ID: aiam5027

"Dear Mr. Rovtar: This responds to your letter of May 28, 1992, askin for 'a written ruling' that the product you described 'meets current SAE/DOT guidelines.' The product is intended for the vehicle towing trailer market. Currently, lamps on towed vehicles are activated by splicing into the wiring harness of the towing vehicle. Your product eliminates the need for this type of hard wiring. This product 'utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle.' Photodetectors are embedded in suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. The device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into the device. When the stop lamp or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors read the light emitted, and the towed vehicle's lamps are activated via the completed circuit. For purposes of this discussion we shall assume that the device is intended for aftermarket distribution. Further, from your description, it appears to be the type of device that is simple enough to be installed by the vehicle owner. The product itself is not directly regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, because it is not replacement equipment intended to replace original equipment. Its installation on a vehicle in use by the vehicle's owner is outside the prohibition contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That prohibition forbids 'manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses' from 'rendering inoperative, in whole or in part,' mandated safety equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps. Were the device installed by a person in these categories we would be concerned that the addition of the suction cups would partially obscure the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps and, thus, render them 'partially inoperative' within the meaning of the prohibition. That concern is not lessened by the fact that the device may be installed by a person not covered by the prohibition, such as the owner of the towing vehicle. However, as a practical matter, we realize that the safety impact may be minimal since the presence of the trailer will obscure the lamps on the towing vehicle to which the suction cups are applied. We cannot advise you on whether the product meets SAE requirements. The legality of the use of equipment that is not regulated by NHTSA is determinable under the laws of States where the towing-towed vehicle combinations are operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5590

Dear Mr. Burgess: This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to thi office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system. You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states: S ide doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard. FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion. While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that 'lift' includes 'ramp.' In order to amend the standard to exclude wheelchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriate. I hope this information is helpful to you. 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 (2) 1985 final rule Part 552;

ID: aiam4122

Dear Mr. Davenport: This is to follow up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch o my staff concerning the effect of Federal regulations on the tinting of motor vehicle windows. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety law and regulations affect the tinting of vehicle windows may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued 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% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; You first asked if the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply t foreign vehicles sold in the United States. As with all our standards, Standard No. 205 applies to any new vehicle, whether made by a foreign or domestic company, manufactured for sale in the United States. Thus, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in *new* vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Violation of Standard No. 205 can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation. In addition, a manufacturer of a vehicle that does not comply with our standards is required to remedy any noncompliances in its vehicles.; You also asked how Federal law affects businesses that tinted th windows of used vehicles. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5224

"Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your inquiry about the applicabilit of Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, to school buses you wish to sell to a customer in the United States Virgin Islands. You stated that these buses will be built as right hand drive vehicles with the entrance door located on the left side, since vehicles are driven on the left side of the road in this jurisdiction. You asked whether you can install, on the right side of the bus, the stop signal arm that is required by FMVSS 131. The answer is yes. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, 'Safety Act') requires new school buses sold in this country and in the U.S. Virgin Islands to comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. (See, 15 U.S.C. 1391(8) for reference to the Virgin Islands.) Standard No. 131 requires school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm 'on the left side of the bus.' (S5.4) The purpose of this standard is 'to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the school bus.' (S2) When NHTSA specified that the stop arm must be placed on 'the left side of the bus,' the agency meant the driver's side. Comments to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and preamble of NHTSA's final rule all assumed that the left side of the bus meant the driver's side. (56 FR 20363, 20367). For example, while endorsing the proposed requirement for the stop arm, several commenters stated that an arm is needed near the driver's window. Moreover, S5.4.1(b) states that, for locating the arm, 'the top edge of the stop signal arm is parallel to and not more than 6 inches from a horizontal plane tangent to the lower edge of the frame of the passenger window immediately behind the driver's window.' (Emphasis added). This provision indicates that the agency assumed that the 'left' side is the driver's side. Further, a stop arm would not be needed on the non-traffic side of the vehicle. Since the left side is not the driver's side for the school buses in question, the agency's general assumption was incorrect. In light of your letter, we will issue a technical amendment of Standard 131 so that S5.4 will require the stop signal arm on the driver's side of the bus. Until the amendment is issued, we will not take enforcement action regarding a manufacturer's locating a right hand drive school bus with a stop signal arm on the bus's driver's side. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3781

Dear Mr. Brantner: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1983, to the Urban Mas Transit Administration, which was forwarded to this agency for reply, concerning legal requirements regulating window stickers. The following discussion addresses the Federal requirements applicable to sticker or other films applied to glazing materials in motor vehicles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority t govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 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.; The agency has stated in past interpretations that films such as th type referred to in your 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. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.; After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter hi vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 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. 'Render inoperative' means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. 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.; Please contact Stephen Oesch of my staff if you have any furthe questions (202- 426-1834).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5137

"Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your letter asking whether there ha been any consideration given to excluding 'non-route-type' school buses from Standard No. 131's requirement that school buses be equipped with a stop signal arm. You stated that, as a manufacturer of school bus bodies, you are getting numerous questions regarding the installation of stop arms on school buses not used on route service. According to your letter, a number of schools across the U.S. purchase school buses, paint them a color other than yellow, and use them exclusively for athletic trips. You stated that these buses pick up at the school and travel to another school to unload, and do not make stops for loading or unloading along the way and in no way attempt to control traffic. You stated that the purchasers of these school buses are concerned about paying for stop arms which are never used. As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, is a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard which requires all new school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the bus. To answer your specific question, this agency has not considered whether 'non- route-type' school buses should be excluded from Standard No. 131's requirement for a stop signal arm. I note that this issue was not raised in the comments on our notice of proposed rulemaking. We do appreciate the concern of a purchaser about paying for safety equipment that he or she believes will never be used. However, the limited information provided in your letter does not provide a basis for concluding that we should consider changing the standard. We do not know how many school buses are used exclusively or primarily for 'non-route-type' service, although we assume the number is small. Further, it would appear that there would be occasion to use stop signal arms for some school buses used for such service. For example, these safety devices might be used while loading and unloading students when the school bus is parked on a school driveway or a road near a school, if the school bus is used to transport students to activities at locations other than schools, or if the school bus is sometimes used as a replacement for out-of-service regular route school buses. I also note that, assuming that there is occasion to use stop signal arms for some school buses which are primarily used for non-route service, it is not clear how the agency would distinguish, for purposes of a regulation, which school buses should be excluded from the requirement for stop arms. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking";

ID: aiam3534

Dear Senator Abdnor: Your February 23, 1982, letter to Secretary Lewis on behalf of Mr. Ric Johnson has been referred to this office for reply. Mr. Johnson inquired about Federal regulations applicable to a motorcycle helmet which was worn by a person involved in a fatal accident and which Mr. Johnson believes to have been manufactured in 1979.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets* (4 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571.218), establishes minimum performance requirements for most helmets. The standard's applicability to a particular helmet depends on the date of manufacture and size of that helmet. The date of manufacture should be readily ascertainable. Paragraph S5.6.1 of the standard requires that the date and month of manufacture of each helmet subject to the standard appear on a permanent label affixed to the helmet.; The question of size is more complicated. As proposed, the standard wa to have applied to all helmet sizes. Compliance was to have been determined by placing the helmet on the appropriate headform (A, B, C or D, representing head sizes from small to large) and subjecting the helmet to certain tests. As initially implemented on March 1, 1974, the standard applied only to helmets which fit size C headforms since the other headform sizes were not available. Generally speaking, these were medium size helmets. As the enclosed notice explains, >>>'...helmets that fit headform size C' should be all helmets other than those that must be tested on the other headform sizes. To determine which helmets must be tested on a particular headform size, one follows the procedures of paragraph S6.1.3 of the standard.<<<; The other headform sizes did not become available as anticipated Consequently, the standard was extended to all helmets that can be placed on size C headforms. The substitution of 'placed on' for 'fit' brought all large helmets and many small helmets within the ambit of the standard. That extension became effective May 1, 1980. Again as explained in the enclosed notice, >>>'(p)laced' is a broader term than 'fit' primarily in that the former term does not imply any upper limit on helmet size.; Only small, child-size helmets (A) would be excluded since they coul not physically be placed on the size (C) headform. As noted in the procedures discussed above, normal fitting procedures would be used to determine if a particular helmet could be placed on the size 'C' headform, without the use of undue force.<<<; Thus, if the helmet mentioned in Mr. Johnson's letter was manufacture on or after March 1, 1974, and 'fits' the size C headform, it was required to comply with the standard. Likewise, if the helmet was manufactured on or after May 1, 1980, and can be 'placed on' the size C headform, compliance was required.; We have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 218 as it originally becam effective, as well as a copy of the amendment to the standard that became effective on May 1, 1980.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4751

"Dear Mr. Smith: I am writing in response to your letter forwardin correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Joel Leitson, with respect to litigation recently brought by the United States against several firms that install plastic film, or 'tint,' on automobile windows. You have asked about the statutory authority under which these suits were brought. Pursuant to section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ('Safety Act'), 15 U.S.C. 1392, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA') has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Section 108(a)(i)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), this paragraph does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), provides that 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' Thus, by installing tint film on automobiles that reduces the light transmittance of their glass below 70 percent, the firms in question have been rendering those vehicles 'inoperative,' in violation of the Safety Act. The same principle would apply to a service station that removed an airbag or a safety belt from a vehicle, since such an action would create a noncompliance with the occupant protection requirements of NHTSA's standards. You also asked for our comments on whether Florida's statutes are preempted by these suits. We assume that you are referring to the provision of Florida law that prohibits the operation of any vehicle in the State of Florida that has glazing with less than 35 percent light transmittance. This statute, and similar statutes adopted by other states, do not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by tint installation firms -- that is illegal under the Safety Act. Thus, there is no conflict with Federal law, and Florida may continue to enforce its operating rules. I hope that this responds to your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4547

Dear Mr. Ziolo: This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1988 asking about the acceptability under Safety Standard No. 108 of modifying imported vehicles so that they are equipped with two Type 2D1 and two Type 1C1 headlamps. You have been informed by the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that this is impermissible 'because they are 'nonconforming' 'headlight systems'.' You disagree because you believe that the minimum requirements of the Standard are satisfied by the Type 2D1 lamps, and that 'S4.4 appears to permit such a combination.' Paragraph S4.4 is not applicable to the situation you present as it refers to combinations of lamps serving different functions, in your discussion, the lamps serve the identical function of headlighting. Given the fact that the Type 2D1 sealed beam 7' diameter headlamps fulfill the headlighting requirements of the Standard, your question must be viewed as whether a supplement to the headlighting system is permissible under Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.l.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the addition of nonrequired lighting equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the equipment that the standard requires. The two Type 1C1 5 3/4' diameter sealed beam lamps in a four lamp headlighting system form the major portion of an upper beam headlighting system. The two Type 2D1 lamps in a two lamp headlighting system form the whole of an upper beam headlighting system. Thus, a vehicle furnished with the systems you posit would be equipped with more than one upper beam headlighting system. The Type 2D1 system must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c DEC79 'Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles.' The SAE Standard establishes at two test points, H-V and 4 D-V, maximum allowable candela of 75,000 and 5,000 respectively for each Type 2D1 headlamp. This means that the maximum allowable candela for headlighting systems at these test points is 150,000 and l0,000 candela. The Type 1C1 headlamps will also be designed to conform to SAE J579c. Corresponding maxima at test points H-V and 4 D-V for Type 1C1 systems are 60,000 and 5,000. Thus, a vehicle equipped with the lamps you have described could emit a total of 270,000 candela at test point H-V (when only 150,000 is permitted), and 20,000 at 4D-V (when only l0,000 is allowable). Agency research has shown that candela readings in excess of 150,000 greatly increase the potential for glare with little increase in seeing ability. This glare would be visible both to the driver of an oncoming car, and the driver of the modified vehicle itself through creation of a 'veiling' glare. The addition of the Type 1C1 headlamps would therefore impair the effectiveness of the Type 2D1 headlighting system, and is forbidden by S4.1.3. We appreciate your interest in safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: nht91-5.51

DATE: September 17, 1991

FROM: Jeffrey P. Shimp -- Engineer, Fleet Engineering & Q.A., Transportation Department, Baltimore Gas and Electric

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeffrey P. Shimp (A38; VSA S108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

In order to better serve our customers, we have found it necessary to increase the size of our work crews from two men to three men in one of our departments. Due to the amount of material required for these crews, we have typically utilized (two passenger) cargo vans for this operation. In view of the above, we would like to install a third seat in our cargo vans (mini and/or short wheel base), which are delivered by the manufacturers as a certified completed vehicle.

We would greatly appreciate it if you could provide a written response advising us on this issue so that we can be in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and any other governing regulations.

If I can be of any assistance to you, please feel free to contact me (301/281-3630).