ID: 1983-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Corporation -- William K. Sweeney, Assistant General Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William K. Sweeney Assistant General Counsel Grumman Corporation 445 Broad Hollow Road Melville, New York 11747

Dear Mr. Sweeney:

This responds to your letter of November 22, 1983, regarding the application of Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) to the new Kubvan minivan you intend to manufacture and distribute. You state in your letter that the Kubvan is a minivan designed primarily for delivery and utility service. You ask whether the Kubvan must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt protection system under S4.2.2.2 of the standard.

You state that Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right hand drive models of the Kubvan. The right hand drive models are intended for use by the United States Postal Service (USPS). You add that Grumman Olson also plans to sell right hand vehicles to any and all interested customers.

Section 4.2.2.2 requires trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to provide a lap and shoulder belt protection system, except for those "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service." As correctly stated in your letter, all Kubvans sold to customers other than the USPS must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt assembly. However, based on the, intent of S4.2.2.2 and the unique operating needs of the USPS, right hand Kubvans sold to the USPS need only be equipped with a lap belt system.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 22, 1983 Frank Berndt, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, 49 CFR Section 571.208

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing to you at the suggestion of Mr. Steven Wood of your department.

I represent Grumman Olson, a division of Grumman Allied Industries. Inc., and a manufacturer of aluminum truck bodies. As I indicated to Mr. Wood, Grumman Olson is now embarking on the manufacture and distribution of a new minivan completely built by it at its own facilities. This minivan is called the Kubvan (R), and is designed for delivery and utility service. A specification sheet on the Kubvan minivan is enclosed for your information.

Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right hand drive versions of the Kubvan, the latter for use by the United States Postal Service. A number of other potential customers, including Canada Post Corporation, have expressed interest in the right hand drive Kubvan, and that expression of interest necessitates my writing to you.

Specifically, a question has arisen concerning the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, 49 CFR S 571.208. Paragraph S4.2.2 of the safety standard sets out the basic occupant crash protection required for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; namely, a lap and shoulder belt protection system. Certain classes of light trucks are excluded, such as "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service...". Vehicles of the latter type are permitted to carry a lap belt system only.

Grumman Olson is desirous of selling the right hand drive Kubvan to customers other than the United States Postal Service (USPS). As we interpret Paragraph S4.2.2, it basically equates light trucks with passenger cars, in terms of crash protection. USPS vehicles were specifically excluded (and permitted to be equipped with lap belts only) because of their unique operating environment (i.e., generally lower speeds, frequent stops, and the need for the driver to exit and enter the vehicle quickly, and/or reach out of the vehicle to service mail boxes).

Given this interpretation, Grumman Olson would be entitled to sell right hand drive Kubvans to any and all interested customers, provided that all such vehicles are equipped with a full lap and shoulder belt restraint system, except for those sold to the USPS. However, the wording of Paragraph S4.2.2 literally implies that if Grumman Olson were to sell right hand drive Kubvans to parties other than USPS, the vehicle might not technically qualify as one "designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service". This, in turn, might mean that Grumman Olson (a) would be required to equip all right hand drive Kubvans with lap and shoulder belt restraint systems (including those destined for the United States Postal Service, which would render the vehicle unsuitable for their use), and/or (b) would be required to retrofit any right hand drive Kubvans presently in USPS inventory with lap and shoulder belt systems (such vehicles not having a lap belt system only as permitted by the Paragraph). We feel this end result is inconsistent with the intent of Paragraph S4.2.2.

I have had telephone discussions with Mr. Wood and with Mr. Bob Gardner of NHTSA's engineering staff, relative to interpretation of the Paragraph in question. Both of these individuals felt that our analysis of the Paragraph was consistent with its intent and expressed no difficulty with (1) our selling right hand drive Kubvans (equipped with lap and shoulder belt system) to customers other than the USPS and (2) our continuing to sell right hand drive Kubvans to the USPS, with lap belt system only (and without the need to retrofit any vehicles presently in USPS inventory). I asked Mr. Wood about the possibility of a formal response from NHTSA approving our interpretation of Paragraph S4.2.2, and he suggested that I write to you to request such a response.

I would, therefore, appreciate your discussing this matter with Mr. Wood, and, if you agree, arranging for a letter from your office to me, concurring in our interpretation of Paragraph S4.2.2 and approving sales of right hand Kubvans as set out in the previous paragraph.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

WILLIAM K. SWEENEY Assistant General Counsel

WKS:mz

ID: nht93-5.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/17/93 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack (OCC-8680)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Both questions relate to S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, which was added by the final rule to read as follows:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

Your two questions and the answer to each follows.

1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 2 proposed the use of "one inch wide" retro-reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a "minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape." The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a "minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape." Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro-reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide.

Based on your description, the conversion of 1 inch in S5.5.3 (c) to 3 centimeters (cm) resulted in a .46 cm increase in the minimum size retroreflective tape which must be used. You also note that 3 cm retroreflective tape is not commercially available.

You are correct that there is a discrepancy between the NPRM and the final rule about the size of the tape. Pursuant to Executive Order 12770 (56 FR 35801; July 29, 1991), the agency converted U.S. units of weights and measurements to "metric equivalents" in the November 2, 1992 final rule (57 FR 49413, 49422). The term "metric equivalents" was used by the agency because the metric conversion was not intended to result in a substantive change of the final requirements. The .46 cm increase in the tape size was thus inadvertent. In light of the issues raised by your letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

2. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that "each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter....." The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening.

In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retroreflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape. You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape, and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retroreflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear push out window or rear door), for two reasons. First, you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivets, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off.

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six inches. When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

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

ID: 001688cmc_DC_acc release

Mr. Robert E. Norton II
Senior Staff Counsel
Daimler Chrysler Corporation
1000 Chrysler Drive CIMS 485-13-62
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2766

Dear Mr. Norton:

This responds to your letter dated March 12, 2003, in which you inquire about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. You ask if there are objective criteria to evaluate compliance with the requirement under the second sentence of S4.1(e) of FMVSS No. 209 that a "[b]uckle release mechanism shall be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release." As explained below, compliance with S4.1(e) requires viewing that provision of the standard in the context of FMVSS No. 209 as a whole.

In your letter, you question how the agency would evaluate compliance with this provision of S4.1(e). You state that if the provision is read in the context of the entirety of FMVSS No. 209, then compliance with the "accidental release" requirement could be demonstrated by satisfying the performance requirements of S4.3(d)(3) of FMVSS No. 209, which refers to a test procedure set out in S5.2(d)(3). In the alternative, you contend that if compliance with S4.1(e) cannot be ascertained using this test procedure, then this provision of S4.1(e) would be invalid for lack of objective test procedures.

The S4.1(e) requirement that a seat belt buckle be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release during an impact must be viewed as part of FMVSS No. 209 as a whole. FMVSS No. 209 requires, among other things, that seat belt buckles meet minimum performance and material requirements. S4.3(d)(3) establishes criteria to address accidental release, stating that:

The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall not release under a compressive force of 1779 N applied as prescribed in paragraph S5.2(d)(3). The buckle shall be operable and shall meet the applicable requirement of paragraph S4.4 after the compressive force has been removed.

Under the test procedure in S5.2(d)(3), a curved cylindrical bar is used to apply the compressive force to the buckle.

S4.3(d)(3) was added to FMVSS No. 209 to "eliminate buckle designs that are prone to accidental damage, or that release during the initial phase of the accident." 36 Federal Register 4607; March 10, 1971. S4.3(d)(3) provides an objective standard for minimizing accidental release during an impact, thus providing objective criteria for the requirement under S4.1(e). S4.3(d)(3) does not address accidental release not associated with a crash. Although we recognize that the "accidental release language of S4.1(e) could be read broadly to cover various scenarios, for compliance purpose, we interpret it to only refer to accidental releases that might occur during a crash. Non-crash accidental releases are not regulated by FMVSS No. 209, notwithstanding the arguably broader language of S4.1(e), as the only test procedure designed to address accidental release utilizes a force level much greater than would be contemplated in a non-crash environment.

In an August 31, 1976, letter to Volvo, the agency stated that for buckles unlikely to be damaged by compressive forces in a crash, the requirements of S4.3(d)(3) would not be applicable. While the Volvo letter stated that the original motivation for adopting this requirement was to guard against possible damage to a buckle caused by the steering wheel in a crash situation, the language of the requirement is broad enough to guard against other potential compressive forces as well, as evidenced by the fact that the requirement is not limited to buckles in the seating position with a steering wheel. In response to the notice that proposed extending the crush release requirements to all Type 1 and Type 2 seat belts, commentors did request that the requirement only be made applicable to buckles that could contact the steering wheel. (See comments from Britax and Irvin Industries, Inc. at Docket No. 69-23.) However, the agency did not amend the requirement to limit it to that narrower purpose. Accordingly, any current or future buckle with the likely potential to experience any compressive force during an impact would be required to comply with S4.1(e) and S4.3(d)(3), as tested under S5.2(d)(3).

I hope this addresses your concern. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Assistant Chief Counsel
for Vehicle Safety Standards and Harmonization

ref:209
d.5/22/03

ID: 11316

The Honorable Bob Clement
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-4205

Dear Congressman Clement:

Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1995, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dale Allen Pommer concerning his attempts to have a third seat belt installed in the back seat of his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. Mr Pommer has been told that this cannot be done because of safety laws. You requested comments on Mr. Pommer's letter. As explained below, there is no Federal prohibition against the modification Mr. Pommer would like done to his vehicle. However, Federal law does place some limits on how the modification is done. The installation of additional seat belts must be done in a way that does not compromise the performance of the existing seat belts.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum standards, and may be exceeded by manufacturers. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture.

After the first retail sale, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. 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 safety standard (49 USC '30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that it does not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as

complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The additional belt which might be added to Mr. Pommer's vehicle must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209.

In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards which apply to new vehicles and affect safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer would have been required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at each rear designated seating position.

A "designated seating position" is defined by NHTSA regulations as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion...Any bench or split- bench seat ...having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions.

Since the 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer had a rear bench seat with 49.5 inches of hip room, that seat was required to have a minimum of two lap belts.

The "make inoperative" prohibition discussed earlier would not prohibit a business from adding a third seat belt to Mr. Pommer's vehicle. In addition, the anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210. However, in adding the third seat belt, it is possible that the existing belts and

anchorages would have to be relocated. The businesses contacted by Mr. Pommer may be concerned that the belts and anchorages could not be removed and replaced without "making inoperative" the compliance of those belts and anchorages.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208#209#210 d:11/14/95

ID: 2526y

Mr. John W. Garringer
158 E. Center Street
Shavertown, Pennsylvania 18708

Dear Mr. Garringer:

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 pleased 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 approve 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 periodically 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 No. 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 windshield 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 transmittance 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 continues 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 inoperative" 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 tinting 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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:205#VSA d:6/l8/90

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: 86-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: W.L. Hammer, P.E. -- Equipment Engineer, Wisconsin Electric Power Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. W.L. Hammer, P.E. Equipment Engineer Wisconsin Electric Power Company 620 S. 76th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214

This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1986, asking for an interpretation of the stop lamp and turn signal requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is whether paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 apply to vehicles manufactured in 1986. No. They apply to original equipment stop lamps on vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1973 and September 1, 1978 (S4.1.1.6), and to original equipment turn signal lamps on vehicles other than motorcycles manufactured between January 1, 1972, and September 1, 1978 (S4.1.1.7). However, they also apply to stop lamps and turn signal lamps manufactured after September 1, 1978, which are intended as replacement equipment for the original equipment manufactured between the inclusive dates. This is not exactly clear from a reading of the two paragraphs and we are considering a clarifying amendment to the standard. In summary, these paragraphs do not apply to vehicles manufactured in 1986, but they could apply to certain lighting equipment being manufactured today.

You also comment that S4.1.1.6 is silent as to the minimum luminous lens area required for stop lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which you recall as once being 12 square inches, and you ask if a final sentence has been omitted pertaining to wide vehicles. There has been no omission: SAE Standard J586b Stop Lamps, June 1966, the standard referenced in S4.1.1.6, never specified a minimum effective projected luminous lens area for wide vehicles. The requirement for wide vehicles today is found in paragraph 3.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970. This establishes a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 8 square inches for single compartment lamps. However, paragraph 3.1 allows manufacturers of wide vehicles to mount a maximum of two lamps and/or compartments per side closer together than 22 inches providing that each compartment and/or lamp meets single compartment photometric requirements and has a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 12 square inches.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

January 29, 1986 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: 49CFR571.108 PARAGRAPH 4.1.1.6 STOPLIGHTS PARAGRAPH 4.1.1.7 TURN SIGNALS

I have been reading 571.108 as published in the 1984 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations. At first glance, Paragraphs 4.1.1.6 and 4.1.1.7 appear to only pertain to certain vehicles manufactured between 1972 and 1978 and not to those made before or after those dates. On a second glance, these paragraphs refer to a design option to meet SAEJ586b or 588d, or to meet SAEJ575d. Do these paragraphs apply to vehicles manufactured in 1986;

Also, in the case of Paragraph 4.1.1.6, a 3.5 square inch rule pertains to vehicles less than 80 inches in width, but there is no comment made for those vehicles over 80 inches in width. (I seem to remember it once was 12 square inches). Has a last sentence pertaining to vehicles over 80 inches been omitted:

A written reply is not required. A phone call would be satisfactory.

Sincerely,

W. L. Hammer, P.E. Equipment Engineer (414) 259-4152

ID: 3141o

Mr. William E. Lawler
Specifications Manager
Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.
18881 U.S. 31 North
Westfield, IN 46074

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 vehicles 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 heavy 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 newer 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 retractor 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 must 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 on 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 webbing 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 performance 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 compliance 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 Standard 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 retractor itself, without the use of any external mechanisms.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:208#209 d:ll/l/88

ID: Morgenstern.1

Mr. Howard Morgenstern
144-32 72nd Road
Flushing, NY 11367

Dear Mr. Morgenstern:

This responds to your June 14, 2004, letter in which you request interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, you asked about the light transmissibility requirements for windows on minivans and what vehicle classification a minivan would have under the standard. Your letter explained that you received a ticket in New York City because the rear window on the drivers side of your Ford Windstar had "excessive tint," which the ticket characterized as less than 70% light transmissibility. Based upon the facts presented, we believe that the rear windows on your minivan are not subject to any light transmissibility requirement under FMVSS No. 205, although they may be subject to requirements under State law.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of those standards is FMVSS No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. FMVSS

No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard Institutes Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways Standard ANSI Z26.1-1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a-1980 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "ANSI Z26.1").

One requirement of FMVSS No. 205 involves the light transmissibility of glazing. The items of glazing to which these light transmissibility requirements apply depend upon the type of vehicle and the location of the glazing. For example, in passenger cars, all glazing required for driver visibility must meet a light transmissibility requirement of 70% (excluding any shade band), which essentially includes the windshield, all driver and passenger side windows, and the rear window (see ANSI Z26.1 Table 1).

However, for buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), only windshields, driver and passenger front side windows, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility need to meet the 70% light transmissibility requirement (see ANSI Z26.1 Table 1). The standard does not specify a light transmissibility requirement for any other windows on these types of vehicles.

Under NHTSAs statutory authority (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) and regulations, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance, and such classification is required to be included on the vehicle certification label (see 49 CFR 567.4(g)(7)). (Definitions for the terms "passenger car," "multipurpose passenger vehicle," and "truck" are provided under our regulations at 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions.)NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle, although the agency may reexamine the manufacturers classification in the course of any enforcement actions.

Although we have not examined your vehicle or its certification label, we recognize that most minivans are properly classified as MPVs or trucks. We would expect that the Ford Windstar is similarly classified. Consequently, if our assumption is correct, only the windshield, driver and passenger front side windows, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility would be subject to the 70% light transmissibility requirement under FMVSS No. 205.

However, as discussed in our November 9, 2001, letter of interpretation to Terry W. Wagar (copy enclosed), NHTSA decided in a 1998 rulemaking not to regulate light transmittance levels of light truck and MPV rear and rear side glazing under FMVSS No. 205. In that rulemaking, the agency also stated that States are free to set light transmittance levels for those windows on those vehicles (see 63 FR 37820, 37827 (July 14, 1998)). Thus, Federal law would not preempt State laws that specify light transmissibility requirements for such windows. However, we cannot advise you as to the requirements of New York law.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
Ref:205
d.8/20/04