ID: nht90-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: SUSAN BIRENBAUM -- ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-1-90 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD FROM SUSAN BIRENBAUM ATTACHED; ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED 10-12-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM DAVID SCHMELTZER, U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, AND LETTER DATED 6-29-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FR OM SUSAN BIRENBAUM.

TEXT:

This responds to several letters asking whether various products are items of motor vehicle equipment: (1) "SNAP fix-a-flat", an aerosol container of liquid latex and a highly flammable propellant of pressurized gas which can be used to temporarily seal and inflate flat tires; (2) an electric windshield de-icer and windshield scraper which can be inserted into the cigarette lighter receptacle in a motor vehicle; and (3) a bicycle rack. In response to your request regarding the de-icer and rack, we will not disclose information regarding those items to the public.

As explained in detail below, each of these three items would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). In reaching these conclusions, we were cognizant of that fact that, as you noted, section 3(a)(1)(c) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)(c), excludes items of "motor vehicle equipment" from the definition of "consumer product."

Before I respond further to the substantive points in your letters, I would like to express my regret for the delay in this response. While preparing our response to your letters, we conducted an extensive review of our past interpretations regarding wh ether a product is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. After that review, and in response to the issues raised in your letters, we have decided to clarify and revise our interpretation of what constitutes "motor ve hicle equipment."

As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory . . . to the motor vehicle," NHTSA has in the past generally applied not only the relevant statutory language, but also the following two criteria: first, whether the item has no ost ensible purpose other than use with a

motor vehicle (e.g., a battery charger that could be used for marine batteries as well as motor vehicle batteries would not qualify) and second, whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles (e.g., items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance personnel would not qualify). In most cases, the agency concluded that a product was an item of "motor vehicle equipment" only if it met both criteria. However, in several instances, the,agency found produ cts to be items of motor vehicle equipment without an explicit finding that they satisfied the first criterion (e.g., a June 11, 1986 letter to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, concerning a tow strap, and an August 18, 1987 letter to Ziemke, conce rning window shades).

Your recent requests have led us to review our approach to this issue. We have concluded that the first criterion stated above for determining whether a product should be regarded as an "accessory . . . to the motor vehicle" has been too restrictive. Ne ither the Safety Act nor its legislative history limits that category to items used exclusively in conjunction with motor vehicles. Moreover, we believe that a broader view of what comes within that term, and therefore what may be properly characterized as an item of motor vehicle equipment, is more consistent with the statutory language and with the Safety Act's purposes of enhancing motor vehicle safety.

Therefore, we have decided that a product will be deemed to satisfy the first criterion whenever a substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We will determine the expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. We anticipate that products found to satisfy the first criterion will ordinarily, although not n ecessarily, be ones that are carried in a vehicle. If the product also satisfies the second criterion (which is directed to the nature of the likely users of the product), the product will be considered an "accessory" and thus be subject to the provisio ns of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the three products about which you inquired, NHTSA has come to the following conclusions:

SNAP fix-a-flat. You explained that while this product is primarily intended for use with motor vehicles, the product's label suggests it also can be used with tires on bicycles, tractors, and off-road all-terrain-vehicles. According to your letter, al l but one of the reported injuries have been sustained by a mechanic rather than the vehicle owner.

The agency considers this to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. First, although the product can be used to repair tires on bicycles and other vehicles not subject to the Safety Act, it is evident that a substantial use of the product is for the purpo se of repairing motor vehicle tires. Second, based on the product's purpose as suggested by the statements on the can (e.g., "Quick and easy to use. No jacks. No tools. No tire changing." and "Keep out of reach of children"), it appears that this prod uct was intended to be used principally by ordinary

vehicle owners. The fact that mechanics have typically been the ones being injured by this product may reflect, not the fact that the primary users are mechanics, but the fact that mechanics are more likely than other users to engage in practices that l ead to problems with fix-a-flat.

Bicycle rack. NHTSA considers these racks to be items of motor vehicle equipment. First, insofar as this agency is aware, bicycle racks are used exclusively in conjunction with motor vehicles. Even if bicycle racks were occasionally used on vehicles o ther than motor vehicles, use with motor vehicles is the primary use of these racks. Second, based on the product's function, which is to transport bicycles on motor vehicles, and their typically simple method of installation, it appears that this produ ct was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners.

De-icer. This agency considers the de-icer to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. First, several facts indicate that it is primarily intended for use in conjunction with motor vehicles. Its plug fits a type of outlet wbich we believe is most common ly found in motor vehicles. While that type of outlet may be found in some boats, boats are comparatively unlikely to be used in conditions in which ice may form. Thus, we conclude that use with motor vehicles is the primary use of this product. Second, based on the product's purpose, method of installation and operation, and likely circumstancs of its use, it appears that this product was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners.

ID: nht90-2.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/25/90

FROM: LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS

TO: NANCY BRUCE -- LEGISLATIVE LIAISON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/25/90, FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; A35, VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; U NDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; U S CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR-WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRI CT OF FLORIDA

TEXT: I am enclosing a copy of a letter that I have received from Mr. Joel Leitson of Hollywood, Florida.

The letter concerns actions being taken against certain window tinting firms.

I would like to know under what statutory authority the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is acting. In addition, I would appreciate the Department's comments on whether its actions preempt Florida's statutes. Finally, any additional information that you can provide in helping me respond to Mr. Leitson's inquiry would be appreciated. I look forward to your prompt reply.

Enc.

ID: nht90-2.53

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 25, 1990

FROM: Marc J. Fink and Stephen C. Crampton -- Dow, Lohnes & Albertson; Signature by S.C. Crampton

TO: Robert F. Hellmuth -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-20-90 from P.J. Rice to M.J. Fink (A36; Part 591)

TEXT:

We request your approval to allow John A. Rosatti to import his Porsche 959 into the United States as a "demonstration" car. Mr. Rosatti intends to use his car to promote business by displaying it in his automobile dealerships and, if approval from New York State authorities is obtained, a future, adjunct automobile museum. Mr. Rosatti does not intend to drive his car on the road at any time. If necessary to ensure that the Porsche 959 will not be driven on the road, Mr. Rosatti will agree to remove the engine from the car.

John Rosatti has been in the automobile business for twenty five years; for the last fifteen years, he has owned and operated Plaza Motors of Brooklyn, Ltd. ("Plaza"). 1/ Plaza's grounds consist of buildings totalling approximately 75,000 square feet an d cover two city blocks. Plaza holds Honda, Acura, and Oldsmobile dealerships, selling about 500 cars each month. Approximately 2000 to 3000 people come into Plaza every week.

1/ Copies of recent newspaper advertisements for Plaza are appended to this letter as Attachment A.

NHTSA's new regulations, implementing the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, provide a "demonstration" exemption from restrictions on imports of motor vehicles that do not comply with NHTSA safety requirements. 2/ As discussed below, Mr. Ro satti's proposed use of his Porsche 959 falls under the plain language of NHTSA's regulation and the statute. Indeed, his proposed use is consistent with uses mentioned in the Supplementary Information accompanying the new rules.

The Supplementary Information states as follows:

Importation for this class of noncomplying motor vehicles (i.e., demonstration vehicles) has been permitted pursuant to the assumption that motor vehicle safety would not be affected by the temporary importation of noncomplying motor vehicles not general ly used on the public roads, and whose appearance on them would be limited.

54 Fed. Reg. at 40,076. As stated above, Mr. Rosatti has no intention to drive the Porsche 959. In this regard, Mr. Rosatti is agreeable to whatever reasonable restrictions NHTSA may impose to insure the car is not driven. If NHTSA requires, Mr. Rosat ti will provide a written statement attesting to his promise not to drive the car. Furthermore, to insure

that the Porsche 959 could not be used on public roads by anyone, Mr. Rosatti, if required, will agree to remove the engine from the car.

2/ The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, 102 Stat. 2818, 2824 (to be codified at 15 U.S.C. S 1397(j)), provides that "(t)he Secretary may exempt any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment . . . upon such terms and conditions as t he Secretary may find necessary solely for the purpose of . . . demonstrations."

The NHTSA regulation implementing this provision of the statute, 54 Fed. Reg. 40,069, 40,080, as amended by 54 Fed. Reg. 49,098, 49,101 (1989) (to be codified at 49 C.F.R. S 591.5(j)), states as follows:

No person shall import a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment into the United States unless, at the time it is offered for importation, its importer files a declaration, in duplicate, which declares . . . (t)he vehicle or equipment item does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but it (sic) being imported solely for the purpose of . . . demonstrations.

Importantly, NHTSA's Supplementary Information specifically sanctions manufacturers' display of cars for commercial use. Id.3/ Like auto manufacturers, Mr. Rosatti intends to display his car to promote sales. The Porsche 959 would, he believes, serve a s a powerful attraction, drawing people to his automobile dealerships. Also like manufacturers, Mr. Rosatti will not drive the car. There is therefore no distinction between Mr. Rosatti's proposed use and the commercial display of a car by a manufactur er. NHTSA's own rationale and regulations dictate that permission be given to Mr. Rosatti to import his car for demonstration purposes.

Dealers like Mr. Rosatti depend heavily upon promotional campaigns to attract buyers; indeed, Plaza spends as much as $50,000 per month on promotional activities. Mr. Rosatti's promotional plan for the Porsche 959 specifically involves his Acura dealers hip.4/ Acura cars are advertised as high-quality, exciting, and inexpensive alternatives to fancy European sports cars. In fact, recent advertisements encourage car-buyers to trade in their expensive European cars for Acuras. In keeping with the Acura image, Mr. Rosatti intends to use his Porsche 959 to attract potential Acura buyers. As persons targeted for Acura sales are also likely to be interested in high-quality European sports cars, they will come to see a Porsche 959 on display. When they c ome, Mr. Rosatti will then have the opportunity to explain the benefits of his sporty, yet affordable, Acuras.

To implement his plan, Mr. Rosatti envisions running numerous advertisements in newspapers and on the radio, enticing potential car-buyers to come and see the Porsche 959. Initially, Mr. Rosatti intends to place the Porsche 959, along with his Ferrari T estarossa, Lamborghini Contach, specially built Porsche 935, and Mark IV Cobra, in a showroom on Plaza's premises. Preliminary estimates are that the automobile display could attract as many as 1000 additional persons per month to the dealerships. Thus , completely in line with NHTSA regulations, John Rosatti intends to import the Porsche 959 as a

commercial demonstration model.

3/ The Supplementary Information interprets "demonstration" cars as including "nonconforming products for display at automobile shows to gauge public reaction to new styling or engineering features." Id.

4/ Advertising proposals for the Acura/Porsche 959 advertising campaign are appended to this letter as Attachment B.

Mr. Rosatti, however, has a second interest in importing the Porsche 959, one that also accords entirely with the concept of a demonstration car. NHTSA's Supplementary Information manifests a concern that museums are not to be deprived of interesting and valuable items in their collection, stating that museums can import cars under the 25-year exception. Id. Mr. Rosatti's Porsche 959 is both interesting and valuable to automobile enthusiasts. Although Mr. Rosatti's car is less than 25 modelyears old and thus would not fit within the 25-year exception, its importation for use in a car museum conforms to the language and policy of the demonstration exemption.

Mr. Rosatti's museum will soon be ready for operation. Recently, the New York State Education Department recommended to the New York Board of Regents that Mr. Rosatti be issued a Provisional Charter to begin his museum. The Regents are scheduled to mee t soon and are expected to follow the Education Department's recommendation. The Provisional Charter is valid for three years and will be replaced by a permanent charter if the Education Department is satisfied with the progress of Mr. Rosatti's automob ile museum. When approval for the museum is received, Mr. Rosatti will convert a Plaza showroom into a museum for the Porsche 959 and his other valuable cars. Museums linked with commercial establishments are not uncommon. In many commercial establish ments, an ancillary museum, while not the main part of the business, serves as a major attraction for customers of the business.

Mr. Rosatti's motivations for wanting to import his Porsche 959 are simple. Mr. Rosatti is interested in combining his passion for automobiles and pride in his accomplishments in the automobile business with his commercial enterprise. To Mr. Rosatti, t he Porsche 959 and his other collector automobiles represent his success in the automobile industry, an industry to which Mr. Rosatti has devoted his working life. The Porsche 959 is the greatest trophy in his collection of cars. Mr. Rosatti naturally w ants to show off his cars, both for their commercial value and appeal and because they represent his achievements in the automobile industry.5/

Mr. Rosatti is very sensitive to NHTSA's concern that the Porsche 959 never be driven on American roads. Accordingly, Mr. Rosatti is prepared not simply to drain the engine of fluids, as you mentioned might be required in your letter of November 13, 198 9, but to remove the engine from the car. Thus, you can be completely assured that Mr. Rosatti's Porsche 959 will not be driven. Although Mr. Rosatti would prefer to display the engine next to the car, he is perfectly willing to display the engine at a separate location. Furthermore, Mr. Rosatti will gladly furnish periodic reports to NHTSA regarding the car's location and use.

To comply further with the conditions you suggested in your November 13 letter, Mr. Rosatti is willing to make a declaration that, if the Porsche is transferred by sale or inheritance, the new owner will be bound to keep the engine and body of the car se parate.

5/ To further exhibit his car, if permitted Mr. Rosatti would transport it to automobile shows, in particular, monthly Porche club shows and annual shows at the Jacob Javits Center.

In sum, the Imported Motor Vehicle Safety Compliance Act and NHTSA regulations provide a "demonstration" exemption from import bans to permit cars that will not be driven on the road to be imported for the purpose of demonstration. In this case, it woul d be contrary to the statute and NHTSA's regulations to deny Mr. Rosatti the opportunity to import his Porsche 959, especially as he offers to completely disable the car to satisfy NHTSA. Mr. Rosatti is not attempting to circumvent the law. He is simpl y a man who loves cars. Surely the law does not prevent him from collecting and showing trophies of his trade.

Therefore, we ask that you grant prior written permission for Mr. John A. Rosatti to import his Porsche 959 into the United States for the purpose of demonstration.

ID: nht90-2.54

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 29, 1990

FROM: Ron Boucher -- Energy Savings System

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-27-90 to R. Boucher from P. J. Rice; (A35; VSA 102(4)); also attached to letter dated 5-17-90 to Miss Carnes from R. Boucher; (OCC 4824) TEXT:

I'm writing and requesting approval to market a product. Enclosed is a flyer showing what the product is.

I would like to know for certain if it can be used in a type situation like a car has a flat tire or breaks down along the road, while working on the car the person can either place it on his arm with a strap or it has magnet that can be put on the vehic le while working on it.

Could you please let me know if it's in compliance with the law.

Thank you for help in this matter.

Looking forward to your reply.

ID: nht90-2.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 29, 1990

FROM: G. Nick Routh -- President, American Energetics

TO: Jere Medlin -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from J.M. Fish to C. Mack (A35; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 5-30-90 from G.N. Routh to C. Mack

TEXT:

We are distributors of solar control window insulation film, selling our product to over 1000 installers across the United States. Over the past six years an increasing percentage of our sales are derived from "auto tint". Currently about 70% of our sa les come from the auto market. Film applied to car windows has become increasingly popular.

Unfortunately several events are putting our livelihood and the livelihoods of our customers in jeopardy. Specifically, the Justice Department has sued a number of film installers in Florida for violation of federal guidelines, at the direction of NHTSA . At the same time, a group of manufacturers in our industry are petitioning NHTSA to revise its guidelines.

We feel that NHTSA, in reviewing the guidelines, and the manufacturers, in petitioning NHTSA, are not heeding some basic points that are key to the argument. We will explain our thoughts here by posing a number of questions.

1. HAS NHTSA SURVEYED THE CONSUMING PUBLIC?

We note that NHTSA, in responding to the original petition of the film manufacturers asking for 35% VLT, cited a number of questions about the safety of film and then asked for commentary from "interested parties". We imagine that the interested parties were law enforcement agencies for the most part who clearly constitute a special interest group. Did NHTSA speak to drivers who have film on their autos?

Did NHTSA survey Florida, Texas or other Sunbelt residents, particularly those of advanced age for whom reduced glare is very important in light of cataracts, glaucoma and the like?

People who are not familar with film inevitably have a jaundiced view of auto tint, seeing it only as black material, not aware of the different light transmission properties available. You would find, if you researched the matter, that consumers vote w ith their dollars where auto tint is concerned and are generally always repeat buyers.

2. WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES?

Following from the last question, we must note that perhaps 70% of auto tint sales are in the Sunbelt. This is no coincidence. It is bright in these states year around. You would no doubt find that the bulk of

sunglasses are sold in these states. Why can't individual states note the differences between each other by having differing laws that recognize their differences? Clearly, there are areas where states have differing statutes on their books regarding a utomobile accesories and aftermarket add-ons. Specifically, we are speaking of radars, the use of head phones while driving, driving lights, studded snow tires and of course, auto emissions restrictions. Of all these, auto tint stands out as an obvious area where concrete climatological factors strongly support the use of film.

We believe that most states that have written their own laws regarding film, have done so, like Florida, in the firm belief that federal guidelines apply to new car manufacture, not to the aftermarket, where a consumer may choose to customize his car, us ing the installer or mechanic as an agent, as long as state standards are adherred to.

3. WHY ARE SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS OPPOSED TO FILM?

This is a very interesting question to us. Any auto tint installer will tell you that law enforcement officers number among his customers. Informal discussions with officers reveal that officers approach an auto with film on it as they would any car the y stop - with caution. Film will not hide weapons; a weapon may be held below the window level on any auto. Further, a van with no windows could conceal more than the darkest film.

There is an annual publication issued by the FBI dealing with the deaths of law enforcement personnel in the US at the local, state and federal level. This is the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted part of the Uniform Crime Report. The statis tics are organized by the nature of the incident resulting in a death. It is our understanding that a study of the last ten years of these reports, together with a reading of the anecdotal information provided, nowhere points to auto tint being a key fa ctor in the demise of an officer. We hear it often repeated that officers are endangered by film on windows, but concrete evidence is not to be had, we believe.

We do think that auto film is an easy target for ignorance. Police who are not familar with the different levels of VLT will react negatively, envisioning the black material. The vast number of states that have adopted the use of 35% VLT film on the dri ver and passenger windows have all had that film reviewed by their law enforcement officers and they have approved the use of the film.

4. WHAT IS THE HARM OF IT?

There are no federal guidelines that address themselves to the large market for radar detectors, yet this product is clearly designed to assist motorists in evading speeding tickets. Auto tint is not designed to evade the law. Rather it is beneficial t o the user, protecting the car against UV damage, preventing glass shattering in the case of accidents, and reducing glare. To pursue the latter point, why is film suspect and sunglasses not? Sunglasses are normally sold in much darker shades than the window film that is being applied.

Further, there is some argument to the point that film reduces the load on auto air conditioning, particularly those films that are lightly metallized. The conclusion to be drawn here is that film has got to have some benefit in reducing gas consumption . Evidently, we would regulate something beneficial such as film, but not regulate radar detectors.

With regard to highway safety, which is what is the central issue here, there appears to be a great deal of confusion. Statistics show that the accidents and deaths per passenger mile driven have not changed significantly over the last generation while the use of auto film has grown dramatically. This would certainly indicate that films darker than FMVSS 205 would allow, which are allowed by the Sunbelt state statutes, are not contributing to a reduction in safety on our nation's highways.

5. WHY ARE CAR OWNERS ALLOWED TO DO WHAT FILM INSTALLERS ARE NOT?

If the government has determined to regulate film, we are amazed by the evident loophole that exists. From our readings of NHTSA communications, we understand that individual car owners will be permitted to install any film on their own cars, so long as they adhere to state guidelines which are more permissive than current federal quidelines. However, film installers would have to adhere to the more stringent federal guidelines. We would like to know why the installer can't be considered the agent of the car owner? Why is the installer being singled out to discriminate against?

To speak bluntly, this inequity will allow film manufacturers to sell film in the Do-It-Yourself or retall market and bypass the fllm installers who will not be allowed to install the preferred darker films which will now only be available in the DIY mar ket? In the back of our minds we feel some concern that the manufacturers, in petitioning NHTSA are not acting on our behalf. The inequity will close us out but keep them in business and dark film will still be available.

Conclusion:

If NHTSA takes the position that its guidelines preempt state guidelines it fails to recognize clear regional differences and preferences. If NHTSA leaves an inequity for individual car owners to install darker film than installers can, it discriminates unfairly. If NHTSA solicits input from organized lobby groups either pro or con on the issue and fails to speak to individuals who have film on their cars, it is not geting the full picture.

We feel strongly that the states should regulate this issue. If the federal government sees fit to regulate, it should allow film of at least 35% VLT on the driver passenger windows, which is agreeable to the southern states who use the bulk of the prod uct. Further, if NHTSA regulates, it should not discriminate as to who applies the material.

We feel that we, our fellow distributors numbering perhaps over 30 across the US, and the over 5000 installers across the US are in jeopardy of losing our livelihoods without a hearing. Were we organized into a strong lobby group with resources we might be better able to deal with federal

institutions. We have two allies - plain talk and over half a million car owners a year who have film installed on their car.

ID: nht90-2.56

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 29, 1990

FROM: Edward Kultgen -- Secretary, Bird-Kultgen Ford Volkswagen

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from F. Berndt (Signature by S.P. Wood); Also attached to letter dated 3-27-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr to B. Nanninga (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 8-3-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J.L. O'Connell (VSA 1 02(14)); Also attached to letter dated 7-12-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J. Thomason (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to E. Kultgen (A36; VSA 108(b)(1); VSA 102(14); Part 571.3)

TEXT:

We have today received from the Ford Motor Company Central Regional Sales Office a copy of your letter to Sen. Gramm dated May 10, 1990, concerning the sale and/or rental of passenger vans to transport students. While your letter clarified most of the i ssues in this matter faced by those of us with dealer-owned rental companies, it brought up a couple of related questions for which we need answers.

First, does Section 108 (b) (1) of the Safety Act, or any other section, apply to the retail sale of used vehicles? For example, we have been approached from time to time by representatives of various small church-related schools seeking to purchase a u sed late-model 15-passenger van, obviously at least in part for the purpose of transporting students on field trips, to extra-cirricular events, etc. Would the sale of such a used vehicle under these circumstances violate the Safety Act?

Second, for this purpose, what is the definition of "student"? Four specific groups come immediately to mind: (a)clients of a local MHMR children's developmental learning program; (b)students enrolled in a local community college; (c)church youth group s; and (d)children enrolled in after-school or summer day care programs. There are other similar groups with whom we deal in the course of business, but an answer for these examples should give us sufficient guidance in following the requirements of the statute.

I appreciate your attention to these questions, and I hope to hear from you or a member of your staff in the near future.

ID: nht90-2.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: MICHAEL S. KMIECIK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM MICHAEL S. KMIECIK TO NHTSA, DATED 11/21/89

TEXT: This responds to your letter with respect to vehicle modification kits you wish to purchase and use in the conversion of used Datsun cars. You asked about the Part 581 Bumper Standard and Safety Standard No. 215 with respect to using Datsuns produced be fore September 1, 1978. You asked whether the kit would meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 215. I regret the delay in responding. (I note that you sent a separate letter asking about the safety standards that apply to 1974-78 convertibles, an d whether the conversion kit meets those standards. I am responding to that letter separately).

We appreciate your efforts to meet the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A provision of the Act requires, in essence, that vehicle alterations by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business must not render wholly or partially inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a vehicle at the end of its conversion process must continue to meet the sta ndards that applied at the time that it was first manufactured.

As you may know, the Part 581 Bumper Standard became applicable to passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1978. It replaced Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, which applied to passenger cars manufactured from September 1, 1972 t o August 30, 1978.

In converting a car to which Standard No. 215 originally applied, care must be taken to ensure that the changes do not affect the ability to conform to the applicable performance requirements of that standard (copy enclosed). We regret that we are unabl e to advise you of the effect that any specific modifications would have on the performance of the vehicle as converted. The manufacturer of the kit may be able to provide information on this subject.

2

You also requested a copy of Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. I have enclosed a copy of that standard revised as of October 1, 1989. I have also enclosed an information sheet which provides information for n ew manufacturers, and includes information concerning how to obtain copies of safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-2.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TIMOTHY A. KELLY -- PRESIDENT SALEM VENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/29/90, FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217; OCC 4382; LETTER DATED 01/29/90 FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR / ESCAP E HATCH - FMVSS 217

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release as it applies to roof exits. You asked four specific questions which I have addressed below.

First, you asked for confirmation that the only specification in Standard No. 217 concerning the size of roof exits is the requirement that the exit be able to accommodate an ellipsoid with a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches pushed h orizontally through the exit opening. Your understanding is not entirely correct. The ellipsoid requirement to which you refer, set forth in S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217, is the only provision in the standard that specifies a minimum size requirement for roof exit opening. Although there is no maximum size limit, you should be aware that S5.2 of Standard No. 217 provides that, in determining the total unobstructed openings for emergency exit provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area shall be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement. Thus, if a roof exit is larger than 536 square inches, only 536 square inches will be counted for the exit in determining whether the bus complies with the unobstructed op enings requirement of S5.2 of Standard No. 217.

Second, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 does not permit the use of escape hatches or ventilators in the roof of school buses as a substitute for any of the emergency exits required on school buses by S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. This und erstanding is correct. Additionally, you should be aware that the agency has a longstanding position that any emergency exits, including any roof exits, installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by S5.2.3 must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 217 for emergency exits installed on buses other than school buses. See the enclosed July 6, 1979 interpretation to Robert Kurre on this issue.

Third, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 permits the use of roof exits as a substitute for the rear exit door on buses other than school buses. This statement is not entirely correct. S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 requires the use of a rear exit door on all non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., except where the configuration of the bus precludes the installation of an accessible rear exit. In that case, S5.2.1 requires the installation of a roof exit in the rear half of th e bus in lieu of the rear exit. This substitution of a roof exit for a rear exit door is allowed only where the bus design precludes the use of a rear exit (such as on rear-engine buses). It is not an option allowing the substitution of a roof exit for the rear door in any design.

Fourth, you asked whether the addition of more than one roof exit on a non-school bus would allow a manufacturer to delete any other required exits in addition to the rear door. It is possible that increasing the total exit space on the bus by adding ro of exits could enable a manufacturer to reduce the number or size of other emergency exits on the bus and still comply with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2. You should be aware that exit space provided by roof exits is not counted in deter mining compliance with the requirement in S5.2 that 40 percent of the total unobstructed openings be located on each side of the bus. Whether this substitution of additional roof exits could be made on any particular non-school bus would depend upon whe ther the bus complied with the exit space and location requirements of S5.2.1 (if the bus has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) and the applicable requirements of S5.2.2 (if the bus has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/90

FROM: NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS

TO: J. SMITH -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/25/90, FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; A35, VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/25/90 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDA TED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US C RACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR-WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TEXT: Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Joel Leitson.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH PERRY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-7-89 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD FROM JOSEPH PERRY ATTACHED; (OCC-4134) TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to the rules and regulations pertaining to the importation of a kit car. Your letter indicates that the vehicle will utilize both new and used components, some of them imported from England, and the remainder supplied in the United States. I regret the delay in responding.

Specifically, the components you wish to import from England are described as "the body chassis unit, possibly two boxes of used and reconditioned suspension parts and interior seats and trim in other boxes." You would like to know "if it is acceptable to have all window glass and doors fitted to the body unit before shipping to best assure its arrival in one piece; at this point "the interior, suspension, dash, wiring and steering and wheels will not be installed.

Under the fact situation you outline, it is immaterial under our regulations whether or not you install the window glass and doors before shipping, or after importation into the United States. If you prefer to install these components before shipping, t hat is acceptable to us. Those components, such as windshield glazing, that are covered by an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with such standard upon importation, whether or not they are attached to a larger assemblage of mo tor vehicle equipment. With respect to windshield glazing, the manufacturer's marking of "AS1" and "DOT" Will provide the necessary assurance to a Customs inspector that the glazing conforms.

Although you mention no other covered equipment except lighting, if you are importing as part of the kit brake hoses, brake fluid, tires, seat belt assemblies, or other glazing for use in the vehicle, these must also be marked as conforming with DOT requ irements.

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