ID: aiam3082

Dear Mr. Black: This responds to your request for written confirmation of statement made by Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during a meeting with your representative, Mr. Bernstein. That meeting concerned the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216 as they apply to convertibles. The discussion below follows sections 'I' and 'V' of the transcript enclosed in your letter, which involve legal questions.; (I.) Convertibles, like all other passenger cars, must comply with th automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 beginning in 1981, 1982 or 1983, depending on vehicle wheelbase size. This means that convertibles will have to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and, either meet the lateral and roll-over requirements of S5.2 and S5.3 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants or, at the option of the manufacturer, have a Type I or Type II seat belt assembly at each front designated seating position (and meet the frontal requirements of S5.1 with these belts fastened around the test dummies).; In the second part of your first question, you asked whether convertible may meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. The answer to your question is yes. Convertibles are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 but may do so, at the option of the manufacturer, as an alternative to meeting the automatic roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. Please note that compliance with Standard No. 216 would not excuse convertibles from compliance with the automatic lateral protection requirements of Standard No. 208. As stated above, however, installation of a lap belt at front designated seating positions would excuse all passenger cars from both the lateral and the roll-over requirements. Therefore, a convertible that meets the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and that also has lap belts installed, does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216. I am enclosing a letter of interpretation that was issued last year which discusses the relationship between Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216, in light of the automatic restraint requirements.; In the final part of your first question, you asked whether you coul manufacture convertibles with fold-down tops, removable tops or removable hard-tops that would comply with Safety Standard No. 216, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is also yes. While our regulations do not include a formal definition of 'convertible,' the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose 'A' pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the 'B' pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the 'B' pillar position) or by a fixed, rigid structural member. Therefore, if any of the vehicle designs you mentioned meet this criteria and also comply with Safety Standard No. 216, they would not be required to comply with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208.; (V.) Section V of your transcript includes a discussion of the growin aftermarket convertible industry (removing hard-tops from vehicles) and the increasing number of kit-car convertibles. You asked about the legal requirements for these vehicles. Any new vehicle that is manufactured or assembled from a kit-car must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Likewise, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (by converting a hard-top vehicle to convertible, for example) is required to place an additional label on the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. This means that all of these vehicles would have to be in compliance with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 (after those requirements become effective).; Mr. Hitchcock's statement that removing the top of a vehicle that is i compliance with Safety Standard No. 216 would be prohibited by Federal law is incorrect. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (sic) 1974, does provide that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and this is the law that Mr. Hitchcock referred to. The agency has stated in the past, however, that conversion of one vehicle type to another vehicle type (e.g., hard-top to convertible) does not violate this provision, as long as the converted vehicle complies with all safety standards that would have been applicable to it if it had originally been manufactured as the new type. Therefore, removal of a passenger car's hard-top does not render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216 since a new convertible would not have been required to comply with that standard.; I hope this letter has responded fully to the legal questions raised i your discussions with Mr. Hitchcock. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4334

Dear Senator Proxmire: This is in reply to your recent inquiry on behalf of your constituent Todd Suer of Janesville.; Mr. Suer, in his letter to you of April 15, 1987, refers to cars 'tha have extra clear head lights besides the ones that are built in ' and asks if there is a law against them.; We are not familiar with the lighting equipment that Mr. Suer mentions It is not part of the front lighting equipment required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It appear to be aftermarket, accessory equipment, and as such, its use is subject to regulations under State law. We suggest that Mr. Suer direct his complaint to State or local authorities.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0467

Dear Mr. Blethen: In your letter of October 21 to Mrs. Petruska, out docket clerk, yo ask whether your rearview mirror idea is 'legal or permissible.' My answer, of course, is restricted to the permissibility of such a mirror by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Federal Motor Vehicle SAfety Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors*, doe not apply to mirrors *per se* by specified requirements that must be met by rearview mirrors mounted in new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. There are no Federal safety requirements directly applicable to mirrors, and thus manufacture and sale of your rearview mirror is not prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle SAfety Act of 1966.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5257

Dear Mr. Walsh: This acknowledges receipt of your letter dated Octobe 29, 1993 requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of the recent final rule mandating the installation of air bags in passenger cars and light trucks (58 FR 46551, September 2, 1993). As you suggested in your letter, we believe it would be appropriate to respond to your request in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration of the September 2 final rule. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4335

Dear Mr. Rutman: This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1987, providin information about the electronic message display known as 'Tellite' which has been developed by Pathway Limited.; I enclosed copies of two recent agency interpretations on electroni message displays similar to yours. You will see that under Federal law such displays may not be used as original equipment, or as replacement equipment on passenger cars that carried center highmounted stop lamps as original equipment. Whether they are acceptable as aftermarket equipment on other vehicles depends on the laws of the individual States where the display will be sold and operated.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3148

Dear Mr. Shapiro: This is in response to the questions that you addressed to Mr. Hug Oates over the telephone with regard to auxiliary fuel tanks. I have enclosed a copy of a letter which was sent to a company that planned to manufacture auxiliary fuel tanks for passenger cars and to do some installation. The principles enunciated in that letter are applicable to auxiliary fuel tanks intended for use in all types of motor vehicles except motor carriers in interstate commerce. If you have any further questions after reading the enclosed letter please feel free to contact Ms. Debra Weiner of my office who is familiar with the issues arising from the manufacture and use of auxiliary fuel tanks.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Arent; Fox; Kintner; Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Lawrence F. Henneberger Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5339

Dear Larry:

As requested, our office has reviewed the utility vehicle labels and Owner's Manual language proposed for use by American Motors Corporation on 1985 model year utility vehicles subject to the Utility Vehicle Consumer Information Regulation, 49 CFR 575.105. These materials were contained as Attachments A and B in your recent submission and are annexed hereto for convenience.

We have determined that the utility vehicle sticker and Owner's Manual language proposed by American Motors Corporation is in compliance with the referenced regulation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

The following labels will be placed on 1985 Model Year American Motors utility vehicles:

Open-Body Utility Vehicles - Jeep CJ and Scrambler:

WEAR SEAT BELTS AT ALL TIMES DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE

This is an open-body utility vehicle. It handles and maneuvers differently from many passenger cars both on-road and off-road. You must drive it safely. As with other utility vehicles, if you make sudden sharp turns or abrupt maneuvers, you may cause this vehicle to go out of control and roll over or crash--you or your passengers may be seriously injured. Read the driving guidelines in the Owner's Manual and Supplement.

Closed-Body Utility Vehicles - Wagoneer, Cherokee and Grand Wagoneer:

WEAR SEAT BELTS AT ALL TIRES DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE

This utility vehicle handles and maneuvers differently from many passenger cars both on-road and off-road. You must drive it safely. As with other utility vehicles, if you make sudden sharp turns or abrupt maneuvers, you may cause this vehicle to go out of control and roll over or crash--you or your passengers may be seriously injured. Read the driving guidelines in the Owner's Manual.

ATTACHMENT A

Following is an extract of the American Motors Owner's Manual (specified utility vehicles), containing the required introductory statements:

An Important Message To You From Jeep Corporation

Thank you for selecting one of our 1985 Jeep models. Whichever your choice--Jeep CJ or Scrambler--be assured that it represents the precision workmanship, distinctive styling and high quality traditional with Jeep vehicles.

This is a specialized vehicle designed for both on-road and off-road use. It can go places and perform tasks for which conventional, 2-wheel drive, closed vehicles were not intended. However, on-pavement ride and handling will have a different feel from what drivers experience with other vehicles, so take time to become familiar with your vehicle.

This vehicle has a higher ground clearance, higher center of gravity and narrower track than many passenger cars. It is capable of performing better in a wide variety of off-road applications. Driven in an unsafe manner, all vehicles can be caused to go out of control. Because of the higher center of gravity and the narrower track, if this vehicle is out of control, it may roll-over when some other vehicles may not. You should not attempt sharp turns or abrupt maneuvers or other unsafe driving actions that can cause loss of vehicle control. Failure to operate this vehicle safely may result in an accident, roll-over of the vehicle and serious injury or death.

Because of their open-body construction, Jeep CJ's and Scramblers offer less protection than closed vehicles in the event of an accident. Although Jeep CJ's and Scramblers may be equipped with optional soft or hard tops to give the occupants protection from the weather, these tops do not offer structural protection in the event of an accident and do not change the open-body characteristic of the vehicle. Even though your Jeep CJ or Scrambler has a roll bar for some extra protection, it is a truly open vehicle--there is no steel structural integrated top and it has low sides and a folding windshield. Many of these vehicles have no real doors. Dangerous driving behavior presents more risk of injury to occupants of open- body vehicles. So drive carefully and wear safety belts at all times.

Drive carefully. Observe traffic laws. Use driver and passenger safety belts. Don't drive if you have been drinking or taking drugs. These are the best ways to avoid accidents and injury or death. It is especially important to practice safe, cautious driving techniques in driving open-body vehicles because they offer less protection in the event of an accident.

Human error is the primary or contributing factor in more than 90% of all traffic accidents that result in severe injury or death. Alcohol impairment is a major cause of fatal and other serious accidents and is particularly involved in single-vehicle crashes. Between 40% and 50% of fatally injured drivers were too intoxicated to have legally driven their motor vehicles under the laws of most states. Alcohol impairment may increase the seriousness of injury in an accident and may complicate the medical treatment of a serious injury. Excessive speed is a factor in at least 30% of all accidents that result in serious injury or death.

Failure to use driver and passenger safety belts provided as standard equipment on nearly all vehicles is a major cause of serious injury or death. In fact, the U.S. government notes that the universal use of existing safety belts could cut the highway death toll by 10,000 or more each year, and could reduce disabling injuries by 2 million incidents annually.

Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death among persons 15 to 34 years of age...more than disease or illness, more than all other accidents combined.

Operating this vehicle at excessive speeds or while intoxicated may result in loss of control, collision with other vehicles or objects, going off road, or overturning; any of which may lead to serious injury or death. Also, failure to use standard safety belts subjects the driver and passengers to a greater risk of being thrown out of an open-body vehicle than out of a closed vehicle in an accident.

Before you start to drive this vehicle, read the Owner's Manual Supplement "Driving Your 4-Wheel Drive Vehicle" including the on-pavement and off-road driving guidelines and be sure you are familiar with all vehicle controls, particularly shifting, steering and braking. Learn how your vehicle handles on different road surfaces. Your driving skills will improve with experience, but as in driving any vehicle, take it easy as you begin. When driving off-road or working the vehicle, don't overload it or expect it to overcome the laws of nature. Always observe federal, state, provincial and local laws wherever you drive.

As with other vehicles of this type, failure to operate this vehicle correctly may result in loss of control or an accident. Be sure to read On-Pavement and Off-Road driving guidelines in this manual.

Read the manual and all the supplements in the Owner's Kit before operating your Jeep vehicle.

Enjoy your new Jeep vehicle. When you need assistance, service or replacement parts, see your Jeep dealer.

Change of Address or Ownership

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Clean Air Act require that the manufacturer be able to contact owners in the event of a product correction. Please complete the card included in the Owner's Kit when you change your address or purchase a used Jeep vehicle. Be sure to use the complete Vehicle Identification Number (VIN)--location described in this manual. If the card has been used, furnish the VIN and you name and address to:

In U.S.A. In Canada Jeep Corporation American Motors (Canada) Inc. Owner Relations 350 Kennedy Road South P.O. Box 442 Brampton, Ontario L6V 2M3 Detroit, Michigan 48232 Attn: Warranty Admin.Dept.

Warnings and Cautions

This manual contains WARNINGS against operating procedures which could result in an accident or bodily injury. It also contains CAUTIONS against procedures which could result in damage to your Jeep vehicle or accessory equipment. If you do not read this entire manual, you may miss important information. Observe all Warnings and Cautions.

Warning and Caution Labels

Various information labels affixed to your vehicle use a combination of colors and symbols. Bright orange labels WARN against operating procedures which could result in an accident or bodily injury. Bright yellow labels CAUTION against operating procedures which could result in damage to your vehicle.

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: 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

ID: 3136o

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Executive Engineer
Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
888 W. Big Beaver
P. O. Box 3951
Troy, Michigan 48007-3951

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 response.

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 of 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 transmission 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 heights 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 for 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 areas 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 explicitly 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 vehicle. 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 driven, 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 Directive 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 recommendations 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 driving 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. 205.

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 no requirements 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 that are at "levels requisite for driving visibility." As we stated in the enclosed June 19, l987 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 at 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.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:205 d:ll/3/88