ID: 86-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/14/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ralph Hitchcock for Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Harry H. Kazakian -- President, Corleone International Traders, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Harry H. Kazakian President Corleone International Traders, Inc. P.O. Box 3417 Los Angeles, Calif. 90028

This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1986 to which was attached a "Magic Eyes Brake Light". This device consists of two small lamps. whose primary functions are to flash automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use" The purpose of the device is to reduce rear end collisions. The artwork the package shows the lamps mounted at the base of the rear window on either side of the vehicle's vertical centerline. You asked that your letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking to require the device as original equipment, or for the aftermarket.

I regret that we have decided to deny your petition that the device be required as original equipment. The agency's research has shown that the most effective device for reducing rear end collisions is the single center high-mounted stop lamp, and the agency now requires that device to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars. You have presented no facts that demonstrate that an amendment of the nature you have requested is necessary. Although the agency has specified no requirements for aftermarket supplementary stop lamps (other than those that replace original equipment), on the basis of the agency's research, we believe that aftermarket equipment should meet as closely as possible the specifications for original equipment. Therefore, we are also denying your petition for aftermarket equipment.

We would like to advise you that there are no Federal restrictions on the importation and sale of "Magic Eyes". However, any State may impose its own restrictions on the use of this lamp on roads within its borders, and you should consult these laws before selling the device.

As a final note, the copy for model JA 201 on the package states "To comply with latest United States' regulations, this single lamp lights on automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use". Please delete the reference to United States regulations on your packages. The single lamp required by the United States is steady burning and has but one function, to indicate application of the brake pedal. It cannot be combined with any other light or device. In comparison, your lamp has two functions, and appears to flash in each.

As an accessory item of motor vehicle equipment, your lamp is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that if a safety related defect occurs in the lamp, the manufacturer or importer is obligated to inform dealers, distributors and purchasers to repair, repurchase, or replace the item. We are returning your device with this letter.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

Enclosure

APRIL 29, 1986

OUR REF. COR/030886 BANKERS: CALIFORNIA OVERSEAS BANK

INTERPRETATION CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Rm. # 5219 # 400, 7th St. South West Washington D.C. 20590

ATT: Erika Z Johns

Dear Erika,

In response to our conversation with Mr. Bob Nikelson in Department of Traffic Safety after a long conversation over the phone about the "Magic Eyes Brake Lights" we were advised to get your attention with this safety device,which could reduce a large quantity of rear endings, help saving lives in U. S. highways an street roads and at the mean time be helpfull financially. Therefore we would certainly appreciate to get your precious time and attention, if you would, to explain about this safety device after a small brief about our business.

Corleone International Traders Inc. is known as well established incorporation in U. S. A. with many satisfied customers. We have relations all over the world, we specialize medical items, auto accessories, foodstuff and many novelties. We also represent variety of manufacturers overseas on exclusive basis.

We would like to take this opportunity to introduce you one of our new sophisticated low coast brake light system which was invented and made with few of our engineers to reduce tail gating and rearending in U.S. highways. This magnificent system is "The Third Brake Light" of the car which has a built in sensor device. This system flashes automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use.

Our main goal is to see less rear endings in U.S. highways. Therefore we would like to have this sophisticated light activated sensors to be included in every auto's brake system is being built in U.S.A.

We sincerely would like to ask to have this "Safety Device" to be treated as a petition for rule making to require this device or permited originally or after market "Vehicle Safety Standard Cod- -108."

For your research and study we are including a sample of this device on the back of the carton explains product No."JA 101 WARNING LIGHTS" and "JA 105 MAGIC EYE SENSOR".

Dear Chief Council, we are taking this opportunities very seriously and depending on your full research and your answer.

At the mean time we are at your disposal for any information you may need or any questions you may ask. We are sincerely thanking you for your time and your attention at this matter and hoping to hear from you soon about your opinion, until than we remain

HARRY H. KAZAKIAN PRESIDENT

HHK/mb/lb

ID: 2637y

Ms. Betsy Dittemore
Legislative Liaison
Iowa Department of Public Safety
Office of the Commissioner
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319

Dear Ms. Dittemore:

Thank you for your letter regarding a bill introduced in the Iowa Senate that, among other features, would establish light transmittance limits for "sunscreening devices" that may be applied to the windows of motor vehicles operated in Iowa. I apologize for the delay in this response. You requested our office's interpretation about whether provisions of this bill would violate or be preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205).

As you are aware, this agency is authorized by section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that no person may manufacture, import, or sell any vehicle in the United States unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)), this prohibition no longer applies after the vehicle is sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a notor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ."

In the case of windows on a passenger car, this provision of Federal law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, because such action would "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 205. This same provision of Federal law prohibits a service station from permanently removing safety belts or permanently disconnecting brake lines on motor vehicles.

Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of a Federal statute or this agency's regulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles.

The individual States, however, have the authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles and to establish requirements for vehicles operated or registered in that State. The Iowa Senate bill enclosed with your letter appears to be an attempted exercise of this inherent authority.

You asked for comments on whether this bill, if adopted as law in Iowa, would be preempted by Standard No. 205. I assume you were referring to the provision in this Iowa bill that would prohibit the operation of motor vehicles required to be registered in the State of Iowa if the vehicle has a "sunscreening device" on the front side windows with light transmittance of less than 35 percent or on the rear window and side windows behind the driver with light transmittance of less than 20 percent. Since the original glazing on the vehicle could have had light transmittance of as little as 70 percent, this provision would permit overall light transmittance levels of as low as 25 percent for the front side windows and 14 percent for the rear windows.

This provision in the Iowa bill, and similar provisions in statutes adopted by other States, does not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittance of less than 70 percent on any window of a passenger car would have violated the "render inoperative" provision in Federal law, even if Iowa had in place a statute that would permit persons to operate and register vehicles whose windows had light transmittance that was far lower. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifications commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Iowa from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in the State of Iowa.

Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and this Iowa bill, and Iowa would be free to enforce the provisions of this bill if it is enacted into law. We would, however, urge the State of Iowa to carefully consider the adverse safety consequences that would result from enacting this bill into law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety. Your letter indicated that Iowa had also adopted this 70 percent light transmittance minimum as a State requirement for new vehicles. It is not clear why the State of Iowa would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance in new vehicles is satisfied by allowing light transmittance levels as low as 25 and 14 percent in vehicles to be operated in the State.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need 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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:205#VSA d:7/30/90

ID: 9759

Spectrum Engineering Group
1111 South Main Street
Cheshire, CT 06410

Dear Sir/Madam:

This responds to your letter to this office regarding your reconstruction of an accident involving a 16- passenger school bus. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You stated in your letter that the original latch/hinge mechanism of the right front entrance door of the bus in question was disabled by removal of the striker plate and equipped instead with a remote door opening/closing apparatus and latching mechanism. The bus was involved in an accident in which the driver was ejected through that door. You then asked a series of questions concerning the classification of the vehicle and the Federal safety standards pertaining to the door in question.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for certifying that the vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Once the vehicle or equipment has been sold to the first customer for purposes other than resale, Federal jurisdiction over the manufacture and sale of the vehicle or equipment generally terminates and use of the vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

You first asked, "Would this vehicle be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle, a bus, or a school bus?"

The answer to your question is that each manufacturer classifies its vehicles in accordance with the definitions set

forth in the Safety Act and in NHTSA's regulations. The Safety Act defines a "school bus" as [A] passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools. 15 U.S.C. 1391(14).

Our regulations define a "bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further define a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school and related activities, but does not include a bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR '571.3.

Thus, whether a vehicle is a school bus under our regulations depends on the purpose for which it was originally sold. Although you did not indicate who purchased the bus originally and for what purpose, you referred to the vehicle in your letter as a "mini school bus," you stated that the body was manufactured by Mid Bus, a school bus manufacturer, and the descriptive literature you enclosed with your letter depicts different models of small school buses manufactured by Mid Bus. Accordingly, it appears the vehicle in question would have been classified as a school bus under 49 CFR '571.3. Our regulations require the vehicle manufacturer to state the vehicle type classification on the vehicle's certification label. The certification label of the vehicle in question should have that information.

Your second question asks, "Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?"

With respect to FMVSS 206, Door locks and door retention components, the answer is no. Standard 206 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. The standard does not apply to buses.

With respect to FMVSS 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the standard specifies requirements for window retention other than windshields in buses, except buses designed to transport persons under restraint, and establishes operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits. The glazing requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 217 would apply to the right front entrance door, and if the door was also used as an emergency exit, it must also have complied when new with the emergency exit requirements of S5.2.3, S5.3, S5.4.2, and S5.5.3 of the standard.

Your third question asked, "Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door (particularly its loading requirements)?"

The answer is that apart from the provisions of FMVSS 217 discussed in our answer to your second question, there was no FMVSS in 1988 that specified performance standards for the right front entrance doors of buses. Effective September 1, 1993, however, the side door strength requirements of FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, will apply to 90 percent of the buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less produced after that date, and all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less produced on and after September 1, 1994, must comply with those requirements.

I would like to make the following observation about the modification of the door in question. Modifications of new and used vehicles by commercial parties are subject to '108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In this case, your letter did not indicate who disabled the original latch mechanism on the vehicle or who installed the remote door latch mechanism. If the work was done by a party listed in '108(a)(2)(A), the person modifying the vehicle was responsible for not degrading the performance of the door with regard to FMVSS 217.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, vehicle owners can modify the vehicle in any manner he/she chooses without violating any Federal requirements.

I hope this information answers your questions. We have enclosed copies of FMVSS 206 and 217 that were effective in 1988, photocopied from the October 1, 1987 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, as you requested. Should you have other questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:206#217 d:6/28/94

ID: AFTERMARKETWINDSCREEN

Mr. Rick Mckeon
P.O. Box 1845
Laguna Beach, CA 92652-1845

Dear Mr. Mckeon:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of United States safety standards to an "after-market product for the Mazda Miata intended to eliminate back-draft on the driver and passenger when the top is down or the plastic rear window is removed."

You ask whether the device must be transparent or translucent, or be a "screen" type material.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards.

NHTSA also has the authority to investigate and order recalls to remedy safety related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

As far as we can tell from your letter, your product appears to be an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Our statute defines "motor vehicle equipment," in relevant part, as any system, part, or component "sold as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B)). An item of equipment is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

1. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and
2. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Your back-draft eliminator appears to be an accessory because it was presumably designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. (We make this assumption because you designed the product for use in a Mazda Miata). Further, you state that the back-draft eliminator is an aftermarket product and, therefore, intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

The installation of a back-draft eliminator by a commercial entity is subject to certain restrictions. The Federal Vehicle Safety Act at 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the back-draft eliminator could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the ability of a vehicle to comply with any FMVSS. I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of the FMVSSs. You should carefully review the FMVSSs, particularly FMVSS Nos. 111 and 205 as discussed below, to determine whether installation of your back-draft eliminator would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standards.^up>

Pursuant to NHTSAs authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference an industry standard, the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26)."

Your companys product, as described in your letter, would be considered either item 4 or item 5 glazing subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26 if constructed of a glazing material, e.g., plastic or glass. Item 4 glazing includes safety glazing material for use in motor vehicles in auxiliary wind deflectors at levels requisite for driving visibility. We would consider the back-draft eliminator to be at a level requisite for driving visibility if it is at a level through which any size driver may view the road and traffic to the rear of the vehicle. Under FMVSS No. 205 and the ANSI standard, item 4 glazing must comply with Test Nos. 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 24 of the ANSI Z26 as well as Test No. 2. Test No. 2 applies a 70 percent light transmittance requirement to areas of glazing that are at levels requisite for driving visibility. Item 5 glazing includes safety glazing material for use in motor vehicles in auxiliary wind deflectors. This glazing must comply with the Tests cited above for item 4 glazing except for Test No. 2.

NHTSA has also issued FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, to establish performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Under this standard, your back-draft eliminator may or may not affect compliance of a vehicle with this standard, depending on its particular material, size or location within the vehicle. "Inside" rearview mirrors are required for "passenger cars" by the standard (paragraph S5.1). Since a passenger car, such as the Mazda Miata, must meet FMVSS No. 111's requirements by way of an inside rearview mirror, a back-draft eliminator could not obstruct the view provided by the inside rearview mirror (i.e., the mirror must continue to provide the scope of view required by the standard).

In addition, the manufacturer, whether your client or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30120, which set forth the notification and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the product is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful. For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:205
d.6/7/02

^[1] The 'make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles.

ID: 8326

March 30, 1993

Mr. Marty D. Pope President Wheels "R" Rollin, Inc. 6702 North Highway 66 Claremore, OK 74017

Dear Mr. Pope:

This responds to your February 18, 1993 letter to Walter Myers of this office. You stated in your letter and in telephone conversations with Mr. Myers that your firm obtains used wheels from salvage yards, mostly passenger car wheels, refurbishes them by sandblasting and refinishing them, then sells them to manufacturers of utility trailers. You asked how to "bring the wheels manufactured before 1977 up to standards" (referring to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars), and whether it is possible to "stamp the wheels previous to 1977 with a regulation code to approve their usability." "Wheels" refers to the wheel rim and the hub to which the rim is attached.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles (including trailers) and new items of motor vehicle equipment (including tires and wheels). The purpose of Standard 120 is to provide safe operational performance by ensuring that vehicles to which it applies are equipped with tires of adequate size and load rating and with rims of appropriate size and type designation. The standard applies to new trailers, and to rims manufactured on or after August 1, 1977. Violations of any of the standards are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum fine of up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

You ask about our requirements for the rims of the wheels you refurbish. The answer depends on whether the rim is intended to be installed on a new trailer or intended as a replacement rim for a used trailer.

If the rim is intended for a new trailer, the new trailer manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 120. Standard 120 establishes two requirements for the vehicle. First, S5.1.1 requires that the rims on a new trailer be listed by the manufacturer of the tires mounted on the trailer as suitable for use with those tires. Second, the rims on a new trailer must meet the rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120. Since the rims you refurbish were originally passenger car rims, they will not have the required markings, regardless of date of manufacture, because Standard 120 does not apply to passenger car rims. Therefore, trailer manufacturers may not install passenger car rims on new trailers unless those rims are marked in accordance with Standard 120.

If the rim is intended as a replacement rim on a used trailer, different requirements apply. The rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120 apply only to new rims manufactured on or after August 1, 1977. Refurbished wheels sold for used trailers are considered used wheels instead of new wheels for purposes of Standard 120, and are thus not subject to the rim marking requirements of the standard. As pointed out above, however, a new or refurbished rim installed on a new trailer must meet the rim selection and marking requirements of Standard 120 (S5.1.1 and S5.2).

Relatedly, you ask about marking a used rim with the information required by Standard 120 for new rims. Any rim, new or used, that is installed on a new vehicle must be marked with the "regulation code" (i.e., the "DOT" symbol constituting the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard 120) and the other information required by the standard. However, a rim manufactured prior to August 1, 1977, that is sold as a replacement rim must not be marked with the DOT symbol. NHTSA has long held that manufacturers may not show the DOT certification on items of motor vehicle equipment to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies. The reason for that decision is that such a certification would be false and misleading to NHTSA and to consumers who might assume that the item was subject to and met a Federal safety standard. Thus, since Standard 120 does not apply to rims manufactured prior to August 1, 1977, such rims cannot now be marked with the DOT symbol.

You should also be aware of two other provisions of the Safety Act. The first provision is 108(a)(2)(A), which provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. This means that a person in these categories cannot remove the label information required by Standard 120 during the refurbishing process.

Second, under 151-157 of the Safety Act, manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., wheel rims) are responsible for safety-related defects in their products. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety- related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a defective wheel rim is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) A refurbished rim that had been previously damaged (e.g., cracked, bent, or pitted) might not be capable of performing safely while in service.

For your further information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations and a fact sheet entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. The pamphlet briefly summarizes each of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the fact sheet advises where to obtain the full text of those standards and our other regulations. You may also find helpful the attached fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

We also note that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a regulation on the refurbishing of damaged rim components. You can contact OSHA at (202) 219- 7202, ATTN: Mr. Richard Sauger, for information about that regulation.

I hope this information is will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:120 d:3/31/93

ID: 21708.ztv

Ms. Carol Morton
Washington State Patrol
Equipment and Standards Review Unit
P.O. Box 42614
Olympia, WA 98504-2614

Dear Ms. Morton:

This is in reply to your fax of May 23, 2000, addressed to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked "Can Washington State legally license . . . off-road motorcycles for road use if they comply to our equipment requirements and are issued a 'state assigned vin'?" You report that Luke Loy of this agency sent you "information indicating that for our state to license off-road motor-cycles for road use appears to be a violation of 49 USC 30112."

Under the pertinent portion of 49 U.S.C. 30112, "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States," any motor vehicle unless it complies with, and is certified as complying with, all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Federal law does not address the licensing or operation of motor vehicles, which is left to the States. Under Section 30103(b), however, a State is expressly preempted from having a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a FMVSS unless the State standard is identical to the Federal requirement. We have interpreted this as preventing States from adopting or enforcing operational or licensing requirements that would preclude the operation of vehicles that comply with the FMVSS. Thus, for example, a State could not prohibit a motorcycle from being equipped with a modulating headlamp system in order to be licensed or operated because there is a FMVSS (Standard No. 108) that expressly allows such a system.

Federal law does not prohibit Washington from registering a motorcycle meeting such requirements as the State may have imposed for licensing either new or reconstructed motor vehicles, provided that the State's requirements applicable to an aspect of performance regulated by the FMVSS are not more stringent than those of the FMVSS.

The letter you enclosed from Baja Designs of San Diego states that the company manufactures and sells modification equipment to help vehicle owners bring their motorcycles "up to State Department of Transportation criteria." In the company's opinion, 49 U.S.C. 30112 "was not intended to stop the individual vehicle owner from modifying a vehicle to comply with specific State DOT requirements and re-titling the vehicle under a state's reconstructed vehicle titling process."

Baja's interpretation of Section 30112 is not on point. To be sure, Section 30112 was not intended to "stop" a vehicle owner from complying with State requirements. Its intent is to prohibit "a person" from failing to comply with Federal requirements that apply to the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles. The issue with which we are concerned under Section 30112, then, is the Federal requirements that may apply to the conversion of an off-road motorcycle to on-road use.

For purposes of this discussion, an "off-road motorcycle" is one that was not manufactured and certified as meeting the FMVSS that apply to motorcycles, because, under our interpretations, it was not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. The act of conversion for use on the public roads creates a motor vehicle to which new-vehicle FMVSS will become applicable at the time of the conversion. The FMVSS that apply to motorcycles are Standards Nos. 106 (brake hoses), 108 (lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment), 111 (rearview mirrors), 119 and 120 (tires and rims), 122 (brake systems), 123 (controls and displays), and 205 (glazing materials, if the motorcycle has a windshield). Therefore, the converted motorcycle must meet, and be certified to meet, all these FMVSS.

For purposes of compliance with DOT laws and regulations, we regard the converter as the manufacturer. However, under our interpretations on kit cars, a person who supplies all the equipment required to create a motor vehicle is also regarded as a "manufacturer." Baja has related that it supplies customers with "DOT approved lighting, DOT approved tires, mirrors, speedometers, custom wiring harnesses and other equipment to facilitate compliance with state and federal standards for street vehicles." From this list, we surmise that, at the least, Baja may be providing equipment that purports to bring off-road motorcycles into compliance with FMVSS Nos. 108, 111, 119, and 123. However, we cannot conclude on the basis of this correspondence that Baja is providing all equipment needed for on-road use, and specifically that required to comply with FMVSS Nos. 106, 120 and 122 . Therefore, it appears that the converter is the manufacturer and responsible under Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30112, for the compliance of the vehicle and its certification of compliance. We encourage all States to refuse to license vehicles for use on their roadways unless they are certified by their manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS.

Finally, we come to the question of whether the State may assign a VIN to a vehicle which we view as required to meet the FMVSS. One purpose of the Federal VIN, as expressed in section S565.1 of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, is "to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns." As noted above, the converter has become the manufacturer, and, as the manufacturer, it is also responsible for conducting recall campaigns. Where an individual has only modified his or her own motorcycle, we would not insist that the single converted vehicle be furnished with a VIN meeting Part 565, as compliance is not needed to achieve the purpose of the regulation. In this instance, a State may assign a VIN to the motorcycle. Our answer would differ, of course, if we had concluded that Baja is the manufacturer. In that event, Baja would have to furnish VINs that meet the requirements of Part 565.

One final point. In its letter, Baja uses the term "DOT approved." This term has no basis in either fact or law. We have no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment. If a "DOT" symbol appears on an item of equipment or its container, the "DOT" is the equipment manufacturer's certification that the equipment conforms to all applicable FMVSS. Such certification may be found as an indication of conformance with FMVSS Nos. 106, 108, 119, the rim requirements of 120, and 125. We do not know what Baja means by use of the term "DOT-approved mirrors," because FMVSS No. 111 does not apply directly to mirrors but specifies performance requirements that a motorcycle mirror system must meet when it is installed.

You have Taylor Vinson's e-mail address; please consult him if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/26/00

ID: 571-208--low risk deployment--Toyota

ID: 576intp.etl

Ms. Susan A. Longacre
President
Longacre and Associates, Inc.
8401 Corporate Drive, Suite 425
Landover, MD 20785

Dear Ms. Longacre:

This is in response to your letter to this office requesting certain information concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") regulation on the subject of "record retention," designated as 49 CFR Part 576. Your original request was addressed to Ms. Heidi Coleman of this office under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). As Ms. Enid Rubenstein of my staff previously explained to you by telephone, we are treating your letter as a request for interpretation rather than a FOIA request because your questions ask the agency to interpret the meaning of certain provisions of the regulation, as well to provide you with copies of documents. I am answering your questions in the order that you presented them; and have also enclosed a copy of the full text of 49 CFR Part 576 for your information.

Question 1. Have there ever been any "letters of interpretation" or requests for interpretation sent to NHTSA related to this part?

We were able to locate five letters in which NHTSA's Chief Counsel has interpreted 49 CFR Part 576. I have enclosed copies of these letters with this response. For your information, NHTSA's interpretations are also available in electronic form in a searchable database located on the World Wide Web at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/. For future reference, the agency's Technical Information Services office ("TIS") also has copies of all legal interpretations of NHTSA regulations. You can obtain copies of these interpretations from TIS in person at 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5110, Washington, D.C. 20590 between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; and you may also request them in writing from TIS at the above address.

Question 2: Does this requirement pertain to only records that relate to FMVSS compliance?

The answer is no. The regulation requires retention of records that relate to possible defects related to motor vehicle safety as well as records that relate to noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section 576.2 states that the purpose of the regulation is to preserve records that are needed "for the proper investigation, and adjudication or other disposition, of possible defects related to motor vehicle safety and instances of nonconformity to the motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations." [Emphasis added.]

Section 576.6 uses the inclusive term "malfunctions that relate to motor vehicle safety," rather than "noncompliance" or "defect related to safety" to describe the subject matter of the records that are covered by the regulation. Section 576.8, in turn, sets forth the types of "malfunctions" referred to in 576.6, and makes clear that these include defects that relate to safety, as well as noncompliances with safety standards:

. . . [M]alfunctions that may be related to motor vehicle safety include, with respect to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any failure or malfunction beyond normal deterioration in use, or any failure of performance, or any flaw or unintended deviation from design specifications, that could in any reasonably foreseeable manner be a causative factor in, or aggravate, an accident or an injury to a person.

Question 3: The requirement refers to all records relating to "possible defects." Does that mean that all developmental, material specifications, etc. must also be maintained? If not, what records over and above those relating to FMVSS compliance are required to be maintained?

As stated above, in addition to records relating to noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, Part 576 requires retention of records relating to possible defects related to motor vehicle safety. See 49 CFR 576.2. However, the regulation does not require a manufacturer to retain the "developmental, material specifications" that you refer to, for either type of malfunction (i.e., safety-related defect or noncompliance).

Neither Part 576 nor the preamble of any of the Federal Register notices surrounding its promulgation mention a requirement to retain documents relating to the design of the vehicle or to material or other specifications. The focus of the regulation is on records that either report or otherwise reflect the presence of a malfunction. Thus, 576.6 includes the following as records that a manufacturer must retain:

communications from vehicle users and memoranda of user complaints; reports and other documents . . . that are related to work performed under, or claims made under, warranties; service reports or similar documents . . . from dealers or manufacturer's field personnel; and any lists, compilations, analyses, or discussions of such malfunctions contained in internal or external correspondence of the manufacturer . . ..

The preamble to NHTSA's first proposal to adopt Part 576 confirms that the focus of the agency's interest in promulgating this regulation was to ensure that manufacturers would preserve records that reflected the existence of malfunctions, and did not extend to records about product development, design, or material specifications:

Typically, the manufacturer is the main recipient of complaints of malfunctions by the vehicle owner. Many reports of malfunctions are processed through channels for the administration of vehicle warranties by manufacturers and their dealers. Manufacturers' field service representatives may also serve as collection points for information of this nature. It is to be expected that manufacturers compile analyses and lists of malfunction reports, with a view toward product improvement, removal of design weaknesses, and of course the remedying of safety-related defects. Since some defects are not revealed as such until months or years after the vehicle's manufacture, a determination by NHTSA of the proper disposition of a possible defect . . . may be seriously hindered if manufacturers do not retain these records.

39 Fed. Reg. 30048 (Aug. 20, 1974).

In practice, manufacturers may retain other types of records that are outside the scope of Part 576. Although NHTSA may, and often does, make use of records such as those relating to design or material specifications when investigating possible safety-related defects or noncompliances, Part 576 does not require a manufacturer to retain them.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions concerning Part 576, you may contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at the above address or at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures (2): Set of 5 Interp Letters; Copy of Part 576
ref:576
d.2/5/98

ID: 77-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Timpte Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1977, letter asking whether your tire information label complies with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Part 567, Certification. Further, you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expedite treatment of Docket No. 73-31; Notice 1, which, if implemented would simplify the certification and information labels.

Concerning Docket 73-31, the NHTSA published on June 20, 1977, a notice (42 FR 31161) implementing Notice 1 which proposed the use of the designation "all axles" rather than listing each axle individually on the certification label. The implementation of this regulation should resolve many of your problems.

Regarding the sample information label you submitted with your letter, the NHTSA does not give advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety regulations or standards. We will, however, give an informal opinion of whether your label appears to comply with the requirements. The label you submitted does not appear to comply with the requirements of Part 567 or Standard No. 120. I have enclosed copies of both of these regulations for your information.

Your certification label should use the designation "all axles" not "each axle." The tire and rim information should follow that designation stated in the form presented in the examples in Standard No. 120 and Part 567.

SINCERELY,

TIMPTE, INC.

MAY 6, 1977

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

ATTENTION: JOAN CLAYBROOK, ADMINISTRATOR

WE ARE A MANUFACTURER OF SEMI-TRAILERS, BASICALLY REFRIGERATED VAN TYPE TRAILERS AS WELL AS GRAIN HAULING TRAILERS OF SEVERAL TYPES. THESE ARE HIGHWAY OPERATED UNITS AND ARE NON-EXEMPT FROM ANY FEDERAL STANDARDS INCLUDING 121. THE 60 M.P.H. RATING IS STANDARD ON ALL OF THEM AND IN THIS CONTEXT, WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT OUR PROBLEM AND ASK FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN EXPEDITING ACTION AS WELL AS ADVISING OF YOUR CONCURRENCE OR NOT WITH OUR INTERPRETATION OF PART 567, AS WELL AS STANDARD 120. AS YOU KNOW, IT IS NECESSARY THAT WE AS MANUFACTURERS, CHANGE OUR CERTIFICATION PLATES AND TIME IS NOW OF THE ESSENCE OF OBTAINING DELIVERY SO THAT IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE, IT BECOMES NECESSARY FOR US TO ACT RATHER QUICKLY.

PERTINENT TO THIS IS THE FACT THAT DOCKET #73-31; NOTICE #1 CLOSED COMMENT ON JANUARY 7, 1974 AND NO RESPONSE FROM NHTSA HAS BEEN FORTHCOMING, IN SPITE OF WHAT WAS APPARENTLY FAVORABLE POSITIVE COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RULE-MAKING. THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO PART 567.4 AND 567.5 WOULD GREATLY SIMPLIFY THE LABEL ITSELF AND YET NOT DETRACT FROM THE INFORMATION THEREON. SINCE NEARLY ALL OF THE HIGHWAY TYPE SEMI-TRAILERS MANUFACTURED HAVE IDENTICAL AXLES AND TIRES AND HENCE, GAWR RATINGS, IT SEEMS ONLY APPROPRIATE THAT A SINGLE GAWR RATING BE ALLOWED INDICATING THAT THAT IS FOR EACH AXLE OR ALL AXLES ON THE TRAILER. COMPARE THIS TO THE NECESSITY OF HAVING TO LIST FRONT, INTERMEDIATE, AND REAR AXLE GAWRS INDIVIDUALLY WHEN, IN FACT, NEARLY 100% OF THE TIME THEY ARE THE SAME. ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN THERE MIGHT BE A DIFFERENCE, THEN GAWR FOR THE DIFFERENT RATED AXLES WOULD BE REQUIRED. FURTHER, THIS NEED NOT MODIFY THE CONTEXT OF STANDARD 120 SINCE IN S5.3 (A) THE REFERENCE IS TO CERTIFICATION LABEL AS REQUIRED BY PART 567.4 OR 567.5.

ACCORDING TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF 120 AND WITH THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED IN DOCKET #73-31; NOTICE #1, OUR CERTIFICATION PLATE WOULD COMPLY AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED DRAWING 044-027A. S5.3.1 AND S5.3.2 CLEARLY ALLOW TIRE AND RIM DESIGNATIONS NOT NECESSARILY THOSE ON THE VEHICLE, BUT SUBSTANTIVE OF THE GAWR SHOWN. S5.1.2 IS COMPLIED WITH IN THAT 10:00X20F, RIMS 7.5 AT 75 P.S.I. COLD DUAL, IS THE MINIMUM TIRE THAT WILL GIVE THE GAWR OF 19,000 LBS. WHICH AGAIN IS THE MOST COMMON ONE IN USE TODAY DUE TO OTHER LIMITING FACTORS OF THE SUSPENSION, AXLE, WHEEL AND BRAKE SYSTEMS. OF COURSE, THE NEXT TO THE LAST SENTENCE WOULD BE COMPLIED WITH AND DOES ALLOW FOR TIRES FITTED TO THE AXLE NOT APPEARING ON THE CERTIFICATION LABEL. IN ALL CASES, THESE TIRES WOULD BE IN EXCESSIVE RATINGS OF THOSE WE WOULD HAVE PRINTED ON THE LABEL. FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, MANY OF OUR TRAILERS BEING SOLD THROUGH DISTRIBUTORS AND/OR DEALERS ARE EQUIPPED WITH TIRES OF A CERTAIN SIZE LEAVING OUR PLANT; HOWEVER AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, WHEN HE DISTRIBUTOR OR DEALER IS SELLING THESE TRAILERS FROM STOCK, THEY MAY BE EQUIPPED WITH A DIFFERENT SIZE TIRE, YET ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN THE GAWR.

THERE ARE TWO MORE POINTS IN REGARD TO THAT CERTIFICATION TAG AND ONE OF THEM IS POSSIBLE ELIMINATION OF THE ABBREVIATION OF THE WORD MINIMUM PRECEEDING TIRES. WHILE IT IS FACTUAL, IT IS NOT INDICATED IN THE STANDARD. THAT CAN EASILY BE ELIMINATED IF IT WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE STANDARD. THE OTHER ITEM THAT WE FEEL MIGHT BE DESIRABLE TO DO IS HAVE IN PLACE OF THE BLANK IN WHICH WE MUST STAMP NUMBERS OPPOSITE GAWR EACH AXLE, TO HAVE THAT PRINTED IN AT THE TIME OF THE MANUFACTURE OF THE LABEL IN THE SAME MANNER THAT WE WOULD THE TIRES AS SHOWN PRINTED IN. THE NUMBER WOULD BE 19,000 LBS. AS MENTIONED, THIS IS THE NEAR UNIVERSAL STANDARD RATING ON AXLES IN REGARDS TO VARIOUS OTHER LIMITING STANDARDS. THIS OF COURSE, LEAVES A MINIMUM OF ITEMS TO BE STAMPED IN ON THE PLATE AND STILL GIVES THE TOTAL INFORMATION REQUIRED. BUT FOR ANY POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS THAT MIGHT OCCUR, WE WOULD PROPOSE USING A PLATE SIMILAR TO 044-027, THEREIN WE WOULD BE STAMPING ALL OF THE INFORMATION AND WE WOULD SUSPECT THAT THIS WOULD ONLY BE USED POSSIBLY 5% OF THE TIME.

I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE ONCE AGAIN THE URGENCY FROM A STANDPOINT OF TIME AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ORDERING, MANUFACTURING AND DELIVERY OF THE CERTIFICATION PLATES TO US. EXPEDITED FAVORABLE ACTION ON DOCKET #73-31; NOTICE #1 WILL GREATLY CLARIFY THINGS FOR OUR ENTIRE INDUSTRY AND WHILE IN THE INTERPRETATION AREA, WE ARE SPEAKING OF OUR OWN PLATE, THIS TOO, WOULD BE CLARIFIED BY AN OPINION FROM YOUR OFFICE. THANK YOU.

JACK GROMER VICE PRESIDENT - TECHNICAL OPERATIONS

CC: TTMA

ID: 1983-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Young; Member of Congress

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Robert A. Young Member of Congress 4150 Cypress Road St. Ann, MO 63074

Dear Mr. Young:

Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the potential hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the use of opaque glass in automobiles. Through the exercise of its motor vehicle safety authority, the agency has addressed a part of this potential problem. However, given the limitations on the agency's authority, additional State action is needed to eliminate this potential problem.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the agency has issued 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. The specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

In past interpretation letters, the agency has said that solar film and other materials used to make windows opaque 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 resistance requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to the first 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.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter the vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting or other film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not the installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the 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 to comply with a Federal safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a tinting or other film on a vehicle for an owner if that action would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance perfomance of the vehicle's glazing. Violation of the render inoperative provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to ,000 for each violation.

State law, rather than Federal law, governs the operational use of vehicles by their owners. Thus, it is up to the States to preclude owners from applying tinting or other films to their vehicle windows. A number of States have already adopted such laws. The agency would be glad to provide technical assistance on glazing requirements to the appropriate Missouri highway safety officials working on this problem.

I hope this explains the agency's authority to address the potential problems posed by tinting and other films. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosure Constituent's Letter

Ms. Diane Steed Administrator-Designate National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed,

Enclosed is a letter from Mr. James Stewart, Director of the National Institute of Justice, in regard to potential safety hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the presence of opaque glass in automobiles. As you will note, Mr. Stewart feels your Agency might be of some assistance in this matter.

I would appreciate your review of the potential dangers of this situation. Please advise me of your findings by writing my district office in St. Ann, Missouri.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Robert A. Young Member of Congress

RAY:wv

Enclosure

The Honorable Robert A. Young House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Young:

This is in response to your letter on behalf of Overland Police Chief Eddy Williams concerning the problem of opaque glass in automobiles.

As a former chief of the detective division of the Oakland, California, Police Department, I can appreciate Chief Williams' concern about this possible hazard to law enforcement officers. At present, the National Institute of Justice has no information on this problem. However, I have asked my staff to look into the matter and will keep you apprised of our findings.

Meanwhile, I would suggest that Chief Williams contact the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, regarding this growing danger. The NHTSA conducts programs relating to the safety of motor vehicles and provides Federal matching funds to assist States with their motor vehicle safety programs. Perhaps the NHTSA could help in alerting States and automobile manufacturers to the danger opaque glass in autos presents to police officers who must stop and approach such vehicles without being able to see the persons inside.

Thank you for your interest in the well being of the Nation's public safety officers. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

James R. Stewart Director National Institute of Justice