ID: 1983-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sherrod Vans, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 29 1983 NOA-30

Sherrod Vans, Inc. 9485 Regency Square Blvd. Suite 330 Jacksonville, Florida 32211

Dear Sirs:

This responds to your recent letter asking for confirmation that you do not have to install seat belts on a sofa/bed used in your van conversions if you place a "disclaimer" on the sofa to indicate that it is not to be considered a seat while the vehicle is in motion.

Your assumption is incorrect. You must install seat belts on these sofa seats. Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires the installation of either Type 1 (lap belts) or Type 2 (combination lap and shoulder belts) belts at each designated seating position in a van, including rearmost seats. Under 49 CFR Part 571.3, "designated seating position" is defined as,

"any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating."

In our opinion, a sofa seat in the rear of a van is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion and, therefore, is a designated seating position. The fact that the seat converts to a bed is irrelevant. This will not prevent passengers from using the position for seating when the accommodation is in its unconverted, sofa mode.

A manufacturer cannot escape the responsibilities associated with a designated seating position simply by placing a sticker on the seat disclaiming that the position is to be used. If this were the case, manufacturers would be able to place stickers on all seats in vehicles and avoid the requirements for seat belts entirely. It is true that Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, requires seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion to be conspicuously labeled to that effect (paragraph S4.4). However, this labeling requirement is only applicable to positions that do not qualify as designated seating positions under 49 CFR 571.3. For example, folding jump seats are not considered designated seating positions under the definition. Therefore, these seats should be labeled as required by Standard No. 207.

In our opinion, you would be able to omit seat belts in this case only if the structure was a permanent, stationary bed which could not be converted into a sofa. Also, please note that under the definition of designated seating position, you would be required to install at least three sets of seat belts if the sofa has hip room greater than 50 inches.

I hope this has eliminated any misunderstanding you may have had concerning this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 1, 1983

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Office of the Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

In talking to Mr. Wilson of Transporation we were told we do not have to put seat belts on the sofa we install in our vans if we use a disclaimer.

He also said that by writing you that you would furnish us in writing that as long as we use a disclaimer we do not have to install seat belts on the sofa that is in the rear of the van.

We would appreciate it very much if you could furnish us this as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Sherrod Vans, Inc.

ID: 1983-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: TRANZ ACC Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 30 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Mike Grant TRANZ ACC Inc. 21807 Plummer Street Chatsworth, California 91311

Dear Mr. Grant:

This responds to your February 25, 1983, letter asking whether a child seat that you would like to import would comply with Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Your child seat attaches to a vehicle by use of several of its own anchorage straps which are attached to existing vehicle belt anchorages or by drilling new anchorages. The seat does not use the existing car seat belt system.

Paragraph S5.3.2 of the standard states: "When installed on a vehicle seat, each child restraint system, other than child harnesses, shall be capable of being restrained against forward movement solely by means of a Type I seat belt assembly (defined in S571.209) that meets Standard No. 208 (S571.208), or by means of a Type I seat belt assembly plus one additional anchorage strap that is supplied with the system and conforms to S5.4" Since your system has its own harnesses and does not utilize the existing car seat belt system (Type I seat belt), it would not comply with this portion of the standard.

The agency requires child seats to be attachable by use of the existing car seat system for ease of installation and to assist in proper installation and usage. The agency determined in rulemaking that to permit other systems that were more complex and that require the proper attachment of several harness straps would not be in the interest of safety, since it would likely result in improper child seat installation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 25, 1983

MR. FRANK BERNDT Chief Council U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 4O0 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

I represent an accessory company who are interested in importing a child seat from England. The seat has passed the British and Dutch safety tests which are probably the most rigorous of its kind in Europe.

However, we think the method of attaching the seat is not covered by your current safety regulations. Due to the complex nature of your regulations I find it difficult to determine whether or not the seat complies with them, and I would appreciate your help and advice in this matter.

I have written to Barbara Kelleher of Arvin Calspan Corp. who advised me to write to you and explain our situation. We both agree that as far as safety standards are concerned the seat easily meets the requirments of Calspan's sled tests.

I am eager to have the seat tested and approved but this would seem little purpose until I receive a decision from your department as to the suitability of our method of attaching the child safety seat.

Please find enclosed fitting instructions and information about the seat and if you require any further information or a sample seat please don't hesitate to contact me.

Your earliest attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Yours Sincerely

Mike Grant

ID: 1983-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/00/83 EST

FROM: GREAT WEST CASUALTY CO.

TITLE: GW SAFETY TALK

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, AND OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING

TEXT: LOSS PREVENTION TOOL: In our mailing to fleets, we will include a brochure or pamphlet regarding Siping of Tires. We do not have any statistics or facts concerning the Siping of Tires. However, we insure several carriers who siping every tire in the fleet and they and their drivers are convinced it is a major safety factor that cannot be ignored on rain, snow, or ice slick highways. These carriers talk in terms of better control, better maneuverability, cooler running tires, better mileage, etc.

SIPING OF TIRES. Some time ago, we wrote a short article about siping of tires which improved traction on wet and icy roads, ran cooler, etc. We were surprised at the calls from carriers who didn't know what siping was. I personally talked to 2 carriers and their drivers report substantial traction improvement on wet and slick roads. One carrier was having some difficulty with unusual wear patterns on the tire. They siped them and it corrected the problem. When the carrier and the driver gives validity to the process, then it is worthy of consideration.

SAF-TEE SIPING CALL YOUR FELLOW TRUCKER AND *Improves Traction on Wet and CHECK FOR YOURSELF Icy Roads (22% National Safety Council) *Increases Tire Life 15% to 20% 1. Palmer Trucking - Jim Palmer, (406) 721-5151 2. Unthum Trucking - Keith Reilly, (515) 448-4707 *Decreases Uneven Wear Patterns 3. Holland Trucking - Dennis Holland, (701) 280-2634 50% - 70% (Tread Flexes More) 4. Apple Lines - Dale Coates, (605) 256-6661

ID: 1983-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 5, 1983 NOA-30

Mr. K. Inoue National Technical Service Manager Toyo Tire Corporation Compton, California 90221

Dear Mr. Inoue:

This responds to your February 16, 1983, letter to Joseph Innes of this agency regarding permissible methods for displaying Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) information on the sidewall of tires. Your first proposed alternative would delete the treadwear grade number, but not the word "TREADWEAR" itself, from the format established in Option 3 of Figure 1, 49 CFR 575.104. The second proposed alternative would delete both the word "TREADWEAR" and the numerical grade from the format specified in Option 3, Figure 1. Your proposed alternatives would be used only on tires produced in molds manufactured before August 8, 1983.

In the agency's February 7, 1983, notice suspending the treadwear portion of the UTQGS, tires produced in molds manufactured prior to August 8 were required to display UTQG information on tire sidewalls in one of the formats specified in Figure 1 or in Figure 6 of 49 CFR 575.104. Your first proposed alternative is clearly different from each of the permitted formats. The permitted formats require either that the word "TREADWEAR" must appear next to the treadwear grade on the tire, or neither the word nor the numerical grade must appear. Your first alternative could confuse tire purchasers, since the display format could be interpreted as attributing the grade which appears after the word "TRACTION" to both the treadwear and traction performance of the tire. Therefore, your first proposed alternative would not be permitted under 49 CFR 575.104.

Your second proposed alternative is quite similar to one permitted format, Option 3 in Figure 6. The only difference between your second alternative and Option 3 is that the traction information is centered in the format in Option 3, while it is slightly off-center in your alternative. Your second alternative should in no way be misleading to tire purchasers, however. Further, nothing in our regulations specifies precise centering of the traction information.

Any inconsistency between your proposed format and the permitted one is so small that the agency would, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, make no attempt to enforce the UTQGS format requirement when your second alternative is used.

If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 16, 1983

Mr. Joseph Innes Office of Market Incentives National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Innes:

Regarding our telephone conversation to you on February 16, this is the official written question. We would appreciate your prompt reply. We have the following questions regarding the amendment of UTQG regulation:

Can we modify the molding grading information on the sidewall of the tire produced in the mold manufactured before August 7, 1983 from Figure 1 the following way?:

1). If we take off the grading number of the treadwear from Figure 1, (PLEASE SEE EXAMPLE) is it acceptable?

**INSERT**

2). If we take off the letters of TREADWEAR and the grading number of the treadwear from Figure 1. (PLEASE SEE EXAMPLE) is it acceptable?

**INSERT**

In case we change the tread compound of the tire as the grading of treadwear is changeable, we need this kind of modification. According to your purpose of the amendment, we think this modification shall be allowed.

Sincerely yours,

K. Inoue National Technical Service Manager

KI/lg

ID: 1983-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flyer Industries Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 5 1983 NOA-30

W. E. J. Moss, P. Eng. Flyer Industries Limited 64 Hoka Street Box 245 Transcona P.O. Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R2C 3T4

Dear Mr. Moss:

This responds to your January 27, 1983, letter asking about the application of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to the front entrance doors of buses. You ask that the window retention test not be applied to your bus, because application of the required amount of force will cause the door to open. You state further that if the door had no glazing, it would not be tested for retention and, therefore, would be acceptable under the standard.

Standard No. 217 states that all glazing that exceeds 8 inches in diameter shall be tested for retention. During that test, neither the glazing nor the surrounding frame shall open in a manner that would allow a 4-inch sphere to pass through the opening. The intent of this requirement is of course to prevent the ejection of occupants in accidents.

The agency does test the front door of buses for compliance with this section if they contain glazing that meets the size requirement. In tests that have been conducted, most front doors have complied. Accordingly, the proper construction of front doors in compliance with the requirement would not appear to be a problem. The agency does not believe that it would be in the interest of safety to exempt front door glazing from the test requirements. Although passengers are required to stand behind the standee line as you note in your letter, they may easily be thrown forward of that line in an accident. The agency considers it important to reduce the possibility of their being thrown from the vehicle if such a situation were to arise.

You are technically correct that an all metal door would not be tested for compliance with this retention provision since it would not contain glazing. However, the agency would not view favorably the installation of doors in buses that open so easily in an accident. Use of such doors might be considered to be a safety-related defect subject to the agency's recall and remedy authority.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 27, 1983

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attn: Mr. R. Tildon 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Petition

Dear Sir:

I wish a clarification of FMVSS #217 on the front doors of a transit coach. This coach has two piece "slide glide" type doors.

If a solid aluminum door is used and tested to FMVSS 217 the door will deflect enough to permit passage of the 4" ball. In this case the door will pass FMVSS 217, as there is no glazing in the door.

In the case of glazing in the door, "this is necessary to allow the driver visability", the deflection will be the same magnitude as a solid door permitting the passage of a 4" diameter ball. This then does not pass the FMVSS test on this glazing, as the frame is not retained by its surrounding structure, nor can it be.

I ask for an exception for the front door glazing of a transit coach from FMVSS 217. This would not pose a danger as the passengers are asked to stand behind a whiter yellow line on the floor rearward of the front door area.

Yours truly,

W.E.J. Moss, P. Eng Test Engineer

/jc B-286

ID: 1983-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 7 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Richard H. Attenhofer Technical Manager, O.E Dunlop Tire Company Box 1109 Buffalo, New York 14240

Dear Mr. Attenhofer:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked if Dunlop could use a print type called OCR-A for the DOT symbol and the tire identification number.

Note 1 to Figure 1 of Part 574 specifies only four different print types which may be used for the DOT symbol and identification number, none of which are OCR-A. However, Note 4 to Figure 1 states that other print type will be permitted if approved by this agency. We have examined the print type shown in the diagram attached to your letter and have no objections to your company printing the required information in OCR-A type.

In the final rule establishing Part 574 (35 FR 17257, November 10, 1970), the agency explained that the reason for specifying only four print types which would be acceptable without advance agency approval was to ensure that the information would be easily readable by all persons. The OCR-A print type shown in the diagram attached to your letter is easily readable and thus satisfies our concerns in that regard. Accordingly, that print type is hereby approved.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 10, 1983

Mr. Steven Kratzke Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation wishes to utilize the latest electronic techniques for sorting and inventory control of automobile, motorcycle and truck tires which are subject to Tire Identification and Recordkeeping as defined in CFR 49, Chapter V, Part 574.

We request an interpretation of your office if the style of characters shown on the attached sketch 9522-DS do meet the requirements of Notes 1 or 4 shown in Figure 1 of Part 574.

Dunlop is grateful for your prompt consideration of this matter. Should you have any questions please call me direct at 716/879-8327.

Very truly yours,

DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION

Richard H. Attenhofer, Technical Manager, O.E.

ID: 1983-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/13/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: CONSUS INTERNATIONAL, INC

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Robert B. Wessel Consus International, Inc. P.O. Box 594 Port Jefferson Station, NY 11776

Dear Mr. Wessel:

This is in response to your December 1, 1982, letter regarding a warning device you plan to manufacture. The device is powered by 4 AA batteries, and has a light which can stay on continuously or can flash. You have asked whether the device complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 125.

Standard 125 applies to warning devices "without self-contained energy sources." The four batteries in your device which power the light would constitute such a source. Therefore, Standard 125 is inapplicable to your device.

If you have further questions on this matter, feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 1, 1982

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Rm 5219 U.S. Dept. Of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

To Whom It May Concern;

Please review the enclosed sample and advise complience with your standard 125. The unit is made to work with four "AA" Batteries and has reflective as well as lighted capabilities.

The light can stay on, or in the flasher mode will blink, and is visible at great distances.

Thank you in advance for your early response as we are waiting your acknowledgement before our marketing push.

I remain Very truly yours;

Robert B. Wessel

ID: 1983-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/13/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Andial

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 13 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Arnold H. Wagner Andial 3207 S. Shannon Street Santa Ana, California 92704

Dear Mr. Wagner:

This responds to your February 2, 1983, letter asking whether a child seat that you plan to produce must comply with Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. From the description of your child seat, it appears that the answer is yes.

Standard No. 213 states in section 4 that a child restraint system is any device used to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds. It is not necessary that a seat be equipped with its own restraint devices to fall within the ambit of the standard. If a device is designed to seat or position a child within the designated weight range, that device must comply with the requirements.

The instructions that accompanied your letter showed how the seat should be installed for children from three to six years of age and subsequently for children in the age range of six to ten. Certainly children in the three to six age bracket would fall within the weight range (50 pounds or less) designated in the standard. Since this is the case, it appears that your child seat is designed to seat or position children of the size specified in the standard and would therefore be required to comply with the requirements of the standard.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel February 2, 1983 Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Council US Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Approval of child restraint, by means of 3 point type belt system

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Enclosed please find copies of a letter from Arvin/Calspan to us, and a copy of the installation instructions of said restraint.

We understand that the application of FMVSS No. 213 restraint designs does not cover our particular system, and a formal decision is needed in order to get it safety approved.

We would like to ask you to consider our request at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely

Arnold H. Wagner Sec/Tres.

AHW/mgm

January 24, 1983

Mr. Arnold Wagner Andial 3207 S. Shannon Street Santa Ana, CA 92704

Dear Mr. Wagner:

We received your child restraint last week and have examined the restraint and the installation instructions. The design of this restraint (i.e., use of a three-point belt system) is not addressed in the Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213).

We have been informed by the Department of Transportation that a formal decision is required with regard to the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to restraint designs which are not specifically addressed in this safety standard. A request for a formal decision should be sent to:

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Council U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

I would suggest that you include a copy of your installation instructions.

A brochure of Calspan's child restraint testing capabilities is included with this letter. Our recommendation for a sled test program follows:

Sled Test #1 - Two restraints placed side-by-side on the sled (see Photograph #2 in brochure). One restraint will be occupied by a 3- year-old size dummy (15 kg) with the restraint installed as suggested for 9-18 kg children and the other restraint occupied by a 6-year-old size dummy (22 kg) with the restraint installed as suggested for 15-25 kg children. This test would be performed at 30 mph as required in FMVSS 213 Configuration 1.

Sled Test #2 - One restraint occupied by a 3-year-old size dummy with the restraint attached to the seat by means of a lap belt only, tested at 20 mph. This should satisfy the requirements of FMVSS No. 213, Configuration II.

Although FMVSS No. 215 only requires testing with the three-year-old size dummy, we have included a test with the larger six-year-old size dummy since your restraint is designed for use by larger children.

Calspan charges one thousand dollars ($1,000) U. S. funds for each sled test, regardless of the number of dummies used. This price includes high-speed movie films, electronic data, and photographs for each test and analysis and reporting of all relevant data.

I look forward to hearing from you soon. We would like to perform these sled tests in February if this is convenient for you.

Sincerely yours,

Barbara J. Kelleher Staff Associate Transportation Research/Physical Sciences

kd

Enc.

ID: 1983-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: C. H. Percy, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 18 1983 NOA-30

The Honorable Charles H. Percy United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Percy:

This responds to your letter of March 25, 1983 (Ref. 3084500004) requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Mary Ella Dockson. Ms. Dockson is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. She believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Following is a discussion of the implications under Federal law of installing these tinting films.

A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances, precludes the practice referred to by Ms. Dockson. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such as the type referred to in Ms. Dockson's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Ms. Dockson may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing solar film on their automobile windows.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure Constituent's Letter

ID: 1983-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ichikoh Industries Ltd. -- F. Takata, Manager, Technical Research and Homologation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. F. Takata

This is in response to your letter of March 10, 1983, to Marx Elliot of this agency, In that letter, you requested our view as to whether a mirror label printed by a "screen printing process" would comply with section 5.4.2 of FMVSS 111. The screen printing process involves painting the required warning label on the reverse surface of the mirror in such a way that the warning can be read from the front of the mirror.

Section 5.4.2 of FMVSS 111 provides that certain convex mirrors must have "indelibly etched" on the lower edge of the mirror's reflective surface the warning "Objects in Mirror Are Closer than They Appear." Your screen printing process uses a painting process to place the required lettering on a mirror. Since the process does not involve etching, mirrors having a warning placed on them by that process would not now comply with FMVSS 111.

You should be aware, however, that Toyota Motor Corporation has petitioned this agency to permit processes other than etching to be used to place the FMVSS 111 warning on mirrors. We expect to respond to the Toyota petition in the very near future. Should the agency grant the Toyota petition, it could result in an amendment to the Standard permitting the process described in your letter.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. W. Mark Elliot Rulemaking Program Manager Lighting & Visibility. NHTSA

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 111

Dear Mr. Mark Elliot,

First of all, we thank you very much for your kindly reply on headlamp regulation addressed to our Mr. Aihara. Your informations are very useful for us, thank you again.

We also produce the rear view mirrors for motor vehicle. We would like to ask you the interpretation of FMVSS no. 111, Section 5.4.2.. Section 5.4.2. is defined as follows:

S5.4.2 Each convex mirror shall have indelibly etched on the lower edge of the mirror's reflective surface in letters not less than 3/16 inch or no more than 1/4 inch high, the words "Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear".

The words "OBJECTS IN MIRROR CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR" on the sample mirror enclosed this letter was printed by screen printing process as shown in the attached sheets.

Questions: May we understand that marking method of enclosed sample complies with requirements of FMVSS No. 111, Section 5.4.2?

And if your have any comments on enclosed sample, please inform us. We await your early reply.

Very Truly yours.

F. Takata, Manager Technical Research & Homologation Enclosures