ID: 10334

Ms. Debra Platt
2289 Southeast Madison Street
Stuart, FL 34997

Dear Ms. Platt:

This responds to your letter of August 29, 1994, in which you inquire whether a child "partially sitting on a bus seat [is] provided crash protection of Standard 222." You explain that you were referring to a third child sitting on the edge of a bus seat nearest the aisle. The child can only face the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward, because the bench seat is overcrowded.

Some background information would be helpful in responding to your question. 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. (formerly known as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966) provides this agency the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each new vehicle or item of equipment that is sold to the consumer must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on its date of manufacture. However, once the vehicle or equipment is sold, the use of that product becomes a matter of State jurisdiction. NHTSA has no authority to regulate the operation of used vehicles or items of equipment.

With respect to school buses, it has been shown that school bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation in America (see enclosed School Bus Safety Report, May 1993). Every year, approximately 380,000 public school buses travel approximately 3.8 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school related activities. Occupant deaths per vehicle mile travelled in school buses are about one-fourth those in passenger cars. Crash protection in large school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds and which typically seat 16 or more, is provided by "compartmentalization." That concept requires strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed and evenly- spaced seats for school bus occupant protection. Compartmentalization has been shown to be effective by independent studies of the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Academy of Sciences. Small school buses, on the other hand, those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and which typically seat fewer than 16 occupants, must be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions.

Turning to your inquiry, this agency agrees it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, facing the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward. To get the full benefit of compartmentalization, the child occupant should face forward to be cushioned and contained between the strong, well-padded seat backs on the school bus. Thus, Standard 222 requires school bus passenger seats to be forward-facing (paragraph S5.1). When a child is sitting on the edge of the bus seat, as you described, it would seem that either the school bus is overloaded or the passengers are seating themselves improperly, indicating a possible lack of adequate supervision. This agency is seriously concerned about such conditions, but as pointed out above, once a vehicle is sold to the first retail customer, the use of that vehicle becomes the responsibility of the State.

Since the States regulate the use of school buses, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Governor's highway safety representative for Florida is:

Mr. Frank Carlile Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy 605 Suwanne St., MS-57 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Telephone: (904) 922-5820

I am also enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued jointly by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration and provides recommendations to the states on the operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Although these recommendations are not mandatory, they might be helpful in your discussions with school officials.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222 d:10/26/94

ID: 07-000295as

ID: 1982-2.5

DATE: 04/15/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Riken America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter inquiring whether it would be permissible for your company to label your tires in both the European metric size and the domestic P-metric size. Dual markings of sizes in the manner you have described are specifically prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109).

Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." A European metric size and its comparable domestic P-metric size are assigned different maximum load carrying capacities and different recommended maximum inflation pressures, because different formulae are used to calculate the load carrying capacities of the tires at the different inflation pressures. Because of the different load carrying capacities and recommended inflation pressures, substituting a European metric tire for a P-metric tire might cause the European metric tire to be unsafely overloaded. Dual markings could lead to such substitutions.

The dual-size markings you have requested were explicitly prohibited when this agency amended the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been expressly repeated in subsequent amendments addressing the question of tire labeling under the standard; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974, and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977. The agency's reasoning is that these dual size markings are a representation by the manufacturer that a particular tire meets all requirements of Standard No. 109 for both listed sizes, which is not true. In fact, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars, i.e., by representing that the manufacturer's tire is an appropriate replacement for either European metric or P-metric tires. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The only purpose of that label is to provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe operation of the consumer's automobile.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 16, 1982

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109

Dear Sir:

Riken America, Inc. is the importer of Riken Brand Automobile Tires into the United States. We, and the manufacturer, Okamoto Riken Gomu Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, are considering marking our "82 Series" of steel-belted radial tires with both the European (ETRTO) metric size and the new P-metric size. The line is currently using the European (ETRTO) metric sizes only.

The engineering department at Okamoto Riken Gomu Co., Ltd. has investigated the possibility of dual-marking our line and has determined that the tire specifications for the European (ETRTO) metric sizes are within the standard specifications established for the P-metric sizes as follows: Proposed P-Metric Riken ETRTO Size "Dual-Marked" Size Equivalent 155SR12 P155/80R12 155SR13 P155/80R13 165SR13 P165/80R13 165SR14 P165/80R14 165SR15 P165/80R15

Additionally, we would like to add the following sizes to our line: Proposed P-Metric Riken ETRTO Size "Dual-Marked" Size Equivalent 175SR13 P175/80R13 185SR13 P185/80R13 175SR14 P175/80R14

Please advise us if the dual markings upon the tires, assuming the specifications are proper for the P-metric sizes, would be acceptable under FMVSS 109 or any other D.O.T. applicable regulations. Your immediate reply would be greatly appreciated as we would like to start this program very soon.

Very truly yours,

RIKEN AMERICA, INC.;

Gary M. Ceazan -- Vice President

cc: B. Ceazan; M. Levitt; Y. Okamoto

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: 1984-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lamborghini of North America

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Trefor Thomas Managing Director Lamborghini of North America 23535 Telo Street Torrance, California 90505

Dear Mr. Thomas:

We have received your petition of July 6, 1984, for a two-year exemption of the Lamborghini Countach from the requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 that it be equipped with sun visors.

You have filed this petition pursuant to 49 CFR Part 556 on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety due to the construction of the car and the tinted band on the windshield. Petitions of this nature are appropriate where a product has inadvertently been manufactured out of compliance but the noncompliance has been corrected and the manufacturer seeks relief from the statutory responsibilities of notification and remedy for its past production. We do not understand this to be the case, as you have not reported importation of any Countachs without sun visors.

The proper procedure to obtain temporary exemptions from prospective noncompliances are those of 49 CFR Part 555. We assume that you have a copy of this regulation. If you wish to petition on one of the bases of this regulation, we shall be pleased to consider the matter further.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 6, 1984

The Administrator NHTSA Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

RE: PETITION FOR PARTIAL EXEMPTION FROM FMVSS #201-LAMBORGHINI COUNTACH LP 500S

Enclosed, please find our petition for partial exemption from Standard 201 for sun visors on the basis that such non-compliance is inconsequential in relation to road safety due to the construction of the car and the tinted band on the windshield.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Trefor Thomas Managing Director Lamborghini of North America

TT:ac Enc.

LAMBORGHINI OF NORTH AMERICA LAMBORGHINI COUNTACH LP500S PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM PART OF 49CFR PART 571.201.5.3.4.

49CFR 556.(B) (3)

APPLICANT: LAMBORGHINI OF NORTH AMERICA 17230 SOUTH AVALON BOULEVARD CARSON, CALIFORNIA 90746

Applicant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California.

49CFR 556.(b)(4)

Temporary exemption is requested from 49CFR, Part 571.201.5.3.4.

Sunvisors

5.3.4.1. A sun visor that is constructed of or covered with energy absorbing material shall be provided for each front outboard designated seating position.

Exemption is requested for a period of two (2) years. Vehicle concerned is the Lamborghini Countach LP500S. Number of vehicles involved is fifty (50) per year, for each of the two (2) years for which exemption is requested.

49CFR 556.4(b) (5)

Basis for petition

Our basis for request for exemption is probably more relevant to 49CFR 556, in that in our opinion the non-compliance of the vehicle with the sun visor requirement is inconsequential relative to motor vehicle safety.

The roofline, front header rail, (actually a part of the tubular steel roll cage) and the top portion of the windshield which is lightly tinted are relatively low and the angles subtended at the eye point relative to the horizontal plane by the roofline and the bottom of the tinted strip are as low as conventional sun visor placement would provide. The enclosed photograph shows the view from eye-level.

The enclosed diagram shows the position of a 50th percentile male's head from and the generation of the angles subtended at the eye-point by the header rail and the lowest point of the tinted portion at the top of the windshield.

"INSERT"

ID: 1984-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: T.M. Johnson, Jr. -- Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. M. Johnson, Jr. Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation Box 1109 Buffalo, N.Y. 14240-1109

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Specifically, you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of section S5.1 of Standard No. 119, which requires that a listing of the rims which may be used with each tire produced by a manufacturer be provided to the public. That section gives manufacturers the option of using the data provided for the tire size and the corresponding rims published in certain standardization organization yearbooks or listing the appropriate information "in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon request, and in duplicate to NHTSA." You enclosed a copy of a paper label you propose to affix to a 15-inch motorcycle tire which is not currently listed in any of the standardization organization publications, and asked if this would satisfy the requirement that the information be contained in a document furnished to dealers and to any person upon request. The proposed paper label would satisfy the requirements of section S5.1 of the standard.

In the past, manufacturers electing to list the appropriate information for the tire size have sent bulletins to their dealers and distributors with the necessary information. The reason for requiring this wide dissemination of the appropriate information when a tire size is not listed in a standardization organization publication is to ensure that the tire will be mounted only on appropriate rims and that the tire will be mounted only on vehicles where its load-carrying capacity will be adequate. The paper label you furnished along with your letter shows the appropriate dimensional and load-carrying data for the tire and rims, so it appears to serve the purposes of section S5.1. Further, as you noted in your letter, the paper label should reach outlets beyond your distributor network, whereas a service bulletin might not reach those outlets. Accordingly, I conclude that a paper label affixed to a tire, which lists the appropriate dimensional and loading information for the tire and suitable rims, would satisfy the requirement that the appropriate information be listed in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires.

July, 23 1984

Stephen Kratzke, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel 5219 407th Street SW Washington, DC 20590

RE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION MVSS119; S5.1, S5.1(a)

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

This confirms our prior conversations regarding Dunlop's intention to market a size MV85-15, load range C, motorcycle tire. This size is not currently listed in one of the publications referenced in MVSS119 S5.1(b). Enclosed is a copy of the tread label we hope to affix to every such tire and which contains the information we will supply to NHTSA and the public.

Paragraph S5.1(a) states "listed in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon request and in duplicate to" NHTSA. Rather than issuing a bulletin that may not reach actual points of sale (motorcycle accessory shops) beyond our Distributor network, we propose that the information be printed on the tire's tread label. Whoever fits the tire to a rim and motorcycle will have the required information readily available. Upon request, the label may be detached and provided to the customer.

Therefore, we are at this time requesting your office to provide an interpretation of the Standard with respect to inclusion of meaning of "document".

Your expeditious response to this proposal will be much appreciated, since we will begin distribution in August.

Very truly yours,

DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION

T. M. Johnson, Jr., Tire Performance Manager

ID: 1985-02.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Herbert Kramer -- Acting Supreme Court Justice

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Herbert Kramer Acting Supreme Court Justice Justices' Chambers 360 Adams Street Brooklyn, NY 11201

Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1985, concerning a case pending before you that involves tinted side windows in a 1980 BMW. You asked us to provide you with information concerning the marking that appeared on the windows. I hope the following discussion of our glazing standard and the significance of the window markings is of assistance to you.

NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles. We have issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance and other requirements for different items of glazing used in new motor vehicles. (I have enclosed a copy of the standard that was in effect for 1980 model year cars. Also enclosed is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard No. Z-26 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205).

The standard requires that glazing used in locations requisite for driving visibility have a luminous transmittance of 70 percent. The agency has considered all windows in a passenger car requisite for driving visibility. Thus, the side windows of a new 1980 BMW imported into the U.S. would have had to comply with the 70 percent luminous transmittance requirement.

Section S6 of Standard No. 205 requires glazing to have four items of identifying information on it. The four items are: a manufacturer's identification code assigned by our agency, the model number of the glazing assigned by the glazing manufacturer, the manufacturer's trademark or distinctive designation and an "AS" number indicating that it meets all of the performance requirements set for that glazing item number.

The markings you provided us from the aide windows of a 1980 BMW indicate the following. The marking "DOT 25" and "DOT 28 are code numbers assigned by this agency to prime glazing manufacturers. DOT 25 is the code number assigned to Flachglas AG of Bayern, Federal Republic of Germany. DOT 28 is the code number assigned to Vereinigte Glaswerke of Porz, Federal Republic of Germany. The markings "M202" and "MIOZ" (based on our experience with manufacturer's model number, we believe that "MIOZ" is a transcription error and should read "M012") are model numbers assigned by the glazing manufacturers. The markings "AS 2" signify that the glazing meets the requirement set in ANSI Z-26 for AS 2 glazing materials. The requirements for AS 2 glazing materials include a requirement in section 4.2 of ANSI Z-26 that AS 2 glazing meet the 70 percent luminous transmittance test of section 5.2. we believe the marking "Delodur - 1F Liz Sekurit" and "Duro-Glas 1F Liz Sekurit" are the trademarks or other distinctive designations assigned by the manufacturers. We do not know what the markings "BS 5282T", "0-295" and MD-291" represent, but we believe the latter two represent European manufacturer identification codes.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

March 14, 1985

Department of Transportation 400-7th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

There is a case presently before me concerning tinted side windows on a BMW 1980 automobile. Certain information was gathered from these windows and it is necessary for me to determine its significance, if any, with respect to the transmittance of light in accordance with the Vehicle & Traffic Law, section 375.

Please give me any pertinent information regarding the following data:

DOT 25 M202 AS 2 DELODUR - IF BS 5282T LIZ SEKURIT D-295

DOT 28 MIOZ AS 2 DURO-GLAS - IF LIZ SEKURIT MD 291 Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter. Very truly yours,

ID: nht87-2.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DOUGLAS H. BOSCO -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DOUGLAS H BOSCO, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 06/16/88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM DOUGLAS H. BOSCO; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 TO JERRY K YOST FROM L.F ROLLIN; LETTER DATED 03/28/8 8 TO C-MORE-LITE JERRYS SERVICE FROM DON O. HORNING RE TEST REPORT NO 92606; 1988 LETTER TO ERIKA JONES FROM JERRY'S SERVICE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bosco:

This is in reply to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Jerry Yost. Mr. Yost would like to know of the permissibility under Federal regulations of a headlamp relay which would allow a headlamp's lower beam to remain in operation when the u pper beam is activated. You enclosed some diagrams from Mr. Yost and asked for confirmation of his assessment that they would demonstrate that "the candela criterion in the existing regulations for high-beam" would be met "when low and high-beam are com bined."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the regulation governing the permissibility of relays allowing simultaneous operation of upper and lower beams on motor vehicle headlamps. The standar d specifies requirements for two generic types of headlamps, sealed beam (an indivisible unit encompassing the reflector, lens, and light source), and replaceable bulb (the replaceable in the event of burn out). Eight different types of sealed beam head lamps are permitted (denominated Types A through H), and three types of replaceable bulbs (He1, HB3, and HB4). However, in only one of the sealed beam systems is simultaneous operation of upper and lower beam specifically permitted, the Type F system (pa ragraph S4.5.12). Simultaneous beam operation is also permitted in replaceable bulb headlighting systems comprising four headlamps designed to conform to Type F photometry (S4.5.8, with Type F photometrics at Figure 15). Simultaneous operation of both beams is not a required feature of any of these systems but an option available to vehicle manufacturers. Thus, Mr. Yost's relay is permissible in any of these systems employing the simultaneous activation option.

However, simultaneous activation of both beams is explicitly prohibited in headlighting systems consisting of four replaceable bulb lamps designed to meet photometrics other than those of Type F (S4.5.8), and implicitly prohibited under the agency's inte rpretations of materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers relating to means of switching beams that are incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108. These materials refer to operation of separate beams with no reference to joint operation. As I discussed with your Administrative Assistant, Mitch Stogner, the agency's principal historic concern with simultaneous

2 activation of lower and upper headlamp beams is that the maximum candlepower limitations established by the Federal vehicle lighting standard could be exceeded. These limitations are set forth in SAE Standard J579c, the photometric requirements applic able to all headlighting systems except those designed to meet Type F photometry. These photometrics were intentionally adopted to allow simultaneous activation without exceeding the overall candlepower limit deemed desirable for motor vehicle safety. Based upon its research, the agency has concluded that frontal lighting on motor vehicles should not exceed 150,000 candela when the lamps are activated. In addition, the Type F. photometrics establish maximum values for two lower beam test points in o rder to reduce the possibility of excessive foreground light and glare resulting from simultaneous use. The diagrams that Mr. Yost provided describe the installation and operation of the relay, measurement of 7" circular headlamps (Type D under Standard No. 108) with a mechanical aimer, and how various types of headlighting systems look on the front of cars. While we appreciate having the benefit of this information, only that pertaining to the design of the relay is relevant to permissibility of use with systems designed to meet Type F photometrics.

As Standard No. 108 does not specify the design of relay switches, Mr. Yost should be encouraged to contact motor vehicle manufacturers who may be interested in using headlighting systems designed to meet Type F photometrics with the option of simultaneo us activation of both beams. The agency has no present plan to modify Standard No. 108 to allow simultaneous use with any system employing photometrics other than Type F and, as indicated earlier, considers this a prohibited practice with other systems.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-2.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOHN W. GARRINGER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/07/90 FROM JOHN W. GARRINGER TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, OCC 4751; LETTER DATED 02/01/90 FROM JOHN W. GARRINGER TO TERRY M. GERNSTEIN

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law permits the installation of tinted plastic film on the bottom of motor vehicle windshields. The purpose of this film would be to reduce glare for the driver and any front seat passengers. I am ple ased to have this opportunity to explain how our laws and regulations apply to such a product.

Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not appro ve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency pe riodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), which sets forth performance requirements for windows and other glazing items installed in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard N o. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the winds hield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmitta nce requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with your Hood Glare product installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and your tinting film must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer would be permitted to install your tinting film on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continue s to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering i noperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install tinting film if the addition of the ti nting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-4.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Roden -- Roden & Hayes

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your questions about the requirements for key-locking systems in section S4.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). As explained below, the enclosed copy of the agency's recent final rul e amending this provision may be relevant to your inquiry (55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990).

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

One such Federal safety standard is Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

Your first question asked whether section S4.2(b) requires key locking systems to prevent removal of the ignition key except when the transmission is in the "park" position. Section S4.2(b) currently requires such vehicles to have a "key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent...(b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle, or both." However, the agency has recently amended section S4.2(b) to read as follows:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.

For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

You should be aware that this amendment takes effect on September 1, 1992. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) merely requires that when the key is removed, the key-locking system must prevent steering or forward self-mobility, or both. This provision does not address the issue of the transmission's position at the time of key removal. In contrast, under the recent amendment applicable to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) requires automatic transmissi on vehicles to prevent removal of the key unless the

transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

Your second question asked whether a replacement key-locking system is required to comply with Standard No. 114. Because Standard No. 114 applies to new motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment, the standard does not in itself require aftermark et replacement systems to comply with its requirements. However, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly "rendering inopera tive," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard.

Your third question asked how long the key locking system is required to perform under S4.2(b) of the standard. The Vehicle Safety Act only requires manufacturers to assure that vehicles and equipment comply with applicable safety standards at the time of the first consumer purchase.

However, please note that if at any time a manufacturer or the agency determines that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, which could result from the failure of a system to operate properly, the manufacturer is required to no tify all product purchasers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge. See 15 U.S.C. SS 1411-1414.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

(Attached is a copy of 55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990 (text omitted))