ID: nht75-3.49

DATE: 05/27/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association March 28, 1975, request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) review its position that building a trailer from new materials in combination with the running rear of an existing trailer constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable safety standards. You also request confirmation that modification of the barrel of a tank trailer to replace compartments or to add to its volume does not constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

NHTSA has already reconsidered its interpretation of what constitutes the manufacture of a new truck in cases where components from an existing vehicle are used. Based on the high value of the drive train components found in powered vehicles, NHTSA has proposed an amendment of Part 571 that would supplant its earlier interpretation that, to constitute repair, the chassis of the existing vehicle must as a minimum be used in the new vehicle. The proposed amendment would establish that, in the assembly of a truck, a new vehicle is manufactured for purposes of compliance with and certification to applicable safety standards, unless the engine, transmission, and rear drive axles (as a minimum) of the rebuilt vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from an existing vehicle whose identify is continued in the rebuilt vehicle with respect to model year, vehicle identification number, and any other documentation incident to the vehicle's remanufacture and registration.

Our interpretation of what constitutes manufacture of a new trailer (when use of components from an existing vehicle is involved) parallels our present interpretation of truck rebuilding in this area. We regret any confusion in our use of the term "chassis", but we have made clear that the running gear and main frame of an existing vehicle, must, as a minimum, be used in the rebuilding of a vehicle to be considered a repair. I enclose copies of two letters which establish this point.

NHTSA does not view the manufacture of trucks and trailers as sufficiently similar to justify attempting to apply our newly-proposed position on truck rebuilding to trailer manufacture. The primary consideration of extremely high value of drive train components found in powered vehicles is not applicable to trailer manufacture. NHTSA also concludes that the economic considerations which discourage avoidance of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, in truck manufacture do not operate in trailer manufacture.

In regard to tank trailer modifications where the tank serves the purpose of and replaces the frame rails, we would not consider replacement of compartments in the tank to be manufacture of a new vehicle. Similarly, the addition of volume in response to the new weight limits would not constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

SINCERELY,

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

March 28, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of Applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards through Interpretive Letters

(Info copies to: Chief Legal Officer, NHTSA - Docket 49 Part 571)

Reference is made to the letter of interpretation by Mr. Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Robert S. Podlewski of Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc., dated October 7, 1974, NHTSA file No. 40-30(TWH) concerning the use of "glider kits" and to subsequent related actions now understood to be under advisement and study by the staff of the Office of Chief Legal Counsel, NHTSA.

The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) represent approximately 200 truck trailer and component suppliers who produce more than 90% of the truck trailers built in the United States. Some of our member companies also engage in repairing damaged vehicles and others are engaged in furnishing vehicle components to those organizations that are involved in vehicle repairing activities.

The membership of this Association is concerned over the interpretation understood from the above referenced letter as are some truck manufacturers.

Our membership greatly appreciates cost effectiveness activities. The repairing of a customers' damaged truck trailer is understandably a consumer's cost effectiveness program especially during these trying economic times.

There are many cases where truck trailer bodies, frames or trailer tanks are unserviceable, and, byu repairing (oftentimes including the replacement of damaged or unserviceable assembly or sub-assembly components a most proper and necessary cost effectiveness vehicle repairing program can be and should be accomplished.

In addition, there are cases where truck trailer running gears such as axles, suspensions, and/or frames and stub frames are perfectly safe, serviceable, and suitable for continued road use. Our membership considers the disposal of such serviceable items to be a monetary loss and a national economic waste of durable goods. This waste would not occur except for interpretations of certain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

When a customer-owned trailer is unfortunately involved in an accident and that vehicle owner or his insurance company desires to save the majority of new vehicle replacement costs by repairing that old vehicle for that owner by replacing or installing a new or used body structure, thereon, we do not understand how that repair job can be classified to be the manufacture of a new vehicle for Safety Standards Application purposes.

Accordingly, this Association petitions and requests that the decision resulting from the process whereby the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reconsiders the issues involved in the referenced Diamond Reo -- International Harvester, et al question involving the subject of truck repair versus new vehicle manufacturing, as related to unserviceable used vehicles, that the decision be couched in such language that the interpretation can be directly applied to truck trailers which are constructed of the same or similar types of components as are found in trucks.

Related to the above, it should be noted that auxiliary driving engines have been installed, from time to time, on truck trailers to furnish auxiliary driving power when it was found desirable to enhance the combination vehicles' hill climbing ability or for other reasons.

In arriving at the Administration's re-evaluated interpretation concerned, we should like to advise that the "frame" of a vehicle is not synonymous with "chassis". The "chassis" is generally understood to mean the basic operating motor vehicle including engine, frame, operational controls, and other essential parts but exclusive of a cab, body or accommodations for the operator, passengers, or property. Where a cab or flat face cowl is installed on a chassis, the composite is known and designated as "chassis and cab" or "chassis and cowl", etc. It would therefore be appreciated if the NHTSA interpretations to be rendered, especially on the repair versus new vehicle manufacturing question, give due consideration to the above clarification of "chassis" which NHTSA has previously used in a questionable and perplexing manner.

We do not construe that the use of a new "frame" or the equivalent structure to which is attached the used components of the original vehicle, to replace a damaged, bent, and/or unserviceable "frame" in any way, shape, or form constitutes the construction of a new motor vehicle, considering that the vehicles operating and identifying characteristics remain unchanged.

Again, related to the above, is the processing of a tank trailer where an existing leaking compartment is to be replaced or where the compartment is to be increased in capacity while the remainder of the vehicle is not otherwise changed. We do not consider that these repairing processes constitutes the construction of a new vehicle for Safety Standards Application purposes.

The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association fully supports the enforcement of appropriate, practical and needed for safety Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. However, we must petition for the reconsideration of what appears to be the unlawful interpretations which, in effect, retroactively require equipment modernization to the most current safety standards promulgated for new vehicles to be applied to used motor vehicles because of normal trade practices of cost effective repairing of damaged or otherwise unserviceable used equipment.

The Association believes that the Podlewski response by NHTSA is a questionable intepretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which were promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act. What appears to have happened, in this case of repair versus new manufacturing question, has the effect of retroactive applicability of Safety Standards by fiat subsequent to the time that the Standards are established. Yet, we do not believe NHTSA or the Congress ever intended to require the retroactive modernization of used vehicles by rule interpreting procedures.

The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association supports the concept found in the White Motor Company's suggested draft of "Interpretation of Manufacture vs. Repair of Vehicles" contained in the Public Docket.

It is therefore requested that the contents of this presentation be given due consideration in the action now being studied by Legal Counsel of NHTSA on the Diamond Reo-International-White et al reconsideration question of Repair vs. New Manufacturing.

Sumner Meiselman Staff Engineer

ID: nht69-1.23

DATE: 08/20/69

FROM: WARREN M. HEATH

COMMANDER ENGINEERING SECTION

TO: ROBERT BRENNER --

ACTING DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

COPYEE: GEORGE GAUDAEN -- SAE

TITLE: REF: 81.A215.A1575

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brenner:

We have a copy of a letter to Mr. Charles W. Heyer of Electrical Testing Laboratories from Mr. Charles A. Baker regarding photometric test procedures. That letter quite clearly points out the method in which the National Highway Safety Bureau desires multicompartment turn signal lamps to be(Illegible Word). However, it raises additional questions concerning procedures to be used both by a laboratory in determining compliance of a device with the Federal standards and by a manufacturer in designing a lamp to meet these standards.

The photometric requirements in SAE(Illegible Word) were developed several years ago before multicompartment lamps were in common use. These standards reasonably well fulfilled the need in upgrading the performance of single-compartment lamps at that time. Later, experience with some of the original multicompartment lamps and complaints about excessive brightness of the taillamps and stoplamps on vehicles brought about a need for revising the standards.

At that time, each section of a multicompartment lamp was treated in the same manner as an individual lamp, since their performance was little different than that of individual lamps set side by side. Therefore, each compartment of a three-compartment lamp had to meet the(Illegible Words) for a taillamp and the 80 candlepower minimum for a turn signal lamp. In addition, each compartment was allowed to have a maximum intensity of 15 candlepower at or above horizontal for the taillamp and 300 candlepower in red for the turn signal lamp.

The above maximum values were reasonable when only one or two lamps were used on each side of the vehicle. Unfortunately, the first three-compartment lamps were built with such high light output that each compartment barely complied with the

maximum. This meant in some cases that the combined taillamp output on each side of the vehicle was over 45 candlepower and the combined turn signal output was barely below the total maximum of(Illegible Word) candlepower, thereby being annoyingly bright to following drivers.

The manufacturers and the(Illegible Word) Lighting Committee recognized this problem and alter a number of demonstrations of systems and rewriting of proposed crafts developed the multicompartment rear lamp specification in(Illegible Words). The original brightness problem appeares to be quote simple and could have been solved merely by reducing the maximum intensities allowed multicompartment lamps; however, the manufacturers were concerned that they would then be squeezed between a high minimum value for each compartment and a low maximum value which did not allow sufficient(Illegible Word) for normal design and production.

The SAE studies indicated that with the types of multiple compartment lamps(Illegible Word) were in use about three years ago, the values in SAE(Illegible Word) applying to the total light output of the multicompartment lamp were reasonable. This standard did not cover every combination of brightness and lens area that might be involved in providing anytime effectiveness while limiting nighttime brightness to reduce annoyance, but it was a first step in this direction.

Manufacturers who have attempted to comply with both(Illegible Words) and SAE(Illegible Word) have differences in interpretation of your requirements. We would like to have the following points clarified so we do not cause the manufacturers unnecessary difficulties when we test devices for compliance with Federal and State standards:

1. Section(Illegible Words) specifies in part that the photometric requirements "shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps".

(a) Does this mean that if one compartment or lamp meets the minimum and maximum requirements, the other compartments or lamps can have photometric output either below the minimums required or above the maximum permitted?

(b) Does this mean that one lamp may be used to meet the minimum requirements with the others adding stray light, provided the maximum requirement of 15 candlepower in the case of taillamps and(Illegible Word) candlepower in the case of turn signal lamps is not exceeded when all lamps or compartments are lighted simultaneously?

(c) Does the manufacturer have the choice in interpreting this section as to which method is most favorable to him for his particular design?

2. Mr. Baker's letter of May 12 states that "The sums of the measured candlepowers at the test points of separately photometered lamps or compartments of a combination shall not be acceptable", whereby implying that all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously.

(a) What was the purpose of stating in Section 3.1.1.7 that photometric requirements shall be provided by "one" or a combination of compartments if individual tests are not permitted to determine whether one compartment actually does comply?

(b) If it is the intent that the compartments shall be measured simultaneously, should not the above section be(Illegible Word) to eliminate the implied alternative of having only one of the lamps comply?

3. FMVSS No. 198 makes no mention of the method of testing multicompartment and multilamp taillamps and steplamps, as Section 3.1.1.7 applies only to turn signals.

(a) Do the standards require each compartment of a taillamp or steplamp to be tested separately to show compliance with(Illegible Word), or are they to be tested simultaneously as required of turn signals?

(b) Must each separate lamp or individual compartment meet the taillamp-to-steplamp ratio, or is it sufficient that the compartments when lighted together meet the ratio even though a particular lamp or compartment does not comply individually.

4. The California Vehicle Code contains a Section(Illegible Word) which prohibits a motor vehicle from being equipped with any lamp or illuminating device not specifically required or permitted by the Code. The manufacturers would like to interpret Section(Illegible Words) as permitting any number of additional taillamps and stoplamps on each side, provided only the lamp meets the requirements of J575c. The only limitation they propose is that all of the lamps taken together do not exceed the maximum candlepower requirements(Illegible Words), as an example of nonimpairment of the effectiveness of the single required lamp. They would also use photometric data showing that the total stoplamp to total taillamp output complies with the ratio requirements of J575c; again, to prove nonimpairment.

(a) Do the Federal standards preempts states from enforcing present requirements that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and to approved for that function?

(b) Are all of the separate lamps in the multiple rear lamp arrangement considered by the Bureau as comprising one lamp and(Illegible Word) to be taken as such by the states in enforcing identical standards?

(c) Does the Federal standard merely require the minimum of one stoplamp and taillamp on each side of the vehicle to meet the requirements of(Illegible Word), with the additional optional lamps to be provided at the manufacturers discretion regardless of whatever standards the states may have for any such supplemental lamps?

5. Some modern designs of multicompartment lamps have three compartment configurations where the large(Illegible Word) compartment is a backup lamp and on each side of it is a taillamp-stoplamp combination. Other configurations include a three compartment lamp centered on the rear of the vehicle where the middle compartment as a taillamp-stoplamp combination and the compartments on each side of it perform only taillamp functions.

(a) Where one rear lamp compartments are separated by a backup lamp compartment, as the entire lamp to be tested as a single unit as though the rear lamp sections were adjacent to each other?

(b) With respect to the device where a taillamp is on each side of a center-mounted stoplamp, are the taillamps considered a part of the physically integral three-compartment center lamp for the purposes of determining compliance with minimum and maximum specifications and ratio requirements? Or, is the taillamp on each side of the stoplamp to be tested simultaneously with the other taillamps on that particular side of the vehicle for the purposes of determining compliance?

The manufacturers have been quite ingenius in developing different variations of multiple lamps and multicompartment lamps and each has his own interpretation as to how his particular arrangement might be considered as complying with a specific Federal or SAE standard. We have been asked a number of questions such as those above as a result of our program of purchasing and testing devices for conformance to the standards.

We would very much appreciate your giving consideration to this problem and providing us with specific information that we can use in answering inquiries from foreign and American manufacturers and on using the correct test procedure for determining compliance of a specific device with the requirements.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Derek Nash -- Artech Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 1/14/76 letter from Richard B. Dyson To Tom Welland

TEXT:

Mr. Derek Nash Artech Corporation 2901 Telestar Court Falls Church, VA 22042

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and follows up on the April 1, 1988 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff in which additional information augmenting your letter was provided. I apologiz e for the delay in responding.

In your letter, you said that you are refurbishing a type of passenger vehicle that has first produced 20 years ago. Your letter raises questions about Federal requirements for persons modifying used vehicles which I will address in the latter part of th is letter and about Federal requirements for the design of the vehicle's chassis.

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information on our regulations and safety standards. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA also has the authority to in vestigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If a manufacturer or the agency determines that the manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the defect free of charge.

It is not clear from the information which you have provided us whether the vehicle you are refurbishing would be treated as a new or used vehicle under the Safety Act. A vehicle with a new body and new chassis would be a new vehicle required to meet the standards in effect on the day that manufacture of the vehicle is completed. A vehicle with a new body and old chassis would be a used vehicle.

Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., persons holding themselves out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that any person in the above categories m odifying a new or used vehicle must do so in a manner that ensures the continued compliance of the vehicle with applicable safety standards. This prohibition affects vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, the date on which the first Federal s afety standards became effective. For instance, a commercial business that installs a new fuel system in a passenger car manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of Standard No. 301) must ensure that the new system at least meets the level of safety performance required of the fuel system originally installed on the vehicle. Persons violating section 108 are subject to potential civil penalties of $1,000 per violation.

In instances in which a new vehicle body is installed on an old chassis, section 108(a) (2) (A) requires that the reassembled vehicle meet the Federal safety standards that had been in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle. I have enclosed a c opy of a January 14, 1976 letter to Mr. Tom Welland that describes generally the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to refurbished motor vehicles. Please note that the first situation referred to in the Welland letter addresses the m odification of a vehicle by its owner. The prohibition in section 108(a) (2) (A) does not apply to the modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

I will now address the questions you expressly posed in your letter. Your first three questions asked:

What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of a passenger-carrying motor vehicle?

What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger-carrying motor vehicle chassis?

What form or test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

As Ms. Hom informed you, our safety standards apply to new vehicles and are performance-oriented. NHTSA has not issued any design specifications that directly establish minimum static or dynamic loads for vehicle chassis. These design parameters are esta blished by the manufacturer independently of specific criteria set by the agency and might be available from the original manufacturer of the vehicle you are refurbishing. However, manufacturers of new vehicles are required by NHTSA to determine and spec ify the gross vehicle and axle weight ratings of their vehicles in the manner set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567 of our regulations. I have enclosed a copy of Part 567 for your information.

Chassis manufacturers must be aware, however, of the following two considerations relating to the static and dynamic load capacities of vehicles and NHTSA's regulations. First, because manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that their vehicles hill p erform to the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, manufacturers must ensure that chassis design is compatible with the vehicle' s ability to comply. Some of our safety standards specify that the performance of requisite vehicle safety systems will be evaluated in dynamic (i.e., crash) tests which enable the agency to evaluate the synergistic effect of a range of variables on a vehicle's compliance therewith. Manufacturers of new vehicles would therefore have to ensure that the design of the chassis will have no negative effect on their vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards.

Second, as mentioned above, NHTSA has the authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and to require manufacturers to recall and remedy such defects free of charge. Chassis manufacturers must therefore en sure that their products contain no safety related defects, which might well include a chassis member that is incapable of carrying loads for which it is intended.

Further, the vehicle manufacturer who provides the GVWR and GAWR information required by Part 567 must ensure that the information relating to the chassis static loads is correct.

On a separate matter, your letter also asked about the requirements manufacturers must meet when installing a plastic fuel tank in a motor vehicle. The standard we issued for vehicle fuel system integrity (No. 301) sets performance requirements for fuel systems in new motor vehicles. As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) specifies the test that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of the requisite safety system (e.g. the fuel system) on new vehicles selected for i nclusion in its compliance test program. Manufacturers are not bound, however, to use the tests specified in the safety standards for evaluating the compliance of their vehicles or equipment with our standards. Instead, a manufactures may test in any man ner it chooses, so long as it can show that it has exercised due care in ensuring that its vehicles or items of equipment comply with the applicable Federal requirements.

In addition to the materials described above, I have also enclosed information that provides an overview of Federal requirements applying to manufacturers of new motor vehicles and instructions on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures omitted.

Ref: Passenger vehicle design parameters

Dear Erika:

In accordance with our telephone conversation I have listed some specific questions the have a direct bearing on an ongoing project. Our purpose is to produce a specification for refurbishment of a type of passenger vehicle that was first produced twenty years ago. Our request is for either direct answers to the questions below and/or references to available publications or regulations that are the authorities for the answer.

The questions are as follows:

1. What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of passenger carrying motor vehicle?

2. What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger carrying motor vehicle chassis?

3. What form of test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2) September 3, 1987

4. What data on characteristics and/or tests of a plastic fuel tank are required for approval of its use in a passenger carrying vehicle?

I thank you for your time and effort in supplying this information and hope to hear from you shortly.

In appreciation

ARTECH CORP.

Derek Nash Manager, Engineering Services

ID: 1983-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: 3M Center -- Mary Ruth Harsha, Office of General Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/30/76 letter from Frank Berndt to Mark T. Lerche (Sun Control Products of Virginia, Inc.); Also, 11/10/76 letter from Frank Berndt to M.P. McNiff (3M Company, Solar Control Products); Also, 4/18/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Charles H. Percy

TEXT:

Ms. Mary Ruth Harsha Office of General Counsel 3M Center P.O. Box 33428 St. Paul, Minnesota 55133

Dear Ms. Harsha:

This responds to your company's recent letter regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety regulations to the sale and application of sun control films on motor vehicles. You ask whether our November 10, 1976, letter to your company on this same subject is still applicable, as well as several other questions.

Our November 1976 letter is still current. Solar films themselves are not considered glazing materials under Safety Standard No. 205. As stated in that letter, however, the application of such films to motor vehicles by certain persons does give rise to responsibilities under Federal law. I am enclosing a copy of a recent letter of interpretation which discusses the pertinent Federal law on this subject.

I am also enclosing a copy of a telegram that we recently sent to the Hawaii Department of Transportation which discusses the preemptive effect of Safety Standard No. 205 over State laws governing the same aspect of motor vehicle performance, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seg.). The Hawaii legislature has passed a law which attempts to allow dealers and businesses in that State to apply solar films on motor vehicles. Those films are allowed to reduce transmittance down to 35 percent. As pointed out in the enclosed telegram, Safety Standard No. 205 preempts that State statute in certain respects. The letter of interpretation and the telegram should answer all of your questions.

Please note that under Safety Standard No. 205 all windows in a passenger car are considered requisite for driving visibility. Thus, all windows in a passenger car must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. In vehicles other than passenger cars, typically, only the windshield and front side windows are considered requisite for driving visibility. This means, for example, that a van could have solar films installed on windows behind the driver, since no transmittance requirements are specified for those windows.

I hope this has answered all your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures (4/18/83 letter from NHTSA to Charles H. Percy omitted here:)

2/17/83

TO: PAUL J PHILLIPSON STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCH BOWL STREET, 5TH FLOOR HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813

THIS LETTER RESPONDS TO YOUR FEBRUARY 11, 1983 LETTER REGARDING BILL CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED IN THE HAWAII LEGISLATURE.

THE BILL, S.B. NO. 57, RELATES TO LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE THROUGH VEHICLE GLAZING AND PRACTICE OF ATTACHING A "SUN SCREENING DEVICE" TO SUCH GLAZING. BILL PERMITS ADDITION OF SUN SCREENING DEVICE TO SIDE WINDOWS AND REAR WINDOWS IF LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE AND LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING AND SCREENING DEVICE TOGETHER ARE EACH NOT MORE THAN 35 PERCENT.

THIS BILL, IF ENACTED, WOULD BE AT LEAST PARTIALLY PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND WOULD NOT, IN ANY EVENT, ALTER PROHIBITION IN FEDERAL LAW AGAINST AFFIXING OF TINTING FILM OR OTHER MATERIALS OR DEVICES SO AS TO REDUCE LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING BELOW THAT REQUIRED IN FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS. SECTION 103(d) OF THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT, AS AMENDED 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) PROHIBITS STATE FROM HAVING SAFETY STANDARD REGULATING ASPECT OF PERFORMACE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL STANDARD UNLESS STATE STANDARD IS IDENTICAL TO FEDERAL STANDARD.

GLAZING IS AN ASPECT OF PERFORMANCE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL STANDARDS. PURSUANT TO SECTION 103(a) OF THE STANDARD ACT (15 U.S.C. 1392(a)), NHTSA HAS ESTABLISHED FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 205, GLAZING MATERIALS (49 CFR 571.205). STANDARD NO. 205 REGULATES GLAZING MATERIALS IN NEW VEHICLES AS WELL AS REPLACEMENT GLAZING TO BE INSTALLED IN USED VEHICLES. STANDARD REQUIRES THAT ALL GLAZING USED IN CARS TO HAVE LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF AT LEAST 70 PERCENT.

TO THE EXTENT THAT S.B. NO. 57 WOULD PERMIT ADDITION BY ANY PERSON, SUCH AS A DEALER, OF TINTING FILM OR OTHER DEVICE OR MATERIALS TO THE GLAZING IN NEW CARS OR TO THE GLAZING TO BE INSTALLED IN USED CARS SO THAT LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE IS REDUCED BELOW 70 PERCENT, THAT BILL WOULD NOT BE IDENTICAL TO STANDARD NO. 205. ACCORDINGLY, THE BILL WOULD, IN THAT REGARD, BE PREEMPTED UNDER SECTION 103(d).

FURTHER, PRACTICES PROHIBITED BY SAFETY ACT COULD NOT BE MADE LAWFUL BY S.B. NO. 57. ENACTMENT OF THAT BILL WOULD NOT ALTER PROHIBITION IN SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) OF SAFETY ACT AGAINST ALTERING VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT SO AS TO RENDER INOPERATIVE SAFETY FEATURES OR PERFORMANCE INCORPORATED IN THOSE VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT. PROHIBITION APPLIES TO MOTOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, DEALERS AND MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESSES, BUT NOT TO PERSONS WHO ALTERS HIS OR HER OWN VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT.

EFFECT: OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IS TO PROHIBIT ANY OF LISTED PARTIES FROM INSTALLING " SUN SCREENING DEVICE" ON CAR GLAZING, IF THAT INSTALLATION WOULD REDUCE LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING BELOW 70 PERCENT. THIS PROHIBITION APPLIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER GLAZING IS ALREADY INSTALLED ON CAR OR WHETHER CAR IS NEW OR USED. NHTSA HAS STATED IN PREVIOUS LETTER OF INTERPRETATION THAT AUTO TINT SHOPS OR ANY PERSON WHO INSTALLS SOLAR TINTING FILM ON CAR GLAZING FOR COMPENSATION WOULD BE CONSIDERED MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT DEALER OR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESS AND THUS SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITION.

PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) CAN BE SUBSTANTIAL. SECTION 109 OF SAFETY ACT PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES THAT SECTION IS SUBJECT TD CIVIL PENALTY OF UP TO $1,000 PER VIOLATION. THUS, IF PERSON VIOLATES SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IN ALTERING 10 CARS, HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY OF UP TO $10,000. SECTION 109 ALLOWS TOTAL PENALTY OF UP TO $800,000 FOR RELATED SERIES OF VIOLATIONS.

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT NHTSA INTENDS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO ENFORCE SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) PROHIBITION AGAINST IDENTIFIED PARTIES WHO ADD "SUN SCREENING DEVICES" IN VIOLATION OF THAT SECTION.

FINALLY, WE NOTE THAT IF "SUN SCREENING DEVICE" INSTALLED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IS FACTOR IN CAUSING ACCIDENT, INSTALLER MAY BE SUBJECTED TO SUBSTANTIAL LIABILITY AS RESULT OF PRIVATE LAW SUITS.

Original signed by Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 30, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Application of Sun Control Films to Motor Vehicles

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am legal counsel to the Energy Control Products Project of 3M, a division of 3M engaged in the manufacture and sale of sun control films.

On November 10, 1976 your office wrote to Mr. M. P. McNiff of 3M Company regarding the applicability of federal motor vehicle regulations to the sale and application of sun control films. A copy of this letter is attached for your reference.

As you are aware, various state laws and the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission Regulation, VESC-20, have been enacted relative to the use of sun control films since the date of your November 10, 1976 memo to Mr. McNiff, and my office has recently reviewed various inquiries regarding the applicability of these latter regulations and the federal standards. I would therefore appreciate receiving an update to your November 10th memo and a clarification from your office relative to the following matters:

1. Is either the sale or application of sun control films to motor vehicles governed by any provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act? If so, to what degree is applicability affected by the following factors:

a) whether the film is applied by a dealer specializing in film application versus a private individual;

b) whether the vehicle is a passenger automobile versus a recreational vehicle; or

c) the location of the application, i.e. to the back windshield versus the front windshield.

2. Are VESC--20 and the various state laws which have been enacted relative to sun control films preempted by federal regulations? If so, pursuant to what statutory authority and to what degree?

Your opinion relative to the foregoing matters would be greatly appreciated. Please forward your comments to my associate Mary Ruth Harsha, Division Attorney, Office of General Counsel, 3M Center, P. 0. Box 33428, St. Paul, MN 55133.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Ms. Harsha directly on 612/736-1791.

Very truly yours,

Claudia J. Davis CJD:kmm cc: Mary Ruth Harsha

Enclosure (11/10/76 letter from Frank Berndt to Solar Control Products omitted here.)

ID: 1984-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. C.O. Marti -- General Manager, Compenhia Pnmeus Tropical (Brazil)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking how to proceed to have your products certified to conform to the standards issued by this agency, so that you can sell your tires in the United States.

All tires for use on passenger cars imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109), and all tires for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). I have enclosed copies of both of these standards for your information. You will see that the standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and, for passenger cars only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements which must be met by all tires to be sold in the United States.

With respect to the performance requirements, you asked how you should proceed to have your products certified to conform to the appropriate standard. The European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires for testing by a governmental entity. However, the United States follows a different procedure. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that its tires comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Further, this agency does not require that the certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable standards. Certainly, we recommend that a manufacturer selling tires in the United States test those tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standard, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire.

For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts spot checks of tires after they have been certified, by purchasing and testing tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken.

If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the applicable standards or if it is determined that the tires contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the tires is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of tires which fail to comply with a standard or contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:

(1) repair the tires so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or

(2) replace the tire with an identical or reasonably equivalent tire which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the tire manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the tire owner for the remedy.

It is a simple matter to check the tires to see that the marking requirements in the respective standards have been satisfied. I should point out that the U.S. Customs Service will not allow tires without the DOT marking to enter the United States.

With respect to the tire and rim matching, this information, as well as the loading schedules for the tire size (showing the maximum load the tire can carry at designated inflation pressures) must eitner be set forth in a current standardization organization publication or be furnished by the manufacturers to each of their dealers and in duplicate to this agency. You may wish to obtain a copy of the most current publication by the American standardization organization to see if your company can use the loading schedules and tire and rim matching information published therein for the particular tire sizes you wish to sell in the United States. That publication may be ordered by sending $ 8.50 plus postage costs to: The Tire and Rim Association, 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313. If the tire sizes and corresponding rims listed in that publication for those sizes are satisfactory, you will have complied with this requirement. However, if the sizes are not listed or you believe different values should be assigned, you may consult the publications of other standardization organizations or you may elect to furnish the appropriate information to this agency and to each of your dealers. I should note that the Brazilian standardization organization to which you refer in your letter is not recognized by this agency for the purposes of either of the tire standards, so you can not rely on its publications.

I am also enclosing a copy of another regulation that applies to your tires, 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. This requires every tire sold in this country to be labeled with certain information (see @ 574.5), including the manufacturer's identification mark. To obtain an identification mark, you should follow the steps set forth in @ 574.6 of this regulation.

Further, this regulation requires each manufacturer to furnish forms to its tire dealers to record the names and addresses of the first purchasers of these tires. The completed forms will then be returned to the tire manufacturer, or some party designated by the manufacturer to receive those forms. This is necessary in case the manufacturer must recall the tires to remedy a noncompliance with an applicable standard or a safety-related defect. It may be necessary for you to make arrangements with some party in this country to store the completed forms for your.

Finally, I am enclosing a procedural rule which applies to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency (49 CFR Part 551). This regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. The manufacturer identification mark which Part 574 requires you to mold on one sidewall of each of your tires will not be assigned until we have received a valid designation of agent from your company. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the six following items of information:

1. A certification that the (Illegible Word) is valid in form and binding on your company 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 mailing address of your company;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of your tires which do not bear the name of your company;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by your company;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by your company, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

If you need any further information or a clarification of some of the information set forth in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ENCLS.

April 10, 1984 GG-042/84

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Office of Chief Council

Gentlemen,

CIA PNEUS TROPICAL is a Brazilian private manufacturer of tires, tubes and related items, with sales in the domestic and Latin American markets. Our plant, located at Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil, has a daily nominal production capacity of over fifty two metric tons, and its buildings occupy an area of nearly fifty thousands square meters; started production on the last quarter of 1976 and produces bias ply tires for passenger cars, commercial vehicles, trucks, buses and motors graders, of which we are enclosing one set of descriptive leaflets.

Our Quality Control, designed and operated according to the model of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio, USA, through its Brazilian branch, besides the high level of automation of our production equipment, assures the high uniformity of our products and its compliance with the standards of the Associacao Brasileira de Pneus e Aros, an organism with scopes similar to those of the American Tire and Rim Association, as well as with the Brazilian Standards on Traffic Safety.

We are sure that our tires and tubes will have a good acceptance at the American market, moreover if we make some small adjustments of load range in our truck and buses tires, aiming the preferences of the American users, what can be done most easily.

We will very much appreciate your kind notices on how to proceed to have our products certified to conform to the standards of NHTSA, in order they can be placed into the United States of American market.

Looking forward to hear from you, we remain,

C.O. Marti General Manager

ID: 15951-1.pja

Mr. Mike Laws
Vice President/General Manager
Interstate Trailers, Inc.
1102 Interstate 20 West
Arlington, TX 76017

Dear Mr. Laws:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation on whether the tilt bed trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. The answer is no, therefore a guard is required.

As shown in the drawings you enclosed with your letter, your trailers are essentially of a flatbed design, equipped with a bed that hydraulically tilts to a 13 degree angle so that construction equipment may be loaded. At the back of the bed is a long triangular full width "approach plate" that allows construction equipment to transition from the ground up onto the bed without encountering the "bump" of the edge of the bed. When the bed is lowered into the horizontal position, for transit, the approach plate is hydraulically lowered to droop down slightly, to a position in which the lower edge of the plate is 19 inches off the ground. You state that installing an underride guard would make this trailer useless and you ask if a guard is required.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are low chassis vehicles and special purpose vehicles.

Low chassis vehicles are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. The only part of your vehicle that may meet these configuration requirements is the approach plate itself, so the question becomes whether the approach plate is considered to be part of the "chassis" of the vehicle. Chassis is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure."

To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit.

To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. Moveable components may "lock" into the frame structure sufficiently that they are integral with other frame members-in this situation NHTSA may consider the combined components to be one frame unit. However, the agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load.

Applying these principles to your approach plate, the agency concludes that it is not part of the chassis. First, the approach plate does not meet the "load supporting" aspect of the chassis definition because it approach ramp does not contribute to supporting cargo load. Further, the approach plate is not frame structure. It does not define the shape of the trailer. Instead, it hangs down from the rear end of the trailer, forming a protrusion from the outline of the trailer bed. The approach plate is not locked into another frame structural member in any manner. Neither the approach plate nor the steel plate arms attaching the approach plate to the sides of the trailer bed are of a similar size or strength to the other frame components. In consideration of these factors, we conclude that the approach plate is not part of the chassis, and the trailer is not a low chassis vehicle.

We turn now to the question of whether your trailer is excluded as a special purpose vehicle. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ Again, the approach plate is the only part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in the area that could be occupied be the rear underride guard. Therefore, the approach plate would have to be considered work-performing equipment for the trailer to be excluded.

There is no definition in the standard for "work-performing equipment." In determining the meaning of regulatory language, the first place the agency looks is the plain meaning of the words. In the context which is relevant to this safety standard, "work" is defined as "the transfer of energy from one physical system to another; especially, the transfer of energy to a body by the application of force . . ." "Perform" is defined as "to begin and carry through to completion; do." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1971. Taken together, NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Approach plates do not perform work in this sense because they merely form a ramp between the ground and the vehicle driving onto the tilt bed.⁽²⁾ Therefore, the approach plate is not work-performing equipment, and the vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle.

Since your trailer does not meet the definition of an excluded category, it would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting our standards. We cannot provide specific guidance on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that other manufacturers of tilt bed trailers have told us that they have found engineering solutions that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of their vehicles. Some of them are using guard designs that deploy when in the flatbed configuration and automatically retract when in the tilted configuration.

Another option to consider is whether your approach plate could "be" the guard. The approach plate already appears to meet the configurational requirements for an underride guard. If it does not currently meet the strength and energy absorption requirements, you might be able to reinforce or otherwise modify the approach plate sufficiently so that it would pass these requirements. If you can do this, the approach plate itself could be labeled and certified as a guard under Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards. Perhaps some of these solutions would work for you. We emphasize that you, as the manufacturer of the vehicle, are responsible for the vehicle's compliance.

The agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures: Parts 555, 512
ref:224
d.5/22/98

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. An unnecessary reference to pipe equipment containing hazardous materials was eliminated. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

2. To the extent that this interpretation is inconsistent with interpretation letters to Mr. Thomas M. Joyce and Mr. R. H. Anderson of Landoll Corporation, interpreting the frame rails of tilt bed trailers as work-performing equipment, those prior interpretations are superceded. The basic answer in those letters did not depend on this point, and the analysis in this letter is more thorough.

ID: nht87-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Senator Strom Thurmond

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/22/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Sterling Troxel; 10/5/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Charles B. Honeycutt; 12/29/77 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Kentucky Dept. of Education; 3/20/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr., to Nebraska Dept. of Mot or Vehicles

TEXT:

Dear Senator Thurmond:

Thank you for your December 8, 1986, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Roy H. Herron of the Anderson County School District No. 3 in Iva, concerning our school bus regulations. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply , since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In his letters to you' Mr. Herron expressed his concern with Federal laws Which he believes prohibit the school district from using 15-passenger vans manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, that do not meet Federal school bus standards. be argues that th ere is a need for school districts to use 15-passenger vans and suggests that we amend our regulations to permit their use.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for school buses. As explained below, the Federal requirements apply only to the manufacture and sale of new school buses, not to the operation of school buses after they have been purchased. Thus, there is no Federal law that prohibits the Anderson County School District from using their 15-passenger vans to carry school children. Federal law does, however, affect the manufacture of the vans and their sale to school districts.

I believe it might be helpful to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress enacted the School bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments which directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all vehicles designed to carry more than 10 passengers and likely to be significantly used for student transportation. The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each new school bus manufactured on or after that date. School buses manufactured prior to the effective date of the safety standards were not required to be designed and built in compliance with those standards.

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of school buses must ensure that their new vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses and also those specifically applicable to school buses. The Safety Act also requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards or be potentially subject to fines under Federal law. We define a "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) and intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. Since new 15-passenger vans that are sold to the Anderson County School Districts are considered "school buses" under Federal law, persons selling such vans must ensure that the vans conform to Federal school bus safety standards.

Mr. Herron suggests that the definition of a school bus be amended to provide that passenger capacity be extended to 15 passengers. NHTSA's definition of a school bus necessarily follows the statutory definition of that term. Without a change by Congress in the statutory definition, our definition must remain as it is.

Your constituent argues in his letter to you that 15-passenger vans should be safe enough for school children since they are safe for other passengers. The legislative history of the School bus amendments of 1974 indicate that Congress believed that spec ial measures should be taken to protect school children who use school bus transportation. Fifteen-passenger vans (i.e., buses) meeting our school bus safety standards provide more safety features than other buses. School buses must meet stringent perfor mance requirements, including those for interior protection, fuel systems, emergency exits, windows and windshields and seating systems.

New 15-passenger vans, conforming to our school bus standards, may be sold to the Anderson County School Districts to transport its pupils to school related events. The school districts may also purchase 9-passenger vans for school transportation, becaus e such vans are considered "multipurpose passenger vehicles"' (MPV's) and not "school buses" under Federal law. We do not prohibit the sale of new MPV's to carry school children nor do we require then to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. I nstead, they must meet the performance requirements set by the safety standards for MPV's, which also provide high levels of passenger safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 8, 1986 Mr. David Sloane, Director Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation Suite 10406, 400 Seventh Streets S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloan:

I have enclosed for your review communication from Mr. Roy H. Herron regarding the regulations pertaining to the transporting of students to and from school.

It is my understanding that your regulations allow schools to use vans that Here manufactured on or before April 1, 1977 that do not comply with school bus safety standards, but the schools are not allowed to use new vans unless they comply with all the school bus safety standards.

I would appreciate your explaining these regulations and giving me an up to date status report of this case.

With kindest regards and Greetings of the Season,

Sincerely,

Strom Thurmond

ST/hk Enclosure

November 25, 1986

The Honorable Strom Thurmond The United States Senate Washington, D. C.

Attention Mr. Jeff Kull

Dear Sir:

This letter is follow-up to our conversation this date concerning the use of vans to transport school students to related events.

The more we read into this problem it appears that the Department of Transportation is concerned only with vehicles introduced into the transportation system.

The attached letter, dated March 22, 1979, from then Acting Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Mr. Sterling Troxel states in paragraph three that "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not regulate the sale or use of used vehicles. Therefore , there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling such a used vehicle for school use."

This whole set of regulation is arbitrary. Under current regulations a church group can transport our school students on Saturday and/or Sunday in the same type vehicle we use and be legal.

Your assistance in getting this regulation changed or waived so that school districts can use vans designed to carry 15 passengers or less, including driver, will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Roy H. Herron Superintendent

encls.

The Honorable Strom Thurmond United States Senator Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Senator Thurmond:

The purpose of this letter is to ask for your assistance. We have recently been made aware of Department of Transportation regulations (attached) that prohibit the use of vehicles designed to trans- port more than 10 passengers, that were manufactured af ter 1977, for the purpose of transporting school students unless the vehicle meets school bus specifications.

This school district and the vast majority of other districts in South Carolina use vans for transporting cheerleaders, small athletic teams, students on field trips and other academic related activities.

This regulation does not seem to be well thoughtout. Either a vehicle is safe to carry passengers or it is not; whether they be school children or adults. A van with its higher gross vehicle weight and seats installed higher than most other traffic is mu ch safer than a station wagon or automobile.

The impact of complying with this regulation is substantial. To replace our two vans with minibuses will cost our district $60,000 plus increased operating expenses. We are a small district, therefore, the impact on larger districts is even greater.

We have operated vans for many years with a perfect safety record. They serve a need most effectively and efficiently.

A remedy that will aid all school districts in South Carolina is for DOT to amend its regulation so that vehicles designed to carry 15 passengers or less be exempt from school bus standards. This change will not contribute to reduced safety for our stude nts.

Your assistance in this matter is most appreciated.

Sincerely,

Roy H. Herroxn Superintendent

(See letters from NHTSA to Sterling Troxel, Charles B. Honeycutt, Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles and Kentucky Dept. of Education)

ID: nht87-2.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/87

FROM: BARRY NUDD -- SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER, ATWOOD MOBILE PRODUCTS

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/03/88 TO BARRY NUDD FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32(3), STANDARD 207, VSA 108; LETTER DATED 07/14/88 EST TO S. ROBSON FROM FRANK BERNDT; STANDARD 207

TEXT: Dear Erika Jones,

Atwood Mobile Products is a manufacturer of seat adjusters serving the recreational and heavy duty vehicle markets. A majority of our customers use our product in an assembly consisting of a bucket seat mounted to a pair of seat adjusters which are in t urn attached to a pedestal that elevates the seat above the floor of a vehicle and generally incorporates the seat belt anchorages. The inclusion of the pedestal in the seating systems causes considerable confusion with some customers when testing to St andard No. 207. The main issue is whether the weight of the pedestal should be added to the weight of the seat when calculating the force to be applied to the seat back for testing the compliance of the seat adjusters when mounted between the seat and p edestal.

A letter from the Chief Counsel of NHTSA to Mack Trucks Inc. dated July 14, 1983 (copy enclosed) states [a combined test procedure that first tests the seat adjuster for its ability to stay in the adjusted position when subject to a force of 20 times the upper seat and adjuster weight and then subjects the entire seat assembly (seat, adjusters and pedestal) to a 20 g force as anchored to the vehicle structure] establishes due care in testing to FMVSS Standard No. 207.

We would conclude from this opinion that the first portion of the procedure outlined above, establishes that the seat adjusters meet the requirement of Standard No. 207 S4.2. (The second portion of the test then establishes the compliance of the seat st ructure from the seat adjusters down to the pedestal mounting in the vehicle to the general requirements of S1 that seat attachment assemblies and their installation meet the standard as well as the seat itself.)

We request your interpretation with regard to the test procedures required by Standard No. 207 for seat assemblies consisting of a trimmed seat mounted on seat adjusters which are in turn mounted to a pedestal which incorporate seat belt anchorages (S4.2 (c)), specifically as outlined in the two part test set forth (in figures 1 & 2).

Our questions are specific to the Mack Truck letter with the addition of the seat belt loads.

Question No. 1: Does a load applied as in figure 1 satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 207 concerning the seat adjusters remaining in their adjusted position?

Figure 1 tests the ability of the seat adjusters to remain in their adjusted position when subjected to 20 times the weight of all seat components mounted above the adjusters plus the Standard No. 210 belt load.

Question No. 2: Can the seat adjuster, having passed figure 1 loads be locked for the second part of the test as in figure 2.

The second portion of the test (figure 2) established the compliance of the seat structure from the bottom of the seat adjusters down to the connection of the pedestal to the floor. Because the forces in figure 2 do not accurately reflect the forces act ually imposed on the seat adjusters in an actual crash, the adjusters can be welded or otherwise locked together (the adjusters having been tested in figure 1, see paragraph three of the Mack Truck letter" ... the adjusters and upper seat section would n ever experience a loading of 20 times the weight of the entire seat in an actual crash.") while the rest of the seat assembly is tested to the requirements.

Question No. 3: Does the two part test procedure shown in figures 1 & 2 establish due care in meeting Standard 207 when applied to an upper seat and adjusters mounted on a pedestal assembly which incorporates seat belt anchorages?

There are several other questions of a more general nature that arise when applying Standard No. 207 to pedestal mounted seats as shown in figure 1.

Question No. 4: Can the 20 times seat weight load as required in Standard No. 207 S4.2 be applied at the center of gravity of the seat as more accurate alternative to application from a point outside the seat frame in the horizontal plane of the seats ce nter of gravity?

Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 207 illustrates a bracing system apparently intended to insure that the force applied to the seat back remains in the horizontal plane of the center of gravity of the seat. If the seat frame were excessively flexible and t he braces not used, the deformation of the seat frame would raise the load application line above the plane of the center of gravity of the seat resulting in a larger moment being placed on the seat attachment. This condition is especially evident in buc ket seats mounted on pedestals which incorporate seat belt anchorages.

A simultaneous application of a type I seat belt load and a 20 times seat weight force causes deflections to the entire seat system resulting in the seat force acting significantly above the plane of the seat center of gravity. This condition can consid erably overstate the moment load on seat attachments that would occur in an actual 20g impact. To more accurately simulate a 20g impact load (which appears to be the intent

of the standard) the seat force should be applied at the seat center of gravity not at the seat back through the plane of the center of gravity. The current technique as outlined in S5.1.1 applied to pedestal mounted bucket seats is contrary to elem entary mechanical principles when significant deflections take place.

Another question related to testing for compliance to Standard No. 207 concerns paragraph S4.2(c), the simultaneous application of Standard No. 210 seat belt loads and the 20 times seat weight load.

Question No. 5: Can the seat belt load in figure 1 be eliminated based on the reasoning that an identical floor mounted seat and belt anchorage are not required to sustain the seat belt load and that the second part of the test, figure 2, subjects the se at assembly to the load to check the seat attachment assembly (pedestal) for compliance with Standard No 207?

On installations as previously described and shown in the attached figures, the seat belt anchorages are a part of the seat pedestal on which the seat adjusters and seat are fastened. If a bucket seat were to be mounted on the floor, and the seat belt a nchorages mounted to the floor with separate attachments, the seat and adjusters would not be subject to paragraph S4.2(c). Because the seat pedestal seems to be included in the definition of a seat, the pedestal mounted belt anchorages require the seat to be subjected to paragraph S4.2(c) loads with the seat remaining in its adjusted position during application of each force specified (S4.2). It can be shown that identical bucket seats can be mounted on a floor of a vehicle or on a pedestal and their respective belt anchorages can be located in identical positions, in relation to the seat adjusters.

A typical seat pedestal installation involve the seat belts wrapping around the sides of the seat. As the belts are loaded, considerable transfer of force occurs from the forward stretch of the belts to the seat frame and hence into the seat adjusters. Accepted lab techniques for applying the seat belt load include using steel cables to simulate belts and untrimmed or bare seat frames for applications of loads. The steel cable can bite into a bare seat frame and transfer a large load into a seat adju ster. This force is variable and subject to extremes when testing techniques vary within the limits set forth in Standard Nos. 207 and 210. In case of an identical bucket seat and adjusters mounted on the floor of a vehicle with the floor mounted belt anchorages located in the same position relative to the seat, this force is totally ignored (S4.2(c) is not required).

It is certainly essential that the 20 times seat weight load be applied simultaneously with the Standard No. 210 seat belt load to verify compliance with general requirements of S1 that the chance of failure of the seat attachment assemblies and their in stallation by forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact be minimized. However, if the seat adjusters of an identical seat installation mounted on the floor are not subjected to loads induced by seat belts wrapping around the seat frame, a pede stal

mounted seat assembly should be permitted to have the tracks welded or locked together while the loads of 4.2(c) check the seat attachment assemblies to the general requirement of Standard No. 207. Of course if the seat belt anchorages were on the s eat frame itself (above the seat adjusters) then the seat adjusters would definitely have to remain in their adjusted position when subject to the simultaneous application of Standard No. 210 seat belt anchorage load and the 20 times seat weight load.

Respectfully Submitted,

TEST PROCEDURE PART 571 S207 SECTION S4.2

ALL LOADS TO BE APPLIED SIMULTANEOUSLY; FIGURE 1 AND 2

(DRAWINGS OMITTED)

ID: 86-6.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: H. Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated October 30, 1986, seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard and seeking our comments on sample reports required under several of our regulations. This letter addresses your question about our bumper standard first, and then comments on your sample reports.

You asked about one of the protective criteria specified in section 581.5(c) of Part 581. Part 581 requires vehicles to meet the damage criteria of that section after specified test impacts.

Section 581.5(c)(8) states:

The exterior surfaces shall have no separations of surface materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact, except where such damage occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. (Emphasis added.)

You stated that you understand "exterior surfaces" to refer to the exterior body surface which can be observed without the removal of any components, and that it does not mean the body surface which cannot be observed unless components are removed. Based on this understanding, you stated that you believe that two areas of a car, identified in an attached drawing as Area A and Area B, need not conform to the no damage requirement. Both Area A, a radiator support panel located directly under the headlamp, and Area, B, a fender apron located below the headlamp but along the side of the car, cannot be observed unless the bumper assembly is removed.

Your understanding of "exterior surface," with respect to Areas A and B of your drawing, is correct. Those areas are not exterior surfaces, because they are located behind the bumper assembly and cannot be observed unless that assembly is removed.

Sample Reports

1. 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements

Assuming that the Daihatsu is the only make and type of vehicle you will sell in the United States, the submission of the unique identifier would comply with @ 565.5(b). If you are planning to sell other makes, you would also have to include information on those makes in this submission.

The deciphering information would be sufficient under @ 565.5(d) except for the information about the engine type. The information you suggest providing describes the engine only as a "CB". The term "engine type" is defined at @ 565.3(d) as "a power source with defined characteristics such as fuel utilized, number of cylinders, displacement, and net brake horsepower." None of these factors can be deciphered from your "CB" marking. The deciphering information should indicate whether this is a gasoline or diesel engine, the number of cylinders, engine displacement, and net brake horsepower. With this modification, the sample report would comply with the requirements of Part 565.

2. 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification

The sample identifying information from Daihatsu is sufficient for the purposes of Part 566.

You also asked how accurate this identification must be with respect to the GVWR ranges of the vehicles. As you noted, @ 566.5 (c) requires manufacturers to submit the "approximate ranges" of GVWR for each type of motor vehicle produced by the manufacturer. The agency explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule that it was seeking only basic information on the vehicles produced by the manufacturer. See 36 FR 7970, at 7971; April 28, 1971. Thus, if you wish to state that you produce passenger cars with a GVWR between 2300 and 2500 pounds, as suggested in your letter, that information would satisfy the requirements of Part 566.

You also asked the purpose of requiring the Part 566 report. The purpose was explained as follows in the notice of proposed rulemaking:

In order to carry out the provisions of the Act, it is often necessary to have certain basic information about the manufacturers of motor vehicles or vehicle equipment subject to the Act. This is particularly so in the area of enforcement and in carrying out the several requirements for communication, inspection, and reporting. It is necessary to have centrally organized and collected information regarding the manufacturer's corporate status, mailing address, items manufactured, and manufacturing location. Moreover, it is necessary to assemble this information so as to make it readily accessible to those having enforcement responsibility under the Act, and provide a means for identifying and classifying manufacturers according to the types of motor vehicles or equipment which they manufacture. A system is also needed whereby NHTSA can provide information to manufacturers of various types of vehicles or equipment. 36 FR 7971; April 28, 1971.

3. 49 CFR @ 551.45 Designation of Agent

You first asked whether your sample designation of agent conforms with the requirements of 49 CFR @ 551.45. It does not. Section 551.45 specifies that a designation of agent must include the following six items of information:

1. A certification by the person or persons signing the designation that it is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made.

Your sample contains no such certification.

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer.

This information is set forth only on the letterhead of your stationery. If the corporate name set forth on your stationery is the full legal name, it would satisfy this requirement. If that is not the full legal name, however, the full legal name must be separately shown. The same principle applies to the requirements to submit your principal place of business and mailing address.

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origins of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its legal name.

It is impossible for us to determine whether there are no such marks, if the Daihatsu symbol on your letterhead is the only such mark, or if you have not satisfied this requirement.

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer.

There is no such statement in your sample.

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the manufacturer.

Your sample would satisfy this requirement.

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. Your sample would satisfy this requirement. Your sample would satisfy this requirment.

You then asked what the designated agent does, and whether all reports had to be submitted to this agency via the designated agent. The designated agent acts as the agent for foreign manufacturers upon whom service of process, notices, orders, and decisions may be made for and on behalf of the manufacturer. Please note that both your designation of agent and acceptance erroneously state that such service may be made by or on behalf of the agent. Under the due process clause of our Constitution, a party cannot be bound by the outcome of a legal proceeding unless he or she has been given notice of such proceeding and an opportunity to be heard. Since we cannot go into a Japanese court, the U.S. government must have some device by which it can ensure that a foreign manufacturer is given proper notice of any proceedings affecting it in the United States. Thus, the designation of an agent by Daihatsu helps to ensure that the company will be fully and promptly apprised of any governmental action involving the company.

Hence, foreign manufacturers are not required to submit reports through their designated agents - the designated agent is only a means for this agency to serve process and so forth on the foreign manufacturer. In fact, we recommend that foreign manufacturers submit reports and other correspondence directly to NHTSA, so as to facilitate the exchange of information.

4. 49 CFR Part 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

The sample report you submitted is exactly that which is specified in Figure 2 of @ 575.104. It would therefore comply with @ 575.6(a) and @ 575.104(d)(1)(iii). Please note that there are typographical errors for the words "treadwear" and "passenger" in the sample you submitted.

5. 49 CFR @ 575.101, Vehicle Stopping Distance

Your stopping distance sample report is in the format specified in Figure 1 of @ 575.101. Accordingly, it would satisfy the requirements of @ 575.101((c).

6. 49 CFR Part 537, Automotive Fuel Economy Reports

Your sample fuel economy report, including the statement as to representativeness, satisfies the requirements of Part 537. Please note that the timing for submitting the reports is set forth in @ 537.5(b), and that your 1988 pre-model year report is due in December 1987, while your 1988 mid-model year report is due in July 1988.

7. 49 CFR Part 542, Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard

Your sample Part 542 submission would satisfy the requirements of that Part.

Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information on our regulatory requirements.

ID: nht88-3.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN -- VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/24/87 FROM DIETMAR K HAENCHEN TO ERIKA Z JONES RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 205

TEXT: Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in response to your letter regarding Volkswagen's (VW) plan to introduce ceramic dots on selected areas of passenger motor vehicle windows in order to reduce energy transmission on the car's glazing. I sincerely apologize for the delay in this r esponse.

In your letter, you suggested that one possible means of reducing energy transmission into the interior of cars would be to apply extensive tinting or ceramic dots over extended areas of the glazing on those cars. You provided, in Attachments I and II o f your letter, diagrams of the proposed areas of the glazing that would be shaded under your proposal, which included shading at the top (in the shade band areas) of the windshield as well as at the bottom. Shading on side and rear glazing was also shown . You offer a rationale that all of these areas may have less than 70% light transmissibility, and still comply with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @571.205).

Your rationale begins with the observation that Section 4.2 of ANS Z26.1 has specifications for items 1 and 2 glazing which refer to footnotes 1 and 3 when specifying Test 2 - Light Transmittance. Those footnotes allow areas of the glazing to have less than 70% light transmittance if the areas are not within the "levels required for driving visibility."

These footnotes are referring mainly to shade bands on the upper edge of the windshield. You also referred to SAE J100 (passenger car glazing shade bands), which defines a "glazing shade band" as "an area of the vehicle glazing through which light trans mission is less than required for use at levels requisite for driving visibility by [ANS] Z26.1." SAE J100 recommends shade bands only on the upper edge of the glazing. However, you implied that this recommended practice does not necessarily

result from a determination that all other portions of the glazing are at "levels required for driving visibility," the limitation set forth in Standard No. 205.

Instead, your letter set forth a suggested definition of the term "levels required for driving visibility." In a February 15, 1974 letter from this agency to Mr. George Nield, NHTSA said, "We consider the word "levels" in Standard 205 to mean vertical he ights in relation to the driver's eyes." You noted that EEC Directive 77/649 specifies levels requisite for driving visibility in the driver's 180 degree forward direct field of vision, and that Section 5.1.3 of this Directive specifies the boundaries fo r the driver's forward direct field of vision. You stated that this Directive provides guidelines for determining which areas of the glazing are "requisite for driving visibility." You stated that VW has tested its proposed shade bands around the lower edge and vertical sides of the glazing, as shown in Attachments I and II of your letter, according to the specifications of Directive 77/649 and concluded that "ceramic dots in the area defined in [the EEC directive] very well cover the vertical heights in relation to even small drivers' eyes, which are 'requisite for driving visibility'." Based on this information, you asked the agency whether your proposal to include tinted bands or ceramic dots with light transmittance of less than 70 percent in area s beyond the shade band of the windshield would comply with Standard No. 205. The answer to your question is no.

We agree with your observation that neither Standard No. 205 nor ANS Z26 explicity states how one determines whether or not an area is "requisite for driving visibility." Our February 15, 1974 letter explained that one would make such a determination by considering the vertical height of the glazing in relation to the driver's eyes.

We subsequently considered this subject again in a June 19, 1987 letter to a manufacturer whose identity was kept confidential. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for your information. As you will see, we concluded in this letter that the particular proposed head-up display described in the manufacturer's letter would not be located in an area of the windshield that was "requisite for driving visibility," and therefore vehicles equipped with this head-up display would not appear to violate Standard No. 205. This conclusion was based on the fact that the display would not obstruct the driver's forward visibility any more than typical hood designs or unretracted head lamps.

Applying this reasoning to your plans to tint a band along the bottom of the windshield, it appears that this area is "requisite for driving visibility," except for that portion through which the shortest driver sees the hood or other parts of the vehicl e. We again conclude that it is not requisite for driving visibility that the driver see the hood of the vehicle he or she is driving.

You also asked about putting shade bands on the lower edges of all side windows and over most of the surface area of the rear window in the car. These areas cover parts of the glazing through which the driver could see not just parts of the car being dr iven, but also the road and traffic to

the side and rear of the car. In many of our previous interpretations, we have said that all windows in passenger cars are requisite for driving visibility and must, therefore, meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement in Test 2 of ANS Z26 . See, for example, the enclosed letters of April 4, 1985 to Mr. Armond Carderelli and of August 4, 1983 to Ms. Mary Ruth Harsha. This position was taken after considering the number of potential driving situations in which the entire surface area of any of these windows may be needed to allow the driver to analyze the traffic situation and react to it properly and promptly.

As shown by our June 19, 1987 letter to the unnamed manufacturer, it is possible for a party to rebut this presumption. To do so, however, the party must present clear and convincing evidence to show that the area of the window surface in question is at a level that would never enhance driver visibility. We do not believe your letter shows this for the side and rear window area surfaces shown in Attachments I and II.

Your letter attempts to show that the extended shade bands on the side and rear windows are at levels of the glazing that are not requisite for driving visibility by relying primarily on a European Economic Community Directive. We note that this Directi ve has not been referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205. Whatever the ultimate value of this Directive may prove to be in determining what levels on windows are requisite for driving visibility, the agency has not analyzed the recommendation s of the EEC directive in detail. Thus, we are not in a position to comment on whether the guidelines established in this Directive are sufficient for defining levels which are requisite for driving visibility, within the meaning of Standard No. 205.

Additionally, another source of information that is not referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205 appears to disagree with the EEC directive. This is the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J100, which indicates that the only levels of windows that are known not to be requisite for driving visibility are bands along the upper edge of the windshield. SAE J100 suggests that the areas along the side and rear window you propose to tint darkly may be at levels requisite for driving visibility. As noted above, NHTSA has not yet evaluated this situation. However, the SAE recommendation suggests that it may not be as simple to determine the levels that are requisite for driving visibility as implied in your letter.

Because of these uncertainties, we cannot conclude that the areas shown in Attachments I and II are not at levels requisite for driving visibility. Accordingly, the presumption that all of the window surfaces in this car are at levels requisite for drivi ng visibility has not been rebutted. This means that if a vehicle has side and rear window portions that do not meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirements, as shown in your Attachments I and II, the vehicle would not comply with Standard No. 2 05.

I would also like to respond to your assertion that, since your company could block the areas of the side and rear window in question with sheet metal, those areas must be interpreted as not being at "levels requisite

for driving visibility," within the meaning of Standard No. 205. We have already considered and rejected this argument in a June 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Hisakazu Murakami (copy enclosed). In that letter, we said, "While there currently are not requi rements for the size of window openings, the agency must interpret Standard No. 205 to require window openings that are present to have complying glazing."

Although we have concluded that the areas on the side and rear windows are at levels requisite for driving visibility, we believe that it is appropriate to again re-examine the question of whether we should more precisely specify those areas of windows t hat are at "levels requisite for driving visibility." As we stated in the enclosed June 19, 1987 letter, we plan to initiate a rulemaking action to address this issue, instead of continuing our case-by-case consideration of whether particular areas are a t levels requisite for driving visibility.

Again I apologize for the delay in this response. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject.

ENCLOSURES