ID: nht88-3.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CLARENCE M. DITLOW -- EXEC. DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 9-9-88 TO ERIKA JONES, NHTSA, FROM CLARENCE M. DITLOW, EXEC. DIR., CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY, OCC-2525; LETTER DATED 8-02-88 TO CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY FROM JOANNE P. DELL'AQUILA

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking us to "investigate" a service bulletin issued by General Motors to its dealers regarding rear seat lap/shoulder belt kits to be retrofitted in models from earlier model years. You objected to General Motors' decision not to provide retrofit kits for all models, because all earlier models have shoulder belt anchorages and because you question the statement in General Motors' service bulletin that rear seat lap/shoulder belts in certain models would not offer better pr otection for rear seat occupants than lap belts alone. You concluded by alleging that General Motors' "refusal to provide shoulder belt kits for selected models is effectively frustrating" the purpose of requiring anchorages for rear seat shoulder belts to be installed in cars made since 1972 and our policy of encouraging manufacturers to provide retrofit kits for rear seat lap/shoulder belts in older vehicles.

I disagree with your allegations. Let me begin by emphasizing that we continue to support the use of rear seat lap belts, the restraint system found in most cars on the road today. While rear seat lap/shoulder belts may be even more effective, numerous studies have confirmed that rear seat lap belts are effective in reducing the risk of death or serious injuries to occupants. Therefore, NHTSA continues to urge all motorists to use the available safety belt systems in their vehicles.

However, we are encouraging vehicle manufacturers to make rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits available for those consumers who desire them, such as Ms. Dell'Aquila. General Motors has indicated to us that such a retrofit kit is available for Ms. Dell'Aquila's 1988 Buick Regal. However, General Motors' bulletin to its dealers appears to indicate that retrofit kits are not available for those cars. To clear up any confusion, we have forwarded a copy of Ms. Dell'Aquila's letter to General Motors for their response.

2

The allegations in your letter, however, go far beyond Ms. Dell'Aquila's situation to suggest erroneously that her experience shows some failure of our efforts to ensure that rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits are widely available. As you were to ld in Administrator Steed's April 28, 1987 letter to you on this subject, NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to require all manufacturers to make rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits available for all older models. Absent such authority, t he agency has sought the voluntary cooperation of the manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them. The vehicle manufacturers' voluntary positive response to our encouragement is demonstrated by the current availabil ity of retrofit kits for a wide variety of model lines. In fact, the General Motors Information Bulletin enclosed with your letter shows that company has retrofit kits now available for more than 50 models of its cars, trucks, and vans.

The fact that retrofit kits are not available for all model lines produced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy. If a manufacturer makes a good faith determination that it is not ap propriate to make retrofit kits available for certain of its past models, that determination presumably reflects a thoughtful consideration of the characteristics of those individual models. We have no reason to question General Motors' determination wi th respect to a few of its past models.

ID: 3131o

Mr. Clarence M. Ditlow
Executive Director
Center for Auto Safety
2001 S Street, N.W.
Suite 410
Washington, D.C. 20009

Dear Mr. Ditlow:

This responds to your letter asking us to "investigate" a service bulletin issued by General Motors to its dealers regarding rear seat lap/shoulder belt kits to be retrofitted in models from earlier model years. You objected to General Motors' decision not to provide retrofit kits for all models, because all earlier models have shoulder belt anchorages and because you question the statement in General Motors' service bulletin that rear seat lap/shoulder belts in certain models would not offer better protection for rear seat occupants than lap belts alone. You concluded by alleging that General Motors' "refusal to provide shoulder belt kits for selected models is effectively frustrating" the purpose of requiring anchorages for rear seat shoulder belts to be installed in cars made since 1972 and our policy of encouraging manufacturers to provide retrofit kits for rear seat lap/shoulder belts in older vehicles.

I disagree with your allegations. Let me begin by emphasizing that we continue to support the use of rear seat lap belts, the restraint system found in most cars on the road today. While rear seat lap/shoulder belts may be even more effective, numerous studies have confirmed that rear seat lap belts are effective in reducing the risk of death or serious injuries to occupants. Therefore, NHTSA continues to urge all motorists to use the available safety belt systems in their vehicles.

However, we are encouraging vehicle manufacturers to make rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits available for those consumers who desire them, such as Ms. Dell'Aquila. General Motors has indicated to us that such a retrofit kit is available for Ms. Dell'Aquila's 1988 Buick Regal. However, General Motors' bulletin to its dealers appears to indicate that retrofit kits are not available for those cars. To clear up any confusion, we have forwarded a copy of Ms. Dell'Aquila's letter to General Motors for their response.

The allegations in your letter, however, go far beyond Ms. Dell'Aquila's situation to suggest erroneously that her experience shows some failure of our efforts to ensure that rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits are widely available. As you were told in Administrator Steed's April 28, 1987 letter to you on this subject, NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to require all manufacturers to make rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits available for all older models. Absent such authority, the agency has sought the voluntary cooperation of the manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them. The vehicle manufacturers' voluntary positive response to our encouragement is demonstrated by the current availability of retrofit kits for a wide variety of model lines. In fact, the General Motors Information Bulletin enclosed with your letter shows that company has retrofit kits now available for more than 50 models of its cars, trucks, and vans.

The fact that retrofit kits are not available for all model lines produced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy. If a manufacturer makes a good faith determination that it is not appropriate to make retrofit kits available for certain of its past models, that determination presumably reflects a thoughtful consideration of the characteristics of those individual models. We have no reason to question General Motors' determination with respect to a few of its past models.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:208 d:ll/l/88

ID: 1983-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Deltana Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Philip H. Wong Deltana Enterprises, Inc. 12871 S.W. 117 Street Miami, Florida 33186

Dear Mr. Wong:

This responds to your letter to this office asking for information on regulations applicable to the importation of new tires, retreaded tires, and used tire casings from Japan into this country. It is not clear from your letter whether you are interested in importing passenger car tires or tires for use on other motor vehicles. To ensure that you get the information of concern to you, I will discuss the three situations you asked about for both passenger car tires and tires for use on other motor vehicles.

Generally speaking, all tires which are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must have the symbol "DOT" molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard. The importation of any tire without the DOT certification symbol on the sidewall would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), and the importer would be subject to a civil penalty of $1000 for each tire he imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall.

New passenger car tires. Section S4.3.1 of Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109) (copy enclosed) requires that all new passenger car tires have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country. New tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Section S6.5(a) of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119) (copy enclosed) requires that all new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.

Retreaded passenger car tires. Section S6.1 of Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S571.117) (copy enclosed) requires that all retreaded passenger car tires have the symbol DOT molded into the side-wall by the retreader. Retreaded passenger car tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.

Retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. No Federal safety standard is applicable to these tires. They may be imported without certification of compliance by the re- treader. However, these tires must have a tire identification number marked on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574 (copy enclosed), if they are to be legally sold in the United States. It would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(E) to sell tires without an identification number.

Used passenger car tires. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) reads in part as follows: "No person shall...import into the United States... any item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard..." The effect of this language is to require that passenger car tires manufactured on or after the date Standard No. 109 took effect (January 1, 1968) be certified as complying with that standard, whether the tire is now new or used. To be legally imported into the United States, used passenger car tires must either have a DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the original manufacturer or be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before January 1, 1968.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. The same reasoning applied above in the case of used passenger car tires applies to these tires as well. Standard No. 119 took effect on March 1, 1975, so used tires to be imported into the United States must either have a DOT symbol on the sidewall or proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars which have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are imported solely for the purpose of being retreaded in this country prior to resale may be imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirement that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported.

You also asked for any other information which your supplier might need to export tires to the United States. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Yang Ru-tang, which sets forth the requirement which must be satisfied in order for a foreign manufacturer to export tires to this country.

If you need any further information on this subject, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

JULY 12, 1983

Office of Chief Council 400 7th Street S.W. Washington- D.C 20590

Dear Sirs:

I am requesting information regarding regulations concerning the importation of new, recaps and used tire casings from Japan to the United States for resale and export. Please advise regulations here regards to Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 119 and any other applicable regulation or information which my supplier requires.

Thank you for your cooperation and advice.

Sincerely yours,

Philip H. Wong

ID: aiam2418

Dear Mr. Matthews: This is in response to your September 13, 1976, letter concerning ' line of racing/rally tires that are not Department of Transportation marked.'; I understand from your recent telephone conversation with Mar Schwimmer of my staff that the tires with which you are concerned are of the following size designations: 165/70 HR 10, 225/60 HR 14, 225/60 HR 13, and 195/70 HR 13.; Section S6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *Ne Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars*, reads as follows:; >>>S6. *Nonconforming tires*. No tire of a type and size designatio specified in Table I of Appendix A that is designed for use on passenger cars and manufactured on or after October 1, 1972, but does not conform to *all the requirements of this standard*, shall be sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or imported into the United States, for any purpose. (emphasis added)<<<; because the size designations of the tires in question all appear i Table I of Appendix A, these tires are subject to the prohibitions of S6 unless they were manufactured before October 1, 1972. 'All the requirements of the standard' include both performance and labeling requirements.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 86-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/14/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Grace Cheng -- Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center (Taiwan)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Grace Cheng Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan, Taiwan 330 REPUBLIC OF CHINA Dear Ms. Cheng: Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1986, concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether S4.1.2.3.1(a) of the standard requires a vehicle with a manual, nondetachable Type 2 safety belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard. However, we have recently set 30 mph frontal crash protection requirements for manual Type 2 safety belts used in the frontal outboard seating positions in future passenger cars. The dynamic test requirement for manual safety belts would go into effect on September 1, 1989, if the automatic restraint requirement of Standard No. 208 is rescinded. A copy of the notice on dynamic testing of manual safety belts is enclosed. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Dear Sirs;

It is so kind of you to solve our continuous inquiries. Here we would like to ask you one question as follows:

In regard to FMVSS 208, if we choose the third option S4.1.2.3.1(a) to equipped our cars with type 2 seat belt assemblies (nondetachable) that conform to FMVSS 209, then should our cars still be required to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S 5.1 in a perpendicular impact?

Please answer us sooner and it will be highly appreciated.

Librarian Grace Cheng

ID: 1985-03.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Kathryn L. Samuelson, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Kathryn L. Samuelson, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Champaign 102 North Neil Street Champaign, Illinois 61820

Dear Ms. Samuelson:

Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1985, to Mr. Gary Butler of our Region V office, which was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether Federal law requires safety belts to be installed end used in several types of vehicles. I understand from conversations between my staff and Mr. Butler that Your question is related to the provision of Illinois' belt use law which exempts a person operating "a motor vehicle which is not required to be equipped with seat safety belts under federal law" from the safety belt use requirement. I hope the following discussion is of assistance to you in your effort to ensure that the City of Champaign is in compliance with Illinois' safety belt use requirement. I believe that Illinois' law and your efforts can have an immediate and beneficial safety impact on the citizens of Champaign. I would encourage you to have all occupants of municipal vehicles wear their safety belts regardless of whether they are covered by your State's belt use requirement.

This agency has issued, under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which requires the installation of occupant restraints, such as safety belts, in vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires only the installation of the restraints; it does not require their use. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. I hope the following discussion explains how Standard No. 208 applies to each of the vehicles you mentioned.

You asked about fire trucks and public work trucks. Those vehicles would be governed by S4.2 or 4.3 of the standard, depending upon the gross vehicle weight rating of the truck. Police cars would be classified as passenger cars under our standard and currently would have to comply with the requirement of S4.1.2 of our standard.

The application of the standard to the remaining category of vehicles you asked about would depend upon their construction and use. All of our standards apply only to motor vehicles. The Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (15 U.S.C. 1391(3))

In interpreting this definition, the agency has said that a vehicle which cannot exceed 20 mph and has an unusual configuration which sets it apart from the rest of the traffic is not a motor vehicle and thus does not have to comply with our standards, even if it uses the public roads. These vehicles, typically, are highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers and other similar vehicles. Thus, if the snow plows, road graders and other specialized types of public work vehicles you asked about have a top speed that does not exceed 20 mph and have an unusual configuration, they would not be covered by Standard No. 208 However, if these vehicles are conventional trucks that use the public roads and have specialized work equipment mounted on them, then they would have to meet the occupant crash protection requirements set in Standard No. 208 for trucks.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: City of Champaign Request Formal Date: June 7, 1985 Opinion on Standard 208 as Relates to Municipal Vehicles

From: Donald A. Williamson Reply to Regional Administrator Attn. of: NHTSA, Region V, Homewood, IL

To: Jeffery R. Miller Chief Counsel, NOA-30 Washington, D.C.

The City of Champaign is concerned that its municipal vehicles comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. As you know, the State of Illinois has a mandatory safety belt use law which goes into effect July 1, 1985. Apparently, the City would like to advise its employees to comply with the State law when in vehicles that are required to be equipped with safety belts.

Please review the attached letter and prepare the appropriate agency response. If additional information is needed, please contact me. I appreciate your attention to this request.

Donald A. Williamson

CITY OF CHAMPAIGN

June 4, 1985

Mr. Gary Butler Program Manager NHTSA 18209 Dixie Highway Homewood, Illinois 60430

RE: Seat Belt Use

Dear Mr. Butler:

After my conversation with you on May 20, 1985, Mr. Stavins, the City Attorney, asked that I write you and ask that you send us a written opinion in relation to certain types of municipal vehicles. We would appreciate a written opinion on whether or not federal law requires seat belts to be installed and used in the following types of vehicles:

1. Fire trucks 2. Squad cars 3. Snow plows 4. Road graders 5. Other specialized types of public work vehicles 6. Public works trucks

Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Kathryn L. Samuelson Assistant City Attorney KLS:eb

ID: aiam3956

Dear Mr. Reese: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking fo an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.120). Specifically, you indicated you were writing on behalf of Mannesmann Kronprinz, a German branch of your company which manufactures wheels. You noted that section S5.2(d) of Standard No. 120 requires rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars to be marked with the name, trademark or symbol identifying the rim manufacturer, and asked if this requirement meant that the German branch of your company had to register its logo or trademark with this agency. Standard No. 120 does not require manufacturers to register trademarks or symbols with the agency. However, 49 CFR S551.45 requires *all* manufacturers whose vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment are imported into the United States to file a designation of agent with NHTSA, and this designation must include a listing of the marks, trade names or other designations of origin used by the manufacturer on its products. A check of our files shows that no such designation has ever been filed by Mannesmann Kronprinz.; Section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 sets forth rim marking requirement applicable to all rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. One of the items of information required to be marked on such rims is 'a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol', S5.2(d). This information allows the agency and the public to identify the manufacturer of the rim if there is some problem with it.; The use of a trademark or symbol is allowed, instead of th manufacturer's name, because the agency can easily determine the identify of the manufacturer from the trademark or symbol. In the case of domestic manufacturers, their trademarks or symbols would be registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In the case of foreign manufacturers, 49 CFR S551.45 requires them to file a designation of agent with this agency. One of the items of information required to be included in the designation of agent is a listing of 'the marks, trade names, or other designations of origin' which appear on any of the manufacturer's products in lieu of its legal name.; Both 49 CFR S551.45 and 15 U.S.C. 1399(e) require all foreig manufacturers to file a designation of agent with NHTSA *before* importing motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, including wheels into the United States. I have enclosed copies of the regulation and the statute for your reference. As you will see, Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:; >>>1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and bindin on Mannesmann Kronprinz under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailin address for Mannesmann Kronprinz,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin for any o Mannesmann Kronprinz's products which do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by Mannesmann Kronprinz,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed b the Mannesmann Kronprinz, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.<<< Further, 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment covered by our standards to provide certain information to NHTSA. The required information is simply the manufacturer's full name, address, and a brief description of the motor vehicle equipment it manufactures.; Should you have any further questions in this area, please contact Mr Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1248

Dear Mr. Russell: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1973, which request information on the requirements of Standard 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*, and suggests that door locking mechanisms should prevent operation of the inside and outside handles (latch release controls) of both front and rear doors.; The standard presently requires that engagement of the front-doo locking mechanism on passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, and trucks render the outside door handle (latch release control) inoperative. On passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, engagement of the rear- door locking mechanism must render both inside and outside handles inoperative. Your suggestion that inside door handles also be rendered inoperative was proposed in 1967 as an initial standard, but it was determined at that time that ease of escape in the event of accident made one-step operation of the door more desirable. It was concluded that the vehicle operator would have sufficient control over children in the front seat to permit such override operation.; We are still interested in the best arrangement of locking mechanism and override at the various seating positions. At the moment, available accident data does not justify further rulemaking. Your comments will be fully considered in the event we decide to take further action.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2505

Dear Lt. Townsend: This is in response to your December 16, 1976, letter concerning tire marked 'Reno Farm Tire--Farm Use Only' that are appearing on some passenger cars in Oklahoma. I understand that the DOT symbol is also marked on the sidewalls of these tires, as a certification of conformity to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars*.; Paragraph S6 of the standard precludes the manufacture of farm tires i passenger car tire sizes unless those tires conform to and are certified as conforming to all aspects of the standard. There is not, however, any provision in Standard No. 109 that prohibits the additional marking that you have described on a tire that is manufactured and sold for passenger car use. No safety issue appears to be presented by this situation.; You have also asked who is responsible for compliance with the Tir Identification and Recordkeeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574, copy enclosed). That regulation creates various obligations for tire manufacturers, motor vehicle manufacturers, motor vehicle dealers, and others. Where(sic) a tire manufacturer sells tires to a trailer manufacturer, the presence of the 'Farm Use Only' marking has no effect on those obligations.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3112

Dear Mr. Ohmura: This responds to your recent letter asking whether a bus bar extensio on rear-window passenger car glazing would comply with Safety Standard No. 205. I assume from your letter that the bus bar is a defrosting template that is embedded in the glazing material.; Safety Standard No. 205, through the ANS Z26 standard that i incorporated by reference, requires glazing materials requisite for driving visibility in passenger cars to have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent (Test No. 2 in ANS Z26). This requirement would be applicable to rear- window glazing for passenger cars, since these windows are necessary for driving visibility. Rear-window glazing that contains a bus bar extension and electrical template wires would still have to comply with the 70-percent luminous transmittance requirement, when tested in accordance with Test No. 2. The .67- inch bus bar extension would not preclude compliance with this requirement, although it obviously has no luminous transmittance, if the remaining parts of the glazing meet the 70-percent requirement. However, if the electrical wires of the template are so numerous or located so near each other that a tested section of the glazing would not have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent, the rear window would not be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 205.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel