ID: nht90-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/90

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

TO: KENT D. SMITH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-26-90 TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA, FROM KENT D. SMITH, ATTACHED; [OCC-4387]

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 26, 1990, to the agency with respect to a safety lighting device. You have asked for our recommendations regarding this invention.

The problem addressed by your invention is "that vehicles need some way of signaling following drivers if the headlamps of their vehicles are blinding you." Your solution is to install a button that activates the backup lamps and extinguishes them in a m atter of a second or less. One alternative would be to operate only a single backup lamp, and another, to activate only the license plate lamp. This would provide a warning to the following driver.

The agency is concerned with glare, but its investigation of the phenomenon indicates that there are two types: discomfort glare, and disabling glare. Although it is certainly an annoyance, the glare produced by a headlamp shining into a rear view mirror is discomfort glare. In our judgment, a vehicle driver looking into the mirror will not suffer disabling glare so that he is unable to discern vehicles approaching, or pedestrians in the roadway; most vehicles are equipped with manual "day/night" mirro rs which may be easily operated in the event of discomfort. Equipment manufacturers have already addressed the problem by providing rear-view mirrors that have a photoelectric cell that dips them when a certain level of light intensity is reached. In s ummary, the agency does not believe that there is a nationwide safety problem requiring it to mandate the use of your device on motor vehicles as new vehicle equipment.

As an aftermarket item which a dealer could offer a new-car purchaser, its installation would be subject to the general prohibition in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that supplemental lighting devices shall not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. The question to be answered, therefore, is whether the device would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamps, or other rear lighting devices. The problem here is the necessity of rear lighting d evices to provide clear and unambiguous signals and

messages to following drivers. Anytime a lighting device does not provide a cue to which a following driver is accustomed, the potential for confusion arises. The driving public is unfamiliar with the sudden, though temporary, activation of the backup l amp, at normal driving speeds, or a modification in intensity of the license plate lamp. Without a substantial nationwide public education campaign, the signal imparted by your device is not likely to be understood by a following driver, and might distr act him from the signals of the other rear lighting devices. In this sense, we believe that your device might impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 does allow.

You have also noted the State prohibitions against use of backup lamps when the car is going in a forward direction. Even if the agency concluded that the device was permissible and would not cause impairment, the States are not precluded from enacting and enforcing their own standards on the use of lighting systems.

You may be interested to know that two letters to the Editor of The New York Times have appeared on this issue in the last month which suggest the use of existing lighting equipment to signal following drivers that their upper beams are on. I enclose th ese letters for your consideration.

I am sorry that we cannot be more encouraging in our remarks, but we do appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Enclosure

When the Driver Behind Is Blinding You

To the Editor:

Until we see the idea of a liquid crystal rear-view mirror, now in one Japanese luxury car, extended to side-view mirrors, as you propose in "Don't Stop There" (editorial, Jan. 18), there is a less than widely known way to dim the discomfort and dange r of bright headlights behind you.

While learning to drive in the Catskill Mountains around Monticello, N.Y., I discovered how to let the driver behind know that his or her brights are ripping out your retinas from the rear. As opposed to the signal for an oncoming driver (turning on your own brights, which is hard for an approaching motorist to miss, but useless for someone who can only see your tail lights), you deal with brights from behind by turning your lights completely off, then back on again.

Presumably, this demonstrates to the driver behind you, for a moment, that he or she is supplying enough light for both of you.

But there's a Catch-22. Drivers who know this signal are typically more experienced and rarely leave their brights on near other vehicles. The most frequent offenders are invariably ignorant of the signal.

As more drivers learn the meaning of the off-and-on signal, fewer of us, we may hope, will be blinded by the light from behind. TOM COBIN

Bayside, Queens, Jan. 18, 1990

Explaining Lights to the Driver Behind

To the Editor:

In "When the Driver Behind Is Blinding You" (letter, Feb. 3), Tom Cobin suggests turning your car headlights off and on several times to signal the driver behind that his or her bright lights are on.

But this can be dangerous. One's hands should be on the wheel when driving in traffic and not playing with the light switch. Also, driving for even a fraction of a second into an unlighted road is scary.

A safer method is to touch the brake pedal barely a time or two, to flash an alert, it is to be hoped, to the car behind that the lights are creating a problem.

The safest action is to slow down slightly and to let the offender pass, if the traffic permits. Then, a flash or two of your high beams in his or her rear view mirror might penetrate the skull of this particular thoughtless or careless driver, who i s but one representative of that large percentage at the wheel who should not be driving at all.

C. LINCOLN CHRISTENSEN Hurley, N.Y., Feb. 3, 1990

The writer is a longtime member of the Society of Automotive Engineers.

ID: nht90-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/90

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

TO: LOWELL W. SUNDSTROM

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12-9-89 TO OFC. OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA, FROM LOWELL W. SUNDSTROM ATTACHED; [OCC 4251]

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 9, 1989 to this office, asking us to confirm your opinion that Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR @ 571.302) does not apply to the "HOOD LOCKER" product you describe in your letter. You state that this product will be a plastic box to hold tissues which consumers may use to wipe off the engine crankcase dipstick when checking the crankcase oil. According to your letter, the product can be mounted near or on the vehicle fender wel l, on the under side of the hood, on the side or top of the air cleaner, or in another location near the dipstick. You believe that Standard No. 302 does not refer to the product because it will not be placed within the occupant compartment of motor vehi cles and will not be placed within one-half inch of any occupant's air space. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, the Na tional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that every one of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

The Safety Act also gives this agency authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 302. That standard sets forth flammability r esistance requirements applicable to all new motor vehicles. Therefore, any motor vehicle manufacturer that installs your "HOOD LOCKER" as original equipment in its vehicles must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety

standards, including Standard No. 302, with the "HOOD LOCKER" installed. However, Standard No. 302 does not apply to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipmen, as your "HOOD LOCKER" appears to be. Hence, you are not required to certify that this produ ct complies with Standard No. 302 before offering it for sale. Parenthetically, I note that your observation is correct that Standard No. 302 applies only to materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, and not to materials used in an e ngine compartment that is separated from the occupant compartment.

However, there are other statutory requirements that may affect this product. First, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as this "HOOD LOCKER" are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concernin g the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If either the equipment manufacturer or this agency were to determine that the "HOOD LOCKER" contained such a defect, the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of t he defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers.

Second, use of this product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative" devices or elements of design that were installed in a motor vehicle to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the "HOOD LOCKER" a nd compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the "HOOD LOCKER" in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safety standards. The most relevant safety standards would seem to be Standards No. 113, Hood Latch System, and 302. If the installation of the "HOOD LOCKER" would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the "HOOD LO CKER" can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

I trust that we have been responsive to your questions. For your information, I am enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and information on how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standar ds. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

ENC.

ID: nht90-1.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/23/90

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

TO: TILMAN SPINGLER -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-13-90 TO TAYLOR FROM RICH VAN IDERSTINE, NHTSA, ATTACHED [43880]; ALSO ATTACHED TELEFAX TO RICHARD VAN IDERSTINE, NHTSA, FROM T. SPINGLER, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, DATED 1-30-90.

TEXT: This is in reply to your FAX to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is:

1) To turn the adjusting screws of a HB-2 headlamp it will be necessary to remove two snap on covers without the use of any tool. Will this be legal?

Section S7.7.2 requires a headlamp to be installed with a mounting and aiming mechanism that allows aim inspection and adjustment, "and is accessible for those uses without removal of any vehicle parts, except for protective covers removable without the use of tools." The section is not directed to the number of covers, only the ease of removal for the specified purposes. Therefore, the use of two snap on covers is not prohibited by Standard No. 108.

Your second question is:

2) A combination of HB2-headlight (low + high beam) and auxiliary driving beam in one unit shall be equipped with only vertical adjusting screws for the driving beam. The beam pattern will be so wide that even bulbs with extreme tolerances will allow to meet all photometric requirements without horizontal adjustment. Will this be legal?

Under section S7.7.2, the aiming mechanism of a headlamp must allow for adjustment of both horizontal and vertical aim. Thus, the portion of the lamp that provides the lower and upper beam must have both horizontal and vertical aiming screws, and the he adlamp would not comply with S7.7.2 if either aiming screw is lacking. For that part of the same headlamp that is a driving beam and which is therefore not regulated by Standard No. 108, the manufacturer may provide any means of adjustment it wishes, as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the aim of the upper and lower headlamp beam.

Your final question is:

3) When will the 9007 bulb be legal? Date of final rule?

According to the plans of this agency, further action on the 9007 (proposed to be known as HB5) is expected in May 1990.

I hope that this responds to your questions.

ID: nht90-1.84

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 23, 1990

FROM: Anthony H. Brett -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice

TO: Malcolm B. Mathieson -- Vice President - Engineering, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: Re Letter of August 8, 1989, from the Director of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards to the Executive Director of the National School Transportation Association

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice from M.B. Mathieson (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598); Also attached to letter dated 3-30-90 from M.B. Mathieson to M.F. Trentacos te; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel; Also attached to letter dated 9-29-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion

TEXT:

This correspondence is in response to your letter of March 20, 1990, to Rod Ligon in our office. As I told you in our telephone conversation yesterday, you have correctly noted the error in the Federal Highway Administration's position concerning emerge ncy exits on school buses.

The letter to Ms. Finkel does not take into account the amendments which occurred in Standard 217 (49 C.F.R. S 571.217) to specifically address the emergency exit requirements of school buses. As you correctly noted in your letter, the predecessor of th e current Standard 217 did not distinguish between school and non-school buses. The application of the old standard to both categories of buses was problematic.

The revision of the standard established two separate categories of buses governed by different emergency exit requirements. Your responsibility as a manufacturer of school buses is to comply with the specific standard for school buses provided in S 5.2 .3.1.

Mr. Trentacoste's letter fails to take into account the revisions in Standard 217, which were adopted to address this very problem. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at your convenience.

ID: nht90-1.85

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 26, 1990

FROM: Malcolm B. Mathieson -- Vice President-Engineering, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Application of FMVSS 217 non-school bus emergency exit requirements to School Buses.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-90 from M.B. Mathieson to M.F. Trentacoste; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel; Also attached to letter dated 9-29-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to le tter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3-23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M. B. Mathieson (A36; Std. 217)

TEXT:

This letter transmits a copy of correspondence from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. to the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Motor Carrier Standards regarding the application of FMVSS 217 non-school bus emergency exit requirements to school buses.

Thomas believes that we have correctly interpreted the application of FMVSS 217 in this instance. We would appreciate your office having the appropriate personnel review this matter and comment on the interpretations involved.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

ID: nht90-1.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/27/90

FROM: LARRY F. WORT -- CHIEF BUREAU OF SAFETY PROGRAMS DIVISION OF TRAFFIC SAFETY ILLINOIS

TO: TAYLOR VINSON LEGAL COUNSEL UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/27/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY F. WORT -- ILLINOIS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 108; FORD RATIONALE FOR FMVSS 108 COMPLIANCE; BY CLARKS GORTE -- FORD; DATED 03/19/90

TEXT: The State of Illinois is requesting a legal interpretation of the federal requirements for front side marker lights on trucks. The truck model in question is a Ford low profile cab C-8000 cab over engine (see Exhibit A and B). These trucks were manufact ured with a reflex reflector at the location shown on exhibit A and do not have front side marker lights. The truck cab in question has been manufactured this way for more than 20 years.

The Division of Traffic Safety, Standard Engineer, has obtained telephone interpretations from Mr. Robert Hagan of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety and Mr. Kevin Cavey of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. Both of these gentleme n confirmed that the truck should be equipped with a front side marker light. (Exhibits A and B were telefaxed to Washington, D.C. for reference.)

Ford Motor Company has submitted a written opinion (Exhibit C) stating that they consider their vehicle to be in compliance. This information was telefaxed by Ford Motor Company to Mr. Richard Hunter in the Central Bureau of Maintenance.

A legal opinion is required on the following question of compliance (see Exhibit D);

Can the top of the cab clearance light (item six) be used to fulfill the requirements for front side marker lights (item two) on cab over engine vehicles?

ID: nht90-1.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/90

FROM: ROBERT W. GENZMAN -- US ATTORNEY FOR MIDDLE DISTRICT FLORIDA; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

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; LETTER DATED 05/25/9 0 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED 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 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

TEXT: Robert W. Genzman, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, in conjunction with the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., announced today the filing of civil lawsuits charging six Florida corporations with violations of federal safety standards. The civil complaints allege that the named corporations installed tinted products on windows of motor vehicles in such a manner that less light was transmitted through the windows than federal safety standards permit.

Named as defendants in the Orlando Division of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida are Blue Skies Projects, Inc., d/b/a Flying Window Tinters, of Orlando, and Shakespearin, Inc. of Holly Hill. Seminole Solar Systems, In c. of Largo; Allied Glass Tint, Inc. of Tampa, 3801, Inc., d/b/a Window Kote, and Solar Graphics, Inc., of St. Petersburg, were named as defendants in the Tampa Division or the Middle District of Florida.

Under National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration Acts standards, automobile glass must transmit at least 70 percent light through their surfaces. The civil complaints allege that the named defendants applied coated materials to the windows of motor vehicles in an amount resulting in transmission of light less than that permitted by the standard.

Mr. Genzman stated that the applicable federal standards were imposed to establish minimum visibility standards and to prevent accidents. The civil complaints seek to enjoin violation of the Act, and to impose $ 800,000.00 in civil penalties.

ID: nht90-1.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 29, 1990

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

TO: J. BRETTSCHNEIDER -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8-31-89 TO RICHARD VAN IDERSTINE, NHTSA, FROM J. BRETTSCHNEIDER, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ATTACHED.

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, with reference to the performance of the impact test according to SAE J1383. I regret the delay in responding.

You state that according to paragraph 4.10.3 of J1383, the impact test is conducted along the mechanical axis, and that paragraph 2.14 of SAE J579 defines the mechanical axis as perpendicular to the aiming plane through the geometric center of the lens. With respect to this, you have asked two questions: "where is the geometric center of a lens without aiming pads?", and "where is the geometric center of a lens which moreover covers two compartments, one for the lower beam and one for the upper beam?"

First, we must advise you that the impact test of J1383 is not required for any headlamp covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The impact test that is required for integral beam and replaceable bulb headlamps is specified in section S8.8, and we shall answer your questions with respect to its provisions.

S8.8 states in part that "one impact shall be delivered to the center of the lens on the mechanical axis." This language originated in 1983 with the adoption of specifications for replaceable bulb headlamps, when a headlamp was not permitted to incorporate more than one light source. Thus, the lens center and mechanical axis were coincident. Now that Standard No. 108 permits two standardized replaceable light sources in a headlamp, there are two mechanical axes. We also note that lamps may now use Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Devices, and thus have lenses without aiming pads. As we understand your concern, you appear to be uncertain as to the location of the impact for the test of section S8.8.

After reviewing your letter, we have concluded that the language "on the mechanical axis" is a redundancy. Thus, the impact should be applied on the center of the lens, without reference to the mechanical axis. We consider the center of the lens to be the intersection of the lens and a line which is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and passes through the centroid of the projected lens area as viewed on a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

We shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.

ID: nht90-1.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/90

FROM: BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES

TITLE: U.S. CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS

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; LETTER DATED 05/25/9 0 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED 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 LAWSUIT S; 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: Four Tampa Bay shops sued for violating safety codes

-- In a move that could cripple Florida's booming auto-tint industry, the federal government has sued four Tampa Bay tint shops for violating national traffic safety codes.

But dealers say they are in compliance with Florida's own law on window tinting and vow to fight for more relaxed tinting standards.

The U.S. Justice Department, on behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, filed four separate lawsuits Wednesday in federal court in Tampa.

Named as defendants are Seminole Solar Systems, Inc., 69 Ulmerton Road in Largo; Window Kote, 3801 16th St. N in St. Petersburg; Solar Graphics Inc. 3337 22nd Ave. S in St. Petersburg; and Allied Glass Tint Inc., 1404 N. Armenia in Tampa. Two Orlando -area tint shops also were sued in separate federal court actions in Orlando.

Each complaint charges the businesses with installing window film on cars that allows less than 70 percent of natural light to pass through. Each shop has tinted at least 800 cars since 1986, the suits claim, making each shop liable for $ 800,000 in fines, the maximum allowed under the relevant federal regulation.

Drivers of cars already tinted would not be affected by the lawsuit, but could still be ticketed by police enforcing Florida's statute on window tint.

Tim Hurd, a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration spokesman in Washington D.C., said an investigation begun in July 1987 found a large concentration of tint dealers operating in Central Florida.

The lawsuits are the first and only of their kind, Hurd said.

Auto tinting "presents a safety problem because it reduces the ability to see what's coming at the car," Hurd said. "We've also had complaints from state law enforcement officials."

Police have long disliked the practice of tinting car windows because it makes it difficult to see inside vehicles.

But the treatment remains extremely popular with drivers in Sun Belt states, who say the window film protects interiors, reduces heat and glare, and makes cars look better.

Phil Hoffman owns Window Kote in Largo and franchises three other shops under that name. His Largo shop tints about 4,000 cars a year. He said Wednesday that he was surprised by the lawsuits.

Drivers of cars already tinted would not be affected by the lawsuit, but could still be ticketed by police enforcing Florida's statute on window tint.

Hoffman said the four area shops named as defendants all voluntarily allowed federal transportation officials to inspect their records in 1988. He said they were told at the time that their installations violated the federal regulation, but that his own attorney said since Florida law allowed the darker tint, the practice was legal.

A 1984 Florida statute allows tinting that allows as little as 35 percent of natural light to enter front side windows, and that allows as little as 18 percent of outside light through back windows. No tinting is allowed on windshields.

ID: nht90-1.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1990

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA; Signature by Jeffrey R. Miller

TO: Robert J. Lagomarsino -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/31/91 from Paul J. Rice to Scott K. Hiler (Std. 222); Also attached to letter from Erika Z. Jones (signed by Stephen P. Wood) to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 4/2/92 from Michael F. Hecker to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7174); Also attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael F. Hecker (A39; Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 3/10/89 from Erika Z. Jones to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner on behalf of your constituent, Mike Dunn. You inquired about a school bus passenger restraining device marketed by Mr. Dunn. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received an inquiry concernin g a similar device in 1988. A copy of our responses, which detail the requirements applicable to such a device, are enclosed. I will summarize those requirements below.

The device being marketed by your constituent, "a safety bar" for school bus passengers, consists of a padded metal bar which is attached to the seat back of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants are to be protected by the safety bar. The bar is hinged to swing up to allow entry and exit of the occupants. The hinge mechanism also allows the bar to drop slightly from its lowered position upon impact in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of abdominal injury. The device operates much like the p assenger restraint bars found on certain amusement park rides.

As explained by the enclosed letters, federal law does not prohibit the installation of your constituent's product on school buses as long its installation and use would not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the safety bars are to be installed in any new school bus, the manufacturer of the bus would have to certify that the bus with the safety bars installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5. 3 of FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.222).

As the enclosed letters explain, the use of the safety bar would not obviate the need for a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to comply with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.208). That standard requires that such v ehicles be equipped with either safety belts or automatic restraints at all passenger seating positions.

In addition, as explained in the enclosed letters and information sheet, the manufacturer of the safety bars would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et sec.). Such a manufacturer is responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if the company or this agency decides that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, or that it does not comply with an applicable s afety standard.

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.