ID: nht94-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Ori, Manager -- Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Vehicle Control Division, Harrisburg, PA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 05/06/94 from David L. Ori to Jim Gilkey (OCC 9977)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. James Gilkey of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 to certain limousines. You were co ncerned about the permissibility of applying sun screening or window tinting to such vehicles during the original manufacturing process, and during the "second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Und er this authority, NHTSA issued Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials," to specify performance requirements for various types of glazing and to specify the location in the vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. One provision in Standard No. 205 requires a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance in any glazing area requisite for driving visibility. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the vehicles's windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor v ehicle crash.

NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 205. As you correctly state, second stage manufacturers and alterers also have cer tification responsibilities. Specifically, a final stage manufacturer is responsible for certifying a vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR @ 567.5. Accordingly, you are correct that a final stage manufacturer is required to certify that its finished product, incl uding the glazing materials, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards. 49 CFR @ 567.7. However, this provision does not apply to the "addition, substitution, or removal of readily attach able components ... or minor finishing operations, such as painting." NHTSA views the addition of window tint film as a "minor finishing operation." Accordingly, a person adding such tint film would not be considered an alterer and therefore would not be subject to certification responsibilities.

However, aside from certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30112a, "a person may not ... sell, offer for sale, [or] introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce ... any motor vehicle...unless the vehicle...complies with [ all applicable standards]." Thus, it would be a violation of the statute to sell a new vehicle whose windows which are requisite for driving visibility had been tinted to allow less than 70 percent light transmittance.

Moreover, with respect to vehicles that are no longer new, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor veh icle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." Thus, a person in any of these categories may not apply tint film that would cause the light transmittance of the glazing requisite for driving visibility to be under 70 perc ent.

You stated your belief that limousines that seat less than 10 persons may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product, since such products would violate Standard No. 205. We wish to clarify one aspect of your statement. Limousines that seat less than 10 persons are considered "passenger cars" n1 under NHTSA's regulations. NHTSA considers all windows in a passenger car to be requisite for driving visibility; accordingly, all windows in a passenger car/limousine must have a minimum 70 percent light transmittance. However, please note that tinting may be used in these vehicles, provided the tinted windows meet the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

n1 The agency defines "passenger car" as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less." In turn, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as a "motor v ehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A "bus" is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trail er, designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

You further asked whether a limousine that seats 10 or more persons is subject to the Federal window tinting requirements. A limousine with a capacity of more than 10 persons is considered a "bus" under our regulations. There are specific requirements in Standard No. 205 that apply to buses (or bus/limousines). Under these requirements, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered to be requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dua l outside mirrors satisfying section S6.1 (b) of Standard No. 111), and thus subject to the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in a bus/limousine, including the rear side and rear windows, are not r equired to meet the light transmittance requirement. Accordingly, Standard No. 205 does not prohibit the use of tinted glazing materials for bus/limousine windows to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is equipped with dual outside mirrors larger th an those usually used on passenger cars.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht71-1.43

DATE: 07/16/71

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: LOUIS C. LUNDSTROM -- DIRECTOR AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY ENGINEERING GENERAL MOTORS ENVIRONMENT ACTIVITIES STAFF

COPYEE: C.R. SHARP

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lundstrom:

This is in response to your request of June 14 for an interpretation of several provisions of Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination.

You asked first whether "redundant" controls must be identified, such as the windshield washer control that is located in the end of the column mounted shift lever. The standard does not distinguish between required and redundant controls, and redundant controls must be identified. As this agency observed of controls designed to be operable by touch "their function is not clear to a operator unfamiliar with the vehicle in which they are installed, and their identification is necessary" (36 F.R. 8297, May 4, 1971).

Secondly, you pointed out to us the virtual impossibility of requiring identification of intermediate positions in rocker-type and push-pull type heating and air conditioning system controls. We agree with your point, and I enclose an order of the Administrator amending paragraph S4.2 to exclude intermediate positions on these types of controls from the identification requirement.

Finally, you ask whether the identification requirement in S4.2 for "manually operated" controls extends to a floor mounted windshield washer control. Since a manually operated control is, by definition, a control that is operated by hand, a foot-operated control need not be identified.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. 1-18; Notice 5]

Summary Statement

MOTOR VEHICLE CONTROLS STANDARD - amendment of motor vehicle controls standard (Standard No. 101), to clarify control identification and illumination requirement and control location test condition, effective January 1, 1972, and September 1, 1972.

Title 49 - TRANSPORTATION

Chapter V - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

PART 571 - FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS Control Location, Identification, and Illumination

The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101 to clarify control identification, and illumination requirements, and the control location test conditions.

Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, was amended on January 14, 1971 (36 F.R. 503) and, as a result of reconsideration petitions, was amended again on May 4, 1971 (36 F.R. 8296). General Motors Corporation has asked for a clarification of the requirement in S4.2 that "Each position of . . . a heating or air conditioning system control shall be identified." It points out the virtual impossibility of identification of intermediate positions for rocker-type and push-pull-type switches. The NHTSA agrees that intermediate positions for these types of switches are difficult to identify, and consequently has amended S4.2 to exclude them from the identification requirement.

Ford Motor Company has petitioned for a clarification of the requirement in S4.3 that ". . . A control shall be provided to adjust the intensity of control illumination variable from an 'off' position to a position providing illumination sufficient for the vehicle operator to readily identify the control under conditions of reduced visibility." Specifically, Ford wishes an interpretation

that a simple on-off switch is a sufficient variable control.

The NHTSA has determined that a motor vehicle operator should be able to set control illumination levels according to his own, eye comfort and the specific condition of reduced visibility that requires control illumination. Additionally, it is important for a driver to reduce control illumination when the illumination is reflected in the windshield creating a glare condition. The NHTSA intended in the January 14 issuance that a continuously variable "rheostat"-type control be provided, and is amending S4.3 to reflect this intention.

The NHTSA is also amending the restraint test condition of S5.2 to correspond with the recent amendment to Standard No. 208, Seat Belt Installations, (36 F.R. 9869) that requires Type 1 seat belt assemblies in, among other vehicles, walk-in van-type trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.21, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination, is amended as follows:

1. The third sentence in Paragraph S4.2 is amended to read: "Each position of an automatic vehicle speed control and a heating and air conditioning system control, other than an intermediate position of a rocker-type or push-pull-type control, shall be identified."

2. The last sentence of Paragraph S4.3 is amended to read: "A control shall be provided to adjust the intensity of control illumination, continuously variable from an 'off' position to a position providing illumination sufficient for the vehicle operator to readily identify controls under conditions of reduced visibility."

3. Paragraph S5.2 is amended to read: "The person seated at the controls of a multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds, convertible, open-body type vehicle, walk-in van-type truck, or bus is restrained by a nonextending pelvic restraint fastened so that there is no slack between the lap belt and the pelvis."

Effective date: January 1, 1972, Paragraph S4.2 for passenger cars; September 1, 1972, Paragraph S4.2 for vehicles other than passenger cars, Paragraph S4.3 and Paragraph S5.2.

This amendment is issued pursuant to sections 103 and 119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and the delegation of authority from the Secretary of Transportation to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, 49 CFR 1.51.

Issued on JUL 9 1971

Douglas W. Toms

Acting Administrator

ID: aiam5443

"Dear Mr. Harpster: This responds to your letter of June 21, 1994 requesting information on whether a 'replacement rear seat used for the transport of prisoners in police cars' complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. During a July 1, 1994 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the seat could be installed either before or after the first retail sale of the police car. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to a prisoner transport seat. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.208), which sets forth strength requirements for all 'occupant seats' in passenger cars. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the prisoner transport seat occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios. Installation as Original Equipment Standards No. 207, No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the prisoner transport seat installed in the vehicle. Unlike the other four standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. The manufacturer of the seat belt system provided with the prisoner transport seat is responsible for certifying that the seat belt complies with Standard No. 209. Your letter specifically asks whether the safety belt system installed with the prisoner transport seat complies with all applicable requirements. Currently, Standard No. 208 requires an integral Type 2 (lap and shoulder) seat belt assembly at all forward-facing rear outboard seating positions, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other rear seating positions. Standard No. 208 also requires the lap belt portion of the Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at any forward-facing rear outboard seating position to have an emergency locking retractor. Thus, because the seat belt assembly for the prisoner transport seat has a manual retractor, the seat cannot be installed at a forward-facing rear outboard seating position. We note that Standard No. 208 requires emergency locking retractors to ensure improved comfort and convenience for safety belts. The purpose is to make it more likely that the typical vehicle occupant will use his or her safety belts, and also to reduce the likelihood of excessive slack in safety belts during use. You wish to use manual retractors because of special circumstances that arise when the rear seats of police vehicles are used to transport prisoners, i.e., a desire to keep the prisoners solidly restrained in the seats. However, Standard No. 208 specifies the same occupant crash protection requirements for police vehicles as other vehicles, and does not include an exception in this area. A possible solution to your problem may be to install your belt system (with manual retractors) in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208. Provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts. Your belt system would, of course, still have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209, since it would be considered a 'seat belt assembly.' Installation Prior to First Sale If a prisoner transport seat were added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Installation After First Sale After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a prisoner transport seat if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the seat did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. Thus, if a police department were to modify its own vehicles to install a prisoner transport seat, it would not be a violation of this provision, even if the original belts were replaced by belts with manual retractors. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam1442

Dear Mr. Thompson: This responds to your March 19, 1974, request for information in behal of Mr. Robert J. Jones, concerning the commercial offer he received for a device that would defeat the ignition interlock device found on 1974 model passenger cars.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorize the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards, one of which requires occupant crash protection, one aspect of which is the ignition interlock system. Section 108(a)(1) of the Act prohibits the sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce, or the importation of any motor vehicle which does not conform to the standards. Our regulatory authority over new vehicles ends, however, with the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. While we can prohibit arrangements between a dealer and a purchaser to disconnect the interlock, where they are part of the sales transaction, we have no remedy against arrangements to defeat the safety features made after the sales transaction.; Nevertheless, while selling devices intended to defeat safety equipmen may be legal, we consider such practices reprehensible since they increase the chances of death and injury on the highways. We are considering a variety of remedies for the situation reported by Mr. Jones.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2331

Dear Mr. Clifton: This is in response to your letters of March 22 and June 9, 1976 concerning the classification of motor-scooters and the tires designed for them.; >>>'Motorcycle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as: a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the us of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.; 'Motor-driven cycle' is defined as: a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5 brake horsepower or less.<<< The category of 'motor-driven cycles' includes, but is not limited to motorized bicycles. There is no definition of 'scooter' or 'motor-scooter'. Such a vehicle is a motorcycle and, depending on the brake horsepower of its engine, may also be a motor-driven cycle. In any event, a tire for use on such a vehicle is a motorcycle tire that is subject to all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. The standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. However, your letter is being considered in the preparation of the forthcoming Federal Register notice on this subject.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0741

Dear Mr. Rothschild: This is in reply to your letter of April 11, 1972, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.' You ask whether the standard applies to motor homes and recreational vehicles being towed. You also ask what type of certificate or guarantee is required of a fabric manufacturer.; Standard No. 302 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenge vehicles, trucks, and buses. It does not apply to trailers, the vehicle category which includes mobile homes and other towed recreational vehicles, and these vehicles are consequently not subject to its requirements. With respect to your questions regarding certification by fabric manufacturers, the standard applies to motor vehicles, and it is the vehicle manufacturer who bears the responsibility to certify, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that the vehicle conforms to the standard. There are no Federal requirements regarding certification to this standard imposed on fabric suppliers. However, manufacturers who purchase materials from such suppliers may require some form of certification or guarantee from them that the materials meet the standard.; If you have further questions, I will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam2456

Dear Mr. Ohgiya: This responds to your April 22, 1976, letter advising the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the tire standards of the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association (JATMA) are being translated into English. You request that consideration be given to referencing JATMA standards in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that regulate motor vehicle tire manufacture. I regret that we have not responded to your letter sooner.; Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires*, and Standard No. 119, *Ne Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, presently reference the Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS). Because the JATMA standards appear to be updated mote often than the JIS standards, and because the JATMA standards will be issued in English, the agency intends to substitute a reference to JATMA standards in its regulations for the existing reference to JIS standards.; Thank you for providing us with the English translation of th motorcycle tire standards. We request that you provide us copies of all English translations of the standards for all vehicle types as often as the are updated.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam2156

Dear Mr. Negro: This is in response to your letter of November 6, 1975, requesting a interpretation of paragraph S5. of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 219, *Windshield Zone Intrusion*.; You asked whether the standard permits marking or penetration of th protected zone to a depth greater than 1/4 inch, by windshield wipers during a barrier crash test. Please excuse our delay in answering your question.; Paragraph S5. of Standard No. 219 states that 'no part of the vehicl outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and *other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield*, shall penetrate the protected zone template' (emphasis added.) Windshield wipers are 'components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield.' Therefore, Standard No. 219 does allow penetration of the protected zone by windshield wipers during the barrier crash test.; Please note that Standard No. 219 was amended, Docket 74-21, Notice 3 to substitute the term 'daylight opening' for 'windshield opening', and to add the new term to the requirements of paragraph S5. The amendments are effective September 1, 1976, for passenger cars, and September 1, 1977, for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. I am enclosing a copy of the notice for your information.; Please contact us if we can (sic) of any further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4503

Dear Mr. Cuzzi: This responds to your letter asking whether buses wit a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds are excluded from coverage under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 301 applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and to all new school buses. The buses you manufacture for sale as municipal transit buses are excluded from Standard No. 301 because their GVWR is greater than the 10,000 pound limit established for the standard. You asked also whether there are any other Federal standards that might apply to the fuel tanks on your transit buses. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) for their direct reply as to the applicability of any FHWA or UMTA regulations to your transit vehicles. You might also contact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to see whether that agency has any requirements affecting the fuel tanks on your buses. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2015

Dear Mr. DiMaggio: I am writing to confirm the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 119, *New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, which was given to you by Mark Schwimmer on April 16, 1975.; Your letter of February 26, 1975, explained that: >>>(i) Firestone would produce 100 tires in size D50C-16.5 for use o one of the prototype vehicles in the Urban Mass Transit Administration's Trans-Bus program,; (ii) these tires would be certified as being in compliance wit Standard No. 119, and (iii) D50C-16.5 is a new size, not appearing in any existing tire and rim organization publication.<<<; In such cases, S5.1(a) of the standard requires tire and rim matchin information to be furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires. Your letter suggested that, because Firestone does not expect the tire to be sold through any dealers, this requirement would be inapplicable. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, that interpretation is incorrect. S5.1 of Standard No. 119 applies to all new bus tires, including prototypes manufactured for prototype vehicles. Therefore, you must furnish the matching information to all dealers of Firestone non-passenger-car tires.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel