ID: 08-000763--26 Feb 08--rls

ID: nht90-2.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOHN W. GARRINGER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/07/90 FROM JOHN W. GARRINGER TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, OCC 4751; LETTER DATED 02/01/90 FROM JOHN W. GARRINGER TO TERRY M. GERNSTEIN

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law permits the installation of tinted plastic film on the bottom of motor vehicle windshields. The purpose of this film would be to reduce glare for the driver and any front seat passengers. I am ple ased to have this opportunity to explain how our laws and regulations apply to such a product.

Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not appro ve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency pe riodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), which sets forth performance requirements for windows and other glazing items installed in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard N o. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the winds hield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmitta nce requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with your Hood Glare product installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and your tinting film must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer would be permitted to install your tinting film on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continue s to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering i noperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install tinting film if the addition of the ti nting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-3.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- SPECIFICATIONS MANAGER INDIANA MILLS & MANUFACTURING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/01/88 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM E. LAWLER; OCC - 2362

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Specifically, you noted that a final rule published July 6, 1988 (53 FR 25337) upgrades the safety belt requirements for heavy vehicl es manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. One of the new requirements for those safety belts is that, if an automatic locking retractor (ALR) is used, that retractor "shall not retract webbing to the next locking position until at least 3/4 inch of webbing has moved into the retractor." Standard No. 208 sets forth this requirement in section S4.3.2.2 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds, and in section S4.4.2.2 for buses. You asked whether an ALR that depended on a mechanism external to the retractor itself to prevent it from retracting webbing to the next locking position would comply with S4.3.2.2 and S4.4.2.2. The answer to your question is no.

The agency explained in detail the reasons why the final rule did not adopt the proposed requirement for all heavy vehicle safety belts to be equipped with emergency locking retractors only; see 53 FR 25338-25340. The proposed prohibition of ALR's in he avy vehicles was based on the tendency of current designs of ALR's to become progressively tighter around an occupant as the vehicle travels over potholes or other jarring surfaces of the road. However, NHTSA acknowledged in the final rule that some nev er designs of ALR's do not exhibit this tendency. In response to these newer designs of ALR's, the agency said:

Therefore, this rule has been expanded from the proposal, in order to permit ALR's with anti-cinch capability to be installed in heavy vehicles. For the purposes of this rule, anti-cinch capability is determined by examining the working of the retrac tor after it has locked after the initial adjustment of the safety belt. 53 FR 25339.

This language explicitly states that the "working of the retractor" is what determines whether an ALR on a heavy vehicle belt complies with the requirements of Standard No. 208. Since the focus is exclusively on the "working of the retractor," an ALR mu st comply with these requirements without depending upon any external mechanisms to assist it. Any ALR that cannot satisfy these requirements without the assistance of external mechanisms would not comply with Standard No. 208's requirements for ALR's o n heavy vehicles.

This conclusion is reinforced by the agency's statement that:

"NHTSA believes it is appropriate to measure compliance with this new 3/4 inch minimum webbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 208 under the same conditions currently specified for determining compliance with the existing 1-inch maximum w ebbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 209." 53 FR 25340.

The 1-inch maximum webbing travel requirement for ALR's is set forth in section S4.3(i) of Standard No. 209. Since Standard No. 209 became effective in 1968, the agency has determined whether ALR's comply with this requirement by examining the performan ce of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms. As explained in the final rule, the same procedure (examining the performance of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms) will be used to measure co mpliance with the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208.

In your letter, you requested that we issue an interpretation that any ALR that complies with Standard No. 209 can rely on the use of an external mechanism, such as your company's "Komfort-Lok," to comply with the minimum webbing travel requirements of S tandard No. 208 for ALR's on safety belts in heavy vehicles. I cannot do so, for the reasons explained above. Any ALR used on a heavy vehicle safety belt must satisfy the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208 by the working of the ret ractor itself, without the use of any external mechanisms.

Sincerely,

ID: 7171

Mr. Michael Love
Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your letter of April 3, 1992, requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps.

Porsche wishes to install a center lamp on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that "If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars." Although Porsche's intended center lamp meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible.

Nevertheless, you believe that this may be acceptable. You cite an opinion rendered Mazda in which NHTSA did not object to center lamps mounted on tailgates because, as we advised Mazda, the center lamp is a "supplementary" lamp, and that "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. . ." You further quote NHTSA's frequently repeated advisory that "Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position. . . ," and argue that Porsche's design "fulfills the spirit of the height requirements under all conditions" and the height requirement itself "under a majority of 'normal driving conditions.'" You further argue that even in the down position the triangular relationship between the center lamp and the stop lamps is retained. Finally, you argue that the proposed lamp conforms with NHTSA's philosophy to make Standard No. 108 more performance-oriented "by fulfilling the photometric requirements at all positions."

I am sorry that we cannot concur in your interpretation. When we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The fact that the vehicle may not comply under all conditions of operation is, of course, of concern to us, but we try to weigh the realities of vehicle design and usage against the need of the public for safety. In the Mazda interpretation, there was no question that the vehicle as manufactured would comply with the locational requirement for center lamps when the tailgate was closed. The "normal driving position" of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. In another interpretation, rendered years ago, the fact that a vehicle with hydraulic suspension would not meet the minimum height requirements for headlamps with the vehicle at rest was considered a technical noncompliance only because by the time the vehicle was in its normal operating condition (with the engine running and the car ready to move into the stream of traffic), the suspension had raised the vehicle to a height where the headlamps exceeded the minimum height requirements.

By contrast, the center lamp on the Carerra will not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, that is to say, under low-speed urban driving conditions where the center lamp is most likely to achieve its purpose of reducing the frequency and severity of rear end impacts. This, to us, is the "normal operating position" of the Carerra with respect to the location of the proposed center lamp.

I would like to close by pointing out that the agency went to a considerable extent in considering the comments of manufacturers before adopting the requirements of S5.3.1.8, in order to minimize design restrictions consistent with safety. NHTSA proposed three alternative locations, and adopted one that was less restrictive than any of the alternatives. Subsequently, pursuant to petitions for reconsideration by vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA relaxed the location requirements of S5.3.1.8 even further.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/27/92

ID: nht92-7.27

DATE: April 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Michael Love to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7171)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 3, 1992, requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps.

Porsche wishes to install a center lamp on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that "If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars." Although Porsche's intended center lamp meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible.

Nevertheless, you believe that this may be acceptable. You cite an opinion rendered Mazda in which NHTSA did not object to center lamps mounted on tailgates because, as we advised Mazda, the center lamp is a "supplementary" lamp, and that "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 lamp lamps..." You further quote NHTSA's frequently repeated advisory that "Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position. . . ," and argue that Porsche's design "fulfills the spirit of the height requirements under all conditions" and the height requirement itself "under a majority of 'normal driving conditions.'" You further argue that even in the down position the triangular relationship between the center lamp and the stop lamps is retained. Finally, you argue that the proposed lamp conforms with NHTSA's philosophy to make Standard No. 108 more performance-oriented "by fulfilling the photometric requirements at all positions."

I am sorry that we cannot concur in your interpretation. When we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The fact that the vehicle may not comply under all conditions of operation is, of course, of concern to us, but we try to weigh the realities of vehicle design and usage against the need of the public for safety. In the Mazda interpretation, there was no question that the vehicle as manufactured would comply with the locational requirement for center lamps when the tailgate was closed. The "normal driving position" of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. In another interpretation, rendered years ago, the fact that a vehicle with hydraulic suspension would not

meet the minimum height requirements for headlamps with the vehicle at rest was considered a technical noncompliance only because by the time the vehicle was in its normal operating condition (with the engine running and the car ready to move into the stream of traffic), the suspension had raised the vehicle to a height where the headlamps exceeded the minimum height requirements.

By contrast, the center lamp on the Carerra will not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, that is to say, under low-speed urban driving conditions where the center lamp is most likely to achieve its purpose of reducing the frequency and severity of rear end impacts. This, to us, is the "normal operating position" of the Carerra with respect to the location of the proposed center lamp.

I would like to close by pointing out that the agency went to a considerable extent in considering the comments of manufacturers before adopting the requirements of S5.3.1.8, in order to minimize design restrictions consistent with safety. NHTSA proposed three alternative locations, and adopted one that was less restrictive than any of the alternatives. Subsequently, pursuant to petitions for reconsideration by vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA relaxed the location requirements of S5.3.1.8 even further.

ID: 8807

Ms. Gail Lindsey
Hillsborough County Public Schools
Risk Management and Safety Department
707 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, FL 33602

Dear Ms. Lindsey:

Your letter of June 23, 1993, to Mr. Ron Engle of the office of Transportation Safety Programs, this agency, was referred to this office for reply.

You explained in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office that it has been your School Board's policy to prohibit the use of mini-vans to transport school children to and from special events, requiring instead the use of school buses. You stated that the policy is controversial among parents, however, resulting in the School Board reconsidering the issue. You therefore requested information on "crash safety standards" of mini-vans or any other recommendations we can provide to assist the school board in making a safe and fair determination in the matter.

For your information, enclosed are copies of letters to Senator Jim Sasser dated July 7, 1992; Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. dated May 29, 1992; Mrs. Alice Collins, dated August 1, 1988; a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations; a fact sheet issued by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations; and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, referred to in the letter to Mr. Duncan.

The enclosed materials should answer your concerns in this matter. I would like to emphasize that, as explained in the materials, it is NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Hillsborough County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles, such as mini-vans, that do not comply with school bus regulations.

Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:571 d:8/5/93

ID: nht88-3.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RICHARD W. WARD -- V. P; K-D LAMP COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 1988 TO ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA ADMIN., FROM RICHARD W. WARD, V.P., K-D LAMP CO.; OCC 2555

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1988, asking for a clarification of Federal requirements for the minimum lens area for turn signal lamps and stop lamps.

The understanding expressed in your letter is correct. The SAE materials for turn signal lamps and stop lamps for wide vehicles incorporated by reference in Table I apply to original equipment on vehicles currently being manufactured, and to equipment i ntended to replace such original equipment. These standards were expressly incorporated to supersede earlier versions of SAE standards for turn signal lamps and stop lamps. However, in recognition that original equipment lamps made to earlier SAE speci fications might not be compatible with the electrical systems of vehicles designed to conform to later SAE specifications, the agency adopted paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and 4.1.1.7, allowing the continued manufacture for replacement purposes only, of turn signa l lamps and stop lamps designed to conform to earlier specifications. Both sections incorporate in their text portions of the earlier SAE standards. Because the earlier specification for turn signal lamps, J588d, required an effective projected luminou s area not less than 12 square inches for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles, this requirement is also specified in S4.1.1.7 for replacement lamps manufactured in conformance with J588d.

In short, your interpretation is correct with respect to turn signal lamps manufactured for installation on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more. Single compartment turn signal lamps designed to conform to SAE J588e need meet only a minimum luminous lens area of 8 square

inches. But if a turn signal lamp is manufactured to replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to conform to SAE J588d, its minimum luminous lens area is 12 square inches.

I hope this clarifies the matter for your customer.

ID: 1985-04.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John L. O'Connell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 25, 1985 Mr. John L. O'Connell Public Transportation Administrator Department of Motor Vehicles State of Connecticut State Street Wethersfield, CT 06109-1896 Dear Mr. O'Connell: This is in reply to your letter of October 8, 1985, to Jeffrey Miller, former Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked whether a new style school bus warning lamp system developed by the Whelen Engineering Company meets the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and referenced SAE standards, and whether such a system can be installed and used on school buses in compliance with Federal regulations. Pursuant to paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108, a school bus must be equipped with a system of red lamps, or red and amber lamps meeting SAE Standard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964 (copy enclosed). The Whelen system is said to comply with SAE J887 May 1982, with the possible exception of dimensions. The requirements that the Whelen system must meet are those of the 1964 version of J887. Dimensional specifications are not included in the 1964 version, however, the minimum effective projected luminous lens area requirement of 19 square inches must be met. The test report indicates that the Whelen lamp meets the minimum photometrics of both the 1982 and 1964 versions of J887 and its dimensions, 7" x 2.75", indicate that the minimum luminous lens area requirement may also be met. However, the test report indicates that the light flashes at a rate of 55 cycles per minute. The Whelen lamp therefore does not comply with the 1964 requirement that school bus warning lamps flash at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute (nor the 1982 SAE specifications of 1-2 H which is 60-120 cycles per minute). For this reason, the Whelen system does not meet Federal requirements and cannot be installed on school buses certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 8088

Mr. Frank E. Timmons
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Timmons:

This responds to your letter about our November 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce. In that letter, NHTSA discussed Federal requirements for tires sold in the United States for passenger cars and other "motor vehicles." You wish to ensure that the Under Secretary understands that the term "motor vehicles" only refers to vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on highways."

We are glad to clarify the meaning of the term "motor vehicle." "Motor vehicle" is defined in 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (Emphasis added.) Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle that the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

This agency has issued many interpretations of what is and what is not a "motor vehicle." In general, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Likewise, vehicles that are designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of its customers actually would use them on the highway.

Vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are considered motor vehicles. Furthermore, even if the majority of a vehicle's use will be off-road but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, this agency has interpreted that to be a motor vehicle.

We appreciate your interest in this matter and will provide the Under Secretary with a copy of this letter. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce ref:109#119#571#574 d:2/11/93

ID: 3133o

Mr. Richard W. Ward
Vice President
K-D Lamp Company
1910 Elm Street
Cincinnati, OH 45210

Dear Mr. Ward:

This is in reply to your letter of September 14, l988, asking for a clarification of Federal requirements for the minimum lens area for turn signal lamps and stop lamps.

The understanding expressed in your letter is correct. The SAE materials for turn signal lamps and stop lamps for wide vehicles incorporated by reference in Table I apply to original equipment on vehicles currently being manufactured, and to equipment intended to replace such original equipment. These standards were expressly incorporated to supersede earlier versions of SAE standards for turn signal lamps and stop lamps. However, in recognition that original equipment lamps made to earlier SAE specifications might not be compatible with the electrical systems of vehicles designed to conform to later SAE specifications, the agency adopted paragraphs S4.l.l.6 and 4.l.l.7, allowing the continued manufacture for replacement purposes only, of turn signal lamps and stop lamps designed to conform to earlier specifications. Both sections incorporate in their text portions of the earlier SAE standards. Because the earlier specification for turn signal lamps, J588d, required an effective projected luminous area not less than 12 square inches for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles, this requirement is also specified in S4.1.1.7 for replacement lamps manufactured in conformance with J588d.

In short, your interpretation is correct with respect to turn signal lamps manufactured for installation on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more. Single compartment turn signal lamps designed to conform to SAE J588e need meet only a minimum luminous lens area of 8 square inches. But if a turn signal lamp is manufactured to replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to conform to SAE J588d, its minimum luminous lens area is 12 square inches.

I hope this clarifies the matter for your customer.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref: 108 d:ll/3/88