of the road in what appears to be a residential area. We also understand from the information you provided that some of these products are used by tree service and landscape companies. We have also reviewed information provided at Morbarks web site: www.morbark.com.

Whether Morbarks portable brush chippers are considered motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act depends on their use, i.e., whether they typically spend extended periods of time at a single site or, by contrast, use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis. By way of example, in a letter to DuraTech dated June 4, 1997, we took the position that mobile tub grinders are not motor vehicles because they stay on job sites for extended periods of time (usually for months and very rarely for less than a week). Similarly, we have concluded that mobile waterjet cutting and cleaning equipment was not a motor vehicle, based on the fact that it appeared to stay on job sites for extended periods of time ranging from a week to over a year.

We do not have information concerning the specific usage patterns of each of Morbarks brush chippers to determine whether they are motor vehicles. Moreover, while we seek to be helpful in providing opinions about our statutes, we do not have the resources to provide a detailed review of the products of each company. However, if the brush chippers use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis, they would be motor vehicles. We would think that would likely be the case for at least some of Morbarks portable brush chippers, since tree service and landscape companies would tow the portable brush chippers by trucks to jobs, park them along the curb during work, and then tow them to the next job or, at the end of the day, return them to the companys facilities. Tree service company crews commonly complete one to two jobs per day. We also note that, in a letter to Lindig Manufacturing Corporation dated January 5, 1984, we took the position that brush chipper trailers are motor vehicles.

As to your question concerning the definition of trailer, we would consider the brush chipper itself to be the property being transported.

I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA102(4)
d.8/27/04

ID: 0697

Mr. Brad Rourke
Director, Government and Community Affairs
The Electric Bicycle Company
27426 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265

Dear Mr. Rourke:

Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1995. I am pleased to answer your questions about the applicability of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to your electric-assisted bicycle.

We have reviewed Adam Englund's memorandum of January 26, 1995, which you enclosed. In general, it is a complete and accurate statement of the applicability of our regulations to motor driven cycles. We have the following comments which I hope you will find helpful.

Certification label. The appropriate regulation is 49 CFR Part 567. The statutory authority that it implements, 15 U.S.C. 1403, was recodified last summer as 49 U.S.C. 30115 without any substantive change.

Vehicle Identification Number. "15 USC 565" should be 49 CFR Part 565.

Lighting. While the analysis is correct, we note that Tables III (required equipment) and IV (location of required equipment) give a reader an immediate ready reference to motorcycle lighting equipment.

Horn. This section can be included in the one following, on controls and displays. The reference to 49 CFR "571.125 Warning Devices" is incorrect. The warning device covered by that standard is a retroreflective triangle, not a horn.

We note also that if a motorcycle is equipped with a windshield, it must comply with Standard No. 205 Glazing Materials, and that motorcycles with hydraulic brake systems are required to be furnished with brake fluid meeting Standard No 116 Brake Fluids.

You also have asked three specific questions. The first relates to the requirement of Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays that the rear brake be operable by the left hand (or right foot) control and the front brake operable by the right hand control. This is the opposite of bicycle brake systems. You believe that most riders will expect the electric bicycle to brake like a conventional one and that accidents may occur as a result of confusion. For this reason, you would like to place the rear brake control on the right handlebar, and the front brake control on the left.

The purpose of Standard No. 123 is "to minimize accidents caused by operator error . . . by standardizing certain motorcycle controls and displays" so that a motorcycle operator can instinctively respond to threatening situations no matter what the machine. Your question raises the possibility that the purpose of the standard might be defeated with respect to the electric bicycle by strict application of Standard No. 123 when it is operated by those who are familiar with bicycle braking systems (though this would not be the case if the operator is switching from a motorcycle to an electric bicycle). We do have authority to exempt manufacturers for up to two years from a requirement if it would promote the development or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle, or if compliance would prevent the manufacturer from selling a vehicle whose overall level of safety equals or exceeds that of a complying vehicle. The exemption procedures are contained in 49 CFR Part 555. Taylor Vinson of this Office will be glad to answer any questions you have (202-366-5263). You also may petition for rulemaking, as provided in 49 CFR Part 552, for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 123. However, in the absence of an exemption or a change in Standard No. 123, the braking system of the electric bicycle must operate as provided in this standard.

Your second question relates to headlighting requirements for motor driven cycles. You believe that the headlamp specified by Standard No. 108 will reduce the ability of the electric bicycle to perform at night, and, for this reason, would like to use "a high- power bicycle-type headlamp." SAE J584, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, permits a motor driven cycle to be equipped with a single beam headlamp. If you wish to use a headlamp that does not comply with Standard No. 108's requirements for motor driven cycle headlamps, you must petition for an exemption, and/or for rulemaking, as discussed in the prior paragraph. In addition to allowance of a single beam headlamp, paragraphs S5.1.1.21 and S5.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108 recognize the limitations of low- powered motorcycles and permit motor driven cycles whose top speed is 30 mph or less to omit turn signal lamps, and to be equipped with a smaller less powerful stop lamp.

Your final question relates to Standard No. 123 and your wish to use a spring-loaded thumb-lever throttle. This is permissible, and no requirements are prescribed for it by Standard No. 123. Your interpretation of Standard No. 123 is correct; a twist- grip throttle is not required, but if it is provided, it must operate in the manner set forth in the standard.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108#123 d:3/30/95

ID: 08-002063as

ID: 1984-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Forrest L. Bettis, Project Director, Traders International

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Approval for automotive Testing of Two Non-Conforming Vehicles

Reference: 22157-30.4.84

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are an automotive marketing research firm located in the Los Angeles area. Recently, we were contracted by a Japanese auto manufacturer to test U.S. acceptance of their new car. The importation is for Daihatsu Motor Co., manufacturer not presently selling vehicles in the U.S.

We urgently need the approval of NHTSA to import these vehicles for testing. These vehicles are to be used for engineering evaluation, emissions testing and marketing evaluations. Following testing, they will be returned to Japan.

Enclosed is a letter from Daihatsu Motor Company requesting a waiver from the California Air Resources Board and listing specs of vehicles.

We are under severe time constraints. These cars are scheduled to arrive in San Pedro/Long Beach no later than July 25. If possible, your approval for importation and testing would be appreciated prior to July 2O, 1984.

If you need any additional information, call us collect (818)768-8573.

Sincerely,

Forrest L. Bettis Project Director

Mr. Forrest L. Bettis Project Director Traders International 10553 Alskog St.

Sun Valley, CA 91352

Dear Mr. Bettis:

This is in response to your letter of July 7, 1984, asking for the agency's "approval for importation and testing" of two small Japanese cars.

No "approval" is necessary for importation for the purposes you specify. Pursuant to Title 19 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(1)(vii), a motor vehicle which does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards may nonetheless be imported for purposes of test or experiment. If the vehicle is to be operated on the public roads, it may be so tested for a period of up to one year after importation, provided that a statement is attached to the entry form giving the purpose of the test or experiment, the estimated amount of time that the vehicle will spend on the public roads, and the disposition to be made of it at the end of the test period. The letter to the California Air Resources Board, which you attached, appears sufficient for this purpose.

The entry form I mentioned in the preceding paragraph is Form HS-7 which is required to be executed when the vehicles enter the country. The proper declaration to check for purposes of test and experiment is Box 7.

Should your client require more than one year's evaluation, you may ask the agency for an additional year, and later, a third year if required.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Ref. No. 47041 Date July 4, 1984

Mr. K.D. Drachand, Chief Mobile Source Division California Air Resources Board 9528 Telstar Avenue El Monte, California 91731 U.S.A.

RE : Application for two experimental permits

We are a Japanese automobile manufacturing company currently investigating the introduction of a new car to the U.S. market. To test our product in the U.S., we must import two nonconforming vehicles. These are different from the vehicles which marketing department of our company applied on May 23. Now, we need the experimental permits to operate these vehicles on public roadways in California. Following testing, they will be returned to Japan. These vehicles are to be used for engineering evaluation and marketing evaluations.

Vehicle specs are as follows :

Manufacturer : Daihatsu Motor Company Ltd. Vehicle models : 1. Daihatsu Charade 2 door (G11 Micro-mini FF passenger car) 2. Daihatsu Rocky (F7OLV Wagon type 4x4) Length : 3,550 mm 3,715 mm Width : 1,550 mm 1,580 mm Height : 1,395 mm 1,840 mm Weight : 690 kg 1,365 kg Dates : July 24 - Oct. 24 VIN numbers : Charade 2 door JDA 000G1100737951 Rocky JDA 000F7000600408

These two cars will be shipped from Kobe. Japan to Los Angeles, California. In California, they will be evaluated and test driven by several people. After this test, they will undergo a series of additional tests. Within one year of importation, these vehicles will be returned to Japan.

Sincerely yours,

Tetsuo Iwakura; Project Manager Product Planning Dept. Daihatsu Motor Company Ltd.

ID: 1983-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Tom Ridge; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 21, 1983 The Honorable Tom Ridge House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Ridge:

This responds to your letter of November 28, 1983, requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. William H. Hull, Sr. Mr. Hull is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. He believes that this is a dangerous practice because it prevents police officers from seeing inside the vehicles. You asked if we were considering the issuance of a regulation outlawing the use of such film and, if so, when such a regulation might be promulgated.

While our authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) enables us to limit the practice of installing tinted film on vehicle windows, it does not permit us to issue a regulation prohibiting every individual from engaging in that practice. As explained below, while commercial establishments are prohibited from adding the film, we cannot prohibit a vehicle owner from doing so.

Pursuant to the Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

Tinting films such as the type referred to in Mr. Hull's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard.

A vehicle manufacturer or a dealer may place the film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle only if that manufacturer or dealer is able to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

However, vehicle owners may not go to a commercial establishment to have the film installed for them. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act 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 knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to,$1,000 for each violation.

The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mr. Hull may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing tinting film on their automobile windows.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

November 28, 1983

The Honorable Elizabeth H. Dole Secretary U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Secretary Dole:

I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. William H. Hull, Sr., of Erie, Pennsylvania, regarding his interest in outlawing certain equipment on automobiles, specifically black plastic window coverings allowing occupants to see out, but preventing individuals from looking into the car. Mr. Hull takes an active interest in police work and feels cars equipped with these heavily tinted windows can pose a serious threat to the safety of a police officer, mainly by preventing him from observing activities inside a suspect car.

In view of Mr. Hull's interest, I would appreciate being advised if the Department has given consideration toward outlawing the use of this equipment, and if this has indeed occurred, do you have an indication when such a regulation may be promulgated.

Thank you, in advance, for your kind cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Tom Ridge Member of Congress

TJR:ef

ID: 1984-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. J. DiMaggio Manager, Gov. and Customer Relations The Firestone Tire a Rubber Co. 1200 Firestone Parkway Akron Ohio 44317

Dear Mr. DiMaggio:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1983, to the Administrator, petitioning for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The noncompliance consists of omission of the "DOT" certification symbol. You have represented that tires so affected nevertheless meet Standard No. 117 in all other respects.

It has been the policy of this agency since 1977 to treat omissions of the DOT symbol ss failures to certify pursuant to Sections 114 and 108(a)(1)(C) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act rather than as failures to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires or allows that method of certification. The symbol is not considered to establish a minimum standard of motor vehicle performance. This means that manufacturers who fail to provide the symbol are not required to conduct a notification and remedy campaign, and that accordingly the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is not required to publish notices of petitions requesting inconsequentiality determinations.

Your petition is therefore moot. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 8, 1983

Ms. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FOR INCONSEQUENTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 117

Dear Ms. Steed:

The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company hereby petitions, in accordance witn the provisions of 49CFR 556, for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a noncompliance with the requirements of FMVSS 117 (49CFR 571.117). The basis for this petition is that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it pertains to motor safety.

Section S5.2.3 (a) of FMVSS 117 requires that the symbol DOT be permanently molded onto the sidewall of each retreaded tire. Section S6.1 states that this symbol certifies that the retreaded tire on which it appears meets tne requirements of FMVSS 117. One mold, number 49, put into production at our retread plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, was found to have all the required stamping except the DOT symbol. The tire identification number area in this mold reads -R-DBL 49 XXX instead of DOT-R-DBL 49 XXX. All other molds in this size, L, LR7815 Town & Country were found to be correctly stamped.

The fact that the aforementioned symbol was missing was detected when a tire from the subject mold was submitted to our testing facility as part of our compliance surveillance program. The tire met all other requirements of FMVSS 117, indicating that the plant was eligible for continued certification of compliance insofar as the quality of the product was concerned.

Inventories in the plant of tires from the subject mold were impounded and branded correctly. It is estimated that in the period during which this mold could have been in use, a maximum of 1,340 retreaded tires could have been produced. During this period, weeks 320 to 373, the plant was producing product which was in compliance with the quality of product test requirements of FMVSS 117. Further, all casings used bore the DOT symbols indicating compliance of the original tire with the requirements of FMVSS 109. Only passenger casings with this DOT stamping are used by us for retreading.

The bases upon which this petition is being submitted are as follows:

1. The quality of the subject tires met the requirements of Firestone and NHTSA. Retreaded casings cured in the subject mold all were certified by the original tire manufacturer as being in compliance with FMVSS 109. The plant follows Firestone Retread Shop practices intended to produce high quality, safe retreads. These practices include submitting tires for compliance surveillance testing. 2. The symbol -R- is stamped in the mold in the vicinity of the serial, leaving no doubt that the tire can be identified as a retread. 3. The absence of the symbol DOT does not adversely affect the quality or safety capabilities of the tires cure in the subject mold.

In view of the above, we conclude that the stamping noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and respectfully request exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Act.

Thank you for your consideration of this petition.

Very truly yours,

A. J. DiMaggio MANAGER, GOV. AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS

AJD:g

ID: nht87-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Sally P. Tate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Sally P. Tate Adaptive Driving Service 2818 Ronco Drive San Jose, CA 95132

Dear Ms Tate:

This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1987, with reference to the following problem: an owner of a 1987 Toyota Corolla has multiple sclerosis, and instead of walking must use a powered scooter. The scooter is transported by a lift platf orm mounted on a trailer hitch in the rear of the car. However, this lift unit "obstructs direct view of -- the factory installed high rear brake light." You propose to install another stop lamp on the post of the lift "so that it will be in dir ect view of the drivers behind....," leaving untouched the original center highmounted stop lamp. You have informed us that California will not sanction the additional lamp unless this agency authorizes it. Vehicles in use are subject to the prohibition in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard may not be rendered inoperative, in whole or in part, by a person other than the vehicle owner. Installation of any equipment that obstructs the light output of a highmounted stop lamp would render it partially inoperative in our opinion. Because photometric compliance of the lamp is determined from a distance of not less than 10 feet, and b ecause the distance between the Toyota rear lamp and lift unit would appear to be less than that distance, it is probable that one or more of the requisite photometric test points might be obscured by the device.

However, it appears that the prohibition against rendering inoperative may not be violated by the modification you propose. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment allows an exception for modifica tions made during the manufacturing process or before sale. Under Paragraph S4.3.1.1, if motor vehicle equipment prevents a lamp from compliance with photometric requirements, an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements shall be provided. Wher e a standard provides alternative methods of compliance, alteration of a vehicle or item of equipment so that it meets a different alternative from the one which it originally met does not constitute rendering inoperative within the meaning of the prohib ition.

We believe that your situation is sufficiently similar so that your addition of an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements would not violate the prohibition. In this instance the fact that the new lamp would not be located directed on the rea r vertical centerline of the vehicle, but slightly to the left of it, would not be of great concern to us. In conclusion, we have no objection to the proposed installation of the lamp.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 13, 1987

Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel F.M.V. #108, Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SouthWest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Erika Z. Jones,

As per my conversations with Mr. Kevin Cabey and Mr. Taylor Vinson, I have been advised to write directly to you to have you assist us with our request.

I will try to be as brief as possible. I work with Physically Disabled individuals and I have been contracted by the State of California to work with a client who has Multiple Sclerosis. She purchased a 1987 Toyota Corolla liftback which obviously has th e high center rear brake light feature. This light in itself poses no problem. However, our client uses a powered scooter since her ability to ambulate is minimized and this scooter can only be transported through the means of a special lift unit mounted on a trailer hitch in the rear of the car. (Please refer to the brochure of Tiger Lift enclosed.) When this lift unit is mounted on the car, it abstracts direct view of the factory installed high rear brake light. We have come up with a solution of moun ting another high rear brake light" on the post of the lift so that it will be in direct view of the drivers behind our client. Our State Chief of Automotive Inspection insists that this rear brake light be visible.

Our snag hinges on the fact that the California State Department of Automotive Inspection will not sanction any location of the high rear brake light (only factory installed), in our case on the post of the lift, unless we receive a letter of authorizati on directly from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

We are therefore requesting and greatly appreciate your efforts in assisting us with this client's need. Our automotive chief has stated that this unit will not be installed unless we are able to receive a written letter of authorization addressing the a cceptance of the installation of another high rear brake light, which can be mounted on the post of this lift unit. The factory installed unit will remain untouched.

Thank you for your prompt attention in this unusual request.