ID: 1984-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ivie -- Manager, Support Section, Motor Vehicle Division Department of Transportation (Oregon)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 27, 1984, to Mr. Frank Turpin, which was forwarded to my office for reply, asking several questions concerning our regulations on certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The following discussions answer your questions.

You have asked first if there are any provisions in Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, for or against the use of blue warning lamps on police vehicles, if the lamps are steady burning rather than rotating. You have been unable to answer this question by referrals either to Standard No. 108 or SAE materials. Because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act allows States and municipalities to impose higher standards than the Federal ones for vehicles procured for their own use (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), the agency has generally deferred to the judgment of governmental bodies in their equipment specifications.

You have not stated whether the blue warning lamps would be supplemental to the vehicle's existing lighting, or replacing some item of the vehicle's original equipment. If the lighting is supplemental (e.g., roof-mounted as are the warning lamps on police vehicles in this area), Standard No. 108 permits it if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). Thus, a roof-mounted lamp, whether steady-burning or rotating, would appear permissible. If, however, the warning lamp was adjacent to a stop lamp or headlamp, or replaced a lamp such as a taillamp, a question of impairment could arise, and the burden would be on a State to demonstrate it had adopted a higher standard of performance.

Your second question asked whether there is a specific statement in our regulations or elsewhere which prohibits the attaching of materials to vehicle windshields and windows. The following discussion explains the effect of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and section 108(a)(2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) on tinting films and other materials placed on windshields and other windows.

Pursuant to the Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

Tinting and other films are not glazing materials themselves and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard.

A vehicle manufacturer or a dealer may place the film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle only if that manufacturer or dealer is able to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

However, vehicle owners may not go to a commercial establishment to have darkly tinted films installed for them. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

You mentioned that you have recently received an inquiry from the U.S. Air Force concerning the placement of identification decals on a vehicle. We have received a similar inquiry and I am enclosing a copy of our response.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

ENC.

Department of Transportation MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION

July 27, 1984

NHTSA

Attention: Francis J. Turpin

Dear Frank:

We would appreciate your help on some questions we have concerning federal regulations/requirements on certain vehicle equipment items.

1. Are there any provisions for or against use of blue warning lamps on police vehicles, if the lamps are "steady burning" -- non flashing or rotating? We were unable to find any information regarding this in FMVSS 108 or in the SAE Standards covering vehicle lighting.

2. Is there a specific "statement" in the federal regulations or elsewhere that prohibits attaching material to vehicle windshields/windows? Presently it is not allowed by our state laws, if "the material prohibits of impairs the ability to see into or out of the vehicle." The availability of various window tinting materials and screening causes constant inquiries from law enforcement, manufacturing companies, repair shops, and individuals regarding this law. Also, we have recently received inquiries from the U. S. Air Force on placing their Identification Decals on windshields of Air Force personnels' private vehicles.

We respond to the window glazing inquiries with information from FMVSS 205 and ANSI Z26. (Ie, the 70% light transmittance requirements.) Also, we mention Section 108 (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, concerning rendering inoperative of vehicle equipment. But, we would like to also be able to provide a definite federal prohibition, with possible penalties, etc.

Thank you for any assistance you can give us.

Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section

ID: 1985-02.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Richard -- JBR Manufacturing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jeffrey Richard JBR Manufacturing P.O. Box 415 Fairfield IA 52556

This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safety standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a 6 inch by 4 inch sheet of 1/8 inch thick semi-transparent rubber that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films or other sun screen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered, continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.

If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

I am enclosing the sample of your product you sent with your letter. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffery R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

JRB Manufacturing P.O. Box 415 Fairfield, IA 52556 (515) 472-7249 Jeffrey Richard

To whom it may concern:

We are proud to have solved the problems of the glare form the sun, of the automobile driver and its passengers, with our all new Glare Stopper.

The Glare Stopper is a great help for stopping glare from babies eyes, while sitting in the required car seat. It is also a big help for the driver from glare when the sun is too low for the sun visor, or too far over. The Glare Stopper will easily stick, or adhere to, the glass, with its suction cups. It is easily moved with one hand. The Glare Stopper works well for coverage of the side mirror at night, when headlights blind driver from seeing ahead, one only has to stick it to the side glass over the mirror. Passengers also enjoy the Glare Stopper to cover the glare in the rear windshield, as well as rear side windows. Driver enjoys the Glare Stopper to cover glare off the hood as well as glare coming in the side window, or when the glare comes in just beside the rear mirror.

Glare Stopper now makes it safer for drivers to drive into the morning or evening sun. Being just about the size of a persons hand, 4" x 6", makes it easy to see around while being used by a passenger. For added safety, a warning label has been placed on the back of the Glare Stopper where it will obstruct driver's view.

Glare Stopper is made of a durable rubber called jolite. It can't be torn, just cut. It is a semi-transparent material.

I have spoken to the law officers and officials which were of the state of Iowa. They said the Glare Stopper didn't violate any of Iowa's obstruction or tint laws for automobiles, because it didn't cover a large portion of the windshield.

I did, however, want the approval of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

This is my first invention and company establishment, therefore I'd appreciate full consideration of my product. I have enclosed one full sample, as well as, portions of the other colors, which they come in.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Truly,

JRB Manufacturing Jeffrey Richard Owner/Inventor Manager/Salesman

P.S. The Glare Stopper's rough backside keeps it from reflecting the sun from your car into the eyes of an oncoming car. Enclosures

ID: 86-5.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. J. Leon Conner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. Leon Conner Manager Long & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 691 San Angelo, TX 76902

Dear Mr. Conner:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you asked wether this regulation requises the treadwear testing for a tire size to be conducted only with vehicles that specify the subject tire size either as the original equipment size or as one of the recommended optional tire sizes. The UTQGS does not contain any such provision.

The conditions and procedures to be followed in grading tires for treadwear under the UTQGS are set forth in S575.104(e). That section specifies tire loading conditions and rim dimensional requirements for the vehicles used in the treadwear testing. However, it does not specify that the vehicles used in the treadwear testing can only be used to test tire sizes recommended as either original equipment or optional tires on the vehicle when new. Accordingly, persons testing tires to determine the treadwear grade may mount the tires on any vehicle, provided that the tire and vehicle satisfy all the requirements of S575.104(e), relating to tire construction, inflation pressure, size designation, vehicle loading, and wheel alignment.

You stated in your letter that the UTQGS compliance test procedures, used by this agency for conducting its enforcement testing for treadwear grades, currently specify that tire sizes must be tested on vehicles that specify that size as either original equipment or recommended optional size. This specification may have been adopted after the following language appeared in a 1975 preamble to a final rule establishing the UTQGS:

Several commenters suggested that the rule specify all vehicles in a given convoy be identical, to reduce variations in projected treadlife...Variations in vehicle type, however, do not appear to produce significant variations in treadwear projections. Nevertheless, to minimize such variations, tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which they are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. 40 FR 23073, at 23076, May 28, 1975.

As explained above, the UTQGS regulation does not specify that the vehicles used in treadwear testing can only be used to test tire sizes recommended as either original equipment or optional tires on the vehicle. The agency's compliance test procedures are only the methods the agency itself uses to determine the appropriate treadwear grade for a tire. Persons outside the agency are not bound by any testing conditions and methods not set forth in the UTQGS itself. Such persons may, therefore, conduct their own testing in a manner different from that specified in NHTSA's compliance test procedures, provided that their testing satisfies all requirements of S575.104(e).

You also stated that the use of different vehicles for treadwear testing of tires will produce measurably different treadwear grades for the tire, even when all the vehicle factors are closely and properly controlled. As quoted above, NHTSA concluded that vehicle-to-vehicle variations "do not appear to produce significant variations in treadwear projections", when it examined this issue in 1975. However, the agency is currently reexamining the effects of vehicle-to-vehicle variations on treadwear projections, particularly with respect to front-wheel vs. rear-wheel drive vehicles and passenger cars vs. light trucks and vans. If you wish to provide some additional data on this subject, please forward the data to Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, at this address. We would be interested in analyzing whatever data form the basis for your belief that our 1975 conclusion was incorrect.

Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff, at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, if you have any further questions about our UTQGS.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office Of Chief Counsel, NAO-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Subject: Uniform Tire Quality Grading Testing

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are requesting clarification of the UTQG Stnadard relative to selection of test vehicles.

The UTQG Compliance Test Procedure requires that, "the vehicles must specify the tire size to be tested as standard equipment or approved alternate for that vehicle", i.e. government compliance testing will be performed with vehicles selected in this manner. It behooves the tester then to select vehicles in the same manner it would seem.

While outdoor road testing inherently involves a large number of variables it is apparent from our accumulated CMT data that different cars do produce different wear rates for a given set of tires and conditions, even when vehicle factors (wheel alignment, wheel loads, mechanical maintenance) are closely and properly controlled. It is therefore possible to bias the candidate tire grades measurably through selection of the control tire car, the candidate tire car or both. Use of certain larger vehicles produce faster wear of the CMT tires and consequently higher grades for the candidate tire; tested in the same convoy.

If the UTQG Standard allows the tester to choose any car in which he can attain the required wheel loads, manufacturers may seek the tester who can obtain the highest grades.

Hopefully you can clarify the intent of NHTSA on this matter. If we can be of assistance in any way please do not hesitate to call on us.

Sincerely,

J. Leon Conner JLC:bf

ID: nht88-3.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BYUNG M. SOH -- MARKETING DIRECTOR TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 6-20-88 TO NHTSA FROM BYUNG M. SOH, TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC. OCC-2196

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1988, with respect to two motor vehicle lighting products which you intend to import into the United States. You have asked "whether these devices require approvals from D.O.T."

First let me explain that the Department of Transportation does not "approve" or "disapprove" specific products. It does advise whether a product appears allowable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Your letter does not indicate whether you wish to market these devices as original equipment to be installed before initial sale of a motor vehicle, by either its manufacturer or dealer, or whether you intend to market them solely through the aftermarket. I shall address each situation. The Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to original equipment is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 allows additional motor vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lamps and reflectors required as original equipment. Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima permitted by the standard. In addition, a motor vehicle must remain in conformance with Standard No. 108 (and all other safety standards) until its first purchase for purposes other than resale. There is no Federal standard that applies to your devices as aftermarket equipment, but the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, original lighting equipment.

Your first device is called a "foglight converter." The advertising literature attached states that its function is to turn "the existing

headlights...into foglights...." In our opinion, such a device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 by rendering the headlamp function unavailable when the fog lamp converter is in use. We shall assume that the headlamp would be converted into a fog lamp meeting the specifications of SAE Standard J583 MAY81 Front Fog Lamps. None of the photometric test points of SAE J583 coincide with those specified for headlamps. Our further concern with this device is that a driver might fail to return to the headlamp mode from the fog lamp mode, and operate the vehicle with reduced frontal lighting.

The situation differs with respect to the aftermarket. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not perform modifications that render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment such as headlamps added pursuant to a Federal safety standard. We believe that the installation of the converter could affect the operability of the headlamp within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. However, we note that the foglight converter is advertised as "easy for any driver to attach to any vehicle." As an owner is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the owner is not restricted under Federal law from modifications to his vehicle. He is, however, subject to the laws of the States in which his vehicle is registered and operated. We are not conversant with how State lighting laws might affect use of the foglight converter, and you may wish to obtain an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

We have several other comments as well. The literature you enclosed depicts the foglight converter attached to what appears to be the European-designed H-4 bulb. Standard No. 108 does not permit headlamps with H-4 light sources to be sold for use on 4-wheeled motor vehicles. In addition, the application of the device where motion is translated from the lamp's exterior to the interior by a linkage in the bulb base would affect compliance with the requirement that the bulb base withstand a pressure differential of 10 psi. Additionally, creating a hole or passage for a linkage has the potential of rendering the headlamp noncompliant with Standard No. 108's requirements for certain environmental tests, such as resistance to dust, corrosion, and humidity.

Your second device is a "headlamp intensity modulator," adjusting a headlamp beam "automatically from low to high beam through a middle beam." According to your literature, when a sensor notes the beams of an oncoming car 500 meters ahead the upper beam gradually passes through a middle beam and diminishes into a lower beam when the vehicles are 150 meters apart. This device is also advertised as capable of owner installation, and without the modification of any vehicle parts. The system appears to operate by a switch. This device directly conflicts with Standard No. 108, and its use would create a noncompliance with it. Headlamps are defined as producing upper and lower beams, and means must be provided for switching between these beams. Use of the device would alter upper and lower beam characteristics from those required by Standard No. 108, and in effect create an infinite number of beams while passing from a conforming upper beam at one extreme to a conforming lower beam at the other. This precludes its use as original equipment. We

believe that its aftermarket legality would be limited. Although Federal law would not preclude an owner from installing it, the instructions are sufficiently complex that in our opinion many purchasers would seek to help from a "dealer" or "motor vehicle repair business," which could not be legally given. There would also remain the question of legality with State laws.

These appear to be innovative devices and we regret that we cannot be more encouraging.

ID: 86-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. -- President, Trim Plus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President Trim Plus P.O. Box 490811 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33349

This is in reply to your letters of November 18, 1985, and January 9, 1986, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Jeffrey Miller, asking questions about the relationship of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to the installation of deck-mounted luggage racks.

You have stated that you install accessories on new motor vehicles before their delivery by their dealers. You have asked whether deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the safety standards? It is not possible to give a definitive answer. When a passenger car leaves the factory, its center high-mounted stop lamp must meet certain specified minimum design photometrics at certain test points, and be installed so that it has a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. It must continue to meet these requirements at the time of delivery to the first purchaser, even if a deck rack has been installed. If the rack prevents the lamp from meeting its photometric output at any test point, the standard does allow a supplementary center high-mounted stop lamp to be added, provided that it meets all applicable photometrics. If no such lamp is added, and the rack affects the photometric compliance of the lamp, we would view the installer (if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or a motor vehicle repair business) as a possible violator of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) which forbids those commercial entities from rendering partially inoperative equipment that is installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard.

You have also asked whether a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation. The answer is no; compliance with Standard No. 108 is determined without luggage in place, even if the lamp would be blocked when the rack is in use.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

January 9, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Councel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Mine is a company specializing in the sales and installation of automotive trim accessories with a clientele essentially being the franchised dealers of new American made automobiles.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself customers, and colleagues regarding one of the new motor vehicle safety standards which, I understand, is number 108 involving the center high-mounted stop lamp. Since one of the specialties of my company is the installation of rear deck-mounted luggage racks on new cars, I was wondering if you would give me some information as to how the new safety standards might infect this. Here is what I am particularly concerned about.

1. Would installing a rear deck-mounted luggage rack that has a cross bar on a 1986 automobile for a dealer cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provision of the new safety standard?

2. It seems to me that on most cars a deck-mounted luggage rack can be positioned so that the center high- mounted stop lamp can still be clearly seen from the rear. Are there any provisions of the new safety standards that I should know about that would help insure prevention a violation?

3. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

Mr. Miller, this does make the second of my requests to your department for this information that I have yet to receive. I know how busy you department must be, but please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. I shall await your reply with great interest, as it will make considerable difference in my sales and operation.

Respectfully, Jack McDaniel, President

November 18, 1985

Mr. Jefferey R. Miller Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Ours is a company specializing in the installation of automotive trim accessories. Most of our services are to the franchised dealers of the major automobile makers, installing accessories on their pre-delivered cars.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself and colleagues regarding the new safety standards for 1986 vehicles concerning the center high-mounted stop lamps which, I have been told, is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Since some of my orders are for installing deck-mounted luggage racks with cross bars on 1986 vehicles, I wonder if you could give me some information about how the new safety standards might affect this. I will list the things I am particularly concerned about.

1. Will deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the new safety standards? It seems to me that many racks can be mounted and positioned so that the high-mounted stop lamp is still clearly visible from the rear. How can we determine if one would cause a violation?

2. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

I shall await your answers with great interest, Mr. Miller. Many thanks for any information you can give me. May I please here from you as soon as possible?

Respectfully,

Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President

ID: nht81-1.6

DATE: 01/22/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 17, 1980 letter in which you requested information about the steps your manufacturing plant must take to comply with this agency's requirements for selling tires in the United States. Your letter stated that your main products are truck tires.

All truck tires (for both light and heavy-weight vehicles) imported into the United States must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). I have enclosed a copy of this standard for your information. You will see that the standard specifies performance requirements (strength, endurance, and high speed performance), marking requirments (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements.

Concerning the performance requirements, your letter asked how many sets of each tire size must be delivered to this agency for testing and how the costs are paid. The European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires for testing before they can be sold, but this country does not. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that its tires comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119. After the manufacturer determines that the tires comply with the requirements, the manufacturer stamps the letters "DOT" on the tire to accomplish the certification. This agency then makes spot checks of tires, by purchasing some from a dealer and testing the tires according to the procedures set forth in Standard 119. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken. However, there is no advance approval procedure by the agency.

It is a simple matter to check the tire to see that the marking requirements have been followed. I should note that the U.S. Customs Service will not allow tires without a 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 either be set forth in a current trade association manual or be furnished by manufacturers to dealers of the tires and in duplicate to this agency. If you wish to obtain a copy of the current manual published by the American tire manufacturers to see if the tire sizes manufactured by your plant are listed therein, you may send $ 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 which you manufacture are listed in that manual, you have complied with this requirement. If the sizes are not listed, you may consult other trade associations, or you may exercise the option to furnish the information to your dealers and to this agency.

I am enclosing a copy of another regulation that would also apply to your tires, 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Record Keeping. 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 dealers must then return the completed forms to the tire manufacturer, or some party designated by the manufacturer to receive these forms. This is necessary in case the manufacturer must recall the tires because they fail to comply with Standard 119 or because the tires have 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 you.

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 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. This designation must be in writing and in a form which is valid and binding under Chinese law. Such designation must provide the information set forth in @ 551.45(b) and be mailed to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

I hope that this information helps you and that the trade relationship between our countries will be a long and fruitful one. If you need any further information, or clarification of some of the information set forth in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

November 17, 1980

Tire Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of Department of Transportation,

Dear Sirs:

Our plant is Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant, formally Ta Chung Hua Rubber INd.Co., established in 1928. Its main products are truck tires and light truck tires, "DOUBLE COIN" brand.

Since liberation, our products have already been exported to many other countries and districts. For promoting Sino-American trade, we would interest to export our tires (bias-ply) into the U.S. market.

We have been told that truck tires imported into U.S. market must meet the minimum Standards of NHTSA of DOT and get his identification. As we are short of further information related to these tests, we write this letter to you for your kind assistance. It would be much appreciated if this letter will soon reply to us for the following matters:

1) How many NHTSA Standards must be met before entering to U.S. tire market?

2) How many sets of each tire size will deliver to NHTSA for total testing procedures?

3) How many testing fee would be paid, if it is nessesary to?

4) Further details which we have to know.

Deng Shin-Wen, Deputy director & chiefengineer

ID: nht81-2.34

DATE: 06/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the seat belt warning system requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. You ask whether the standard permits the audible warning system to activate even when the seat belt is buckled. If the agency's response is negative, you ask that your letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking.

The answer to your question is no. The audible warning system cannot activate if the seat belt is buckled. This same question was asked in a request for interpretation and petition for rulemaking submitted by American Motors Corporation in 1979. Enclosed is a copy of the agency's December 31, 1979, response to American Motors, which explains the rationale for this interpretation.

The agency's position has not changed since the response to American Motors, although as part of our regulatory review, we do plan to look closely at the warning system requirements of Standard No. 208 in their entirety. That review could lead to major changes in the warning system requirements, and we will give serious consideration to your request during our analysis. At the current time, however, we deny your petition for rulemaking since the requested change is inconsistent with the rationale for the existing warning system requirements.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

Raymond Peck -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Peck:

Chrysler Corporation requests interpretation of the requirements contained in MVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection, regarding the operation of the audible signal of the seat belt reminder system. Paragraph S7.3 requires:

A seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position shall be equipped with a warning system that activates for a period of not less than four seconds and not more than eight seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the "on" or the "start" position), a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver, displaying the words, "Fasten Seat Belt" or "Fasten Belt" or the identifying symbol for the seat belt telltale in Table 2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80 when condition (a) exists, and a continuous or intermittent audible signal when condition (a) exists simultaneously with condition (b).

(a) - The vehicle's position switch is moved to the "on" position or to the "start" position.

(b) - The driver's lap belt is not in use, as determined, at the option of the manufacturers, either by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened or by belt not being extended at least four inches from its stowed position.

Specifically, we request an interpretation of the language of S7.3 as to whether continued operation of the audible signal is permissible during the remaining portion of the four to eight second time period after the driver has started the engine and buckled his seat belt.

A affirmative interpretation would not depreciate the reminder systems effectiveness, would be cost beneficial, and in our opinion, is permitted under the language of the standard. The only adverse effect of such an interpretation would be a slight annoyance to those drivers who "buckle up" before the four to eight second time period has elapsed.

The seat belt reminder system that Chrysler Corporation uses includes a switch in the driver's lap belt buckle to deactivate the audible signal whenever the driver's lap belt is in use. The inclusion of this switch made good sense when the provisions of the standard required that the audible signal activate for at least one minute if the driver's lap belt was not in use. Subsequently, the Congress and the NHTSA amended the standard to require the current four to eight second limitation. With this limitation, there is no longer a need to deactivate the audible signal since in any event it can only function for a maximum of eight seconds. Consequently, we do not believe that operation of the audible signal for this time period would be a major annoyance to those seat belt users who "buckle up" before starting the engine. Moreover, allowing the audible signal to function regardless of whether the driver's lap belt is in use would improve the systems effectiveness by alerting other vehicle occupants of the need to "buckle up". The removal of the driver's seat belt buckle switch would result in a product cost savings of from $ 0.94 to $ 1.86 on our passenger cars and obviously increase the cost effectiveness of the seat belt reminder system.

We understand the NHTSA has previously interpreted the provisions of paragraph S7.3 to require that the audible signal be deactivated whenever the driver's lap belt is in use. That interpretation appears to be primarily based on the agency's intent as discussed in the previous rulemaking notices. While these are important, the language of the standard should be the final criteria to guide any interpretation of the standard. Moreover, we believe the intent of the agency cited in the response to the previous request for interpretation of paragraph S7.3 was really related to the earlier rulemaking actions at a time when the audible signal was required to function continuously or for at least one minute. Under the current four to eight second limitation, we doubt the agency's stated intent applies to such a de minimus matter.

If the agency cannot issue an affirmative interpretation of paragraph S7.3, we ask that this request be considered a petition for rulemaking to amend S7.3 of MVSS 208 and tha the necessary changes in the standard be adopted as soon as possible. As pointed out above, the requirement for a buckle switch to deactivate the audible signal when the driver "buckles up" has no safety merit and continuing a requirement for it perpetuates cost without benefit. In view of these facts and the potential cost savings if the buckle switch can be removed, the regulations should not require it.

Sincerely,

R. O. Sornson -- Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis

ID: nht80-1.49

DATE: 04/14/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 12, 1979, to Mr. Vladislav Radovich asking whether your "Kar-Kot" rear seat extension must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering child restraints. Your letter was forwarded to my office for reply.

The Federal standard currently in effect for child restraints, Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.213), does not apply to "systems for use only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children." According to the literature you enclosed with your letter, the Kar-Kot "has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat" and was "developed for sleeping/resting". The literature warns that the product is not to be used for seating". Since the Kar-Kot is to be used only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, it is thus exempt from the current standard.

The upgraded version of the child restraint standard, Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979), is scheduled to go into effect on June 1, 1980. That standard applies to any device, including devices for use by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, "designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." If the "Kar-Kot" will only be used by children larger than those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, your product would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. We note that the literature accompanying your letter makes no mention of any size or age limitations for child using your product. If the Kar-Kot is not to be used by children under 50 pounds, it should be clearly and permanently labeled to show that it is to be used by a specific size and age range of children.

Regardless of whether it is covered by the standard or not, your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety-Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety-related defects in the Kar-Kot.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC.

February 12, 1980

Vladislav Radovich, Engineer -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Mr. Radovich: I appreciate the courtesy shown me via the telephone today. Per your request, we are asking for clarification of 49 CFR Part 571.213 Child Restraint Systems, in relation to our Kar-Kot rear seat extension.

Please note, prior to manufacturing this product, your Department of the D.O.T., the Highway Safety Institute of Ann Arbor, and All State Insurance Safety Department were contacted to insure the design of a safe product. All research and studies find that the safest spot of a car in case of collision is being recumbent on rear seat.

To further substantiate that conclusion, we requested the Highway Safety Institute to supply us with computer readouts of safety inherent in sleeping on the rear seat of car. As you know, these are real life accidents of the most serious nature and biased toward serious injury. (Readout copies enclosed.) Recap as follows: Total: Cars Vehicle Occupants 8,976 15,219

Total number of rear seat recumbent children ages 2-14: 60 children Ages 0-3 Ages 4-14 No treatment: 7 26 First Aid 8 15 Released after 24 hour hospital observation: 0 3 Unknown: 0 1

Our telephone log of numerious call to your division - Jerry Medlin, Bob Nelson and Bill Smith - indicated to us seat belt restraints would be more of a safety hindrance while lying on the rear seat, than a help and we were advised our Kar-Kot rear seat extension would not require restraints and would be in full conpliance with Revised 213 Spec.

Should you determine that through an oversight this product is covered by Spec. 213, we request an exception.

I would like to follow through with your suggestion and would appreciate a meeting be set up with your department for the end of week of February 18, if that's convenient, to bring this matter to a conclusion. I will call you on Tuesday, February 19, regarding this meeting.

Thank you again for sending the Spec.

Richard C. Stehlik -- President

P.S. Our Product Liability carrier has never received a complaint of any sort-safety or otherwise.

(Graphics omitted)

Kar-Kot has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat. However, due to the drivers positioning of the front seat, the area of back seat not covered by Kar-Kot will vary from car to car. A folded blanket, etc. can be used to level the uncovered seat area, should it be necessary.

Fig. 2

Instructions for Kar-Kot use:

1. Remove protective coating from metal frame with a dry, clean cloth

2. Position Kar-Kot over seat at shown in fig. 3. Leave 1/2 inch of space between leading edge of frame and back of front seat. Unit should be parallel to floor, with at least one-half of Kar-Kot supported by car seat.

3. Swing leg to standing position and readjust length of leg if necessary.

This unit has been developed for sleeping/resting; do not use for seating.

Note: Remove adjustable leg of Mini/Compact Kar-Kot for folding should height adjustment be too long.

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC., Box 925 Waynesboro, Virginia 22980

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-3.8

DATE: 05/12/78

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

TO: Susan H. Soodek

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Federal Safety Standard No. 205 specifies requirements limiting the reflectivity of glazing materials. You are concerned with the lack of uniformity in state laws that prohibit nontransparent or reflective windows in motor vehicles.

The stated purpose of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, is to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions. The standard does not prohibit reflective glazing, nor does it specify requirements that would limit the degree of reflectivity of glazing materials.

Since reflectivity is not an aspect of performance governed by Federal safety standards, state laws concerning glazing reflectance would not be preempted by Standard No. 205. Safety Standard No. 205 does, however, specify requirements for the luminous transmittance of glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Therefore, state laws prohibiting nontransparent windows would be preempted if they attempted to regulate the glazing manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). State regulations applicable to the vehicle owner or user would not be preempted, on the other hand, since the Federal regulation is only applicable to the manufacturer. Therefore, a state law could prohibit the application of a nontransparent decal on a window by a vehicle owner, for example.

I am enclosing a copy of the California Highway Patrol petition for rulemaking regarding glazing abrasion requirements and glazing reflectivity. A notice concerning this petition will be issued at some time in the near future.

I must point out that our statutory authority requires all safety standards to be reasonable, objective and to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. The agency cannot, therefore, regulate an aspect of motor vehicle performance or design if there is no data or evidence indicating that a safety problem exists.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & ACCESSORIES ASSOCIATION

March 30, 1978

Joseph Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Levin:

This letter is to request a formal interpretation of FMVSS #205, Glazing Materials, as to the permissibility of reflective material. In addition, we have posed specific questions under #205 regarding federal jurisdiction and applicability of the Standard. Our desire is to prevent the possible emergence of fifty varying state laws governing reflectance.

May we provide an explanation of our interest, and previous communication with the NHTSA on the subject.

APAA is a national trade association representing nearly 1400 manufacturers, retailers, wholesale distributors, and independent sales agents doing business in the volume aftermarket industry. Among our members are manufacturers of a variety of window covering materials, including screens, reflective materials, and tinted materials.

As a service to these manufacturers and our retailers, we attempt to keep abreast of state laws bearing upon the sale and use of various window covering materials. The following states have enacted regulations prohibiting nontransparent or reflective windows: Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio, Utah, and Virginia. The states of California and Pennsylvania are considering the same. Lesser restrictions exist in Maryland, New Mexico, and Texas. With only two exceptions, the terms "nontransparent" and "reflective" are undefined and enforcement is left to the judgement of police, the Highway Patrol, or an inspection official. (See enclosed APAA prepared summary bulletin). This lack of definition has resulted in violations for windows which actually complied with federal visibility requirements as defined by ANSI Z26.

Yet, some of the states have demanded recall of reflective windows, the related costs and logistical problems of which severely disrupt interstate commerce and can drive a small manufacturer out of business. Uniformity, through federal preemption, would allow our manufacturers to comply in "good faith" with reflectance requirements.

On March 13, Mr. Guy Hunter (engineer) and Mr. Hugh Oates (legal adviser) to FMVSS # 205 met with Mr. Russ Simmons of West Custom Windows, an APAA-member company, Mr. Julian C. Morris, APAA President, and myself to discuss the association's request for an amendment to the standard to address reflectance levels.

We were advised the NHTSA may be considering the reflectance issue in response to a petition filed last year by the California Highway Patrol. May we be furnished with a copy of the CHP's petition and be apprised of rulemaking status?

Presumably, the Administration has not previously addressed reflectivity in FMVSS #205 because reflective windows have not created an established safety hazard. However, could not an amendment be made on the basis of benefits in safety from filtering out glare or benefits in fuel economy from the insulation properties of reflective material? What type of data is acceptable to demonstrate that establishing an acceptable percentage reflectance level would result in safety and fuel economy benefits?

A legal opinion from your office would provide clarification that the federal standard does not prohibit reflective material. The crux of the problem, it would appear, lies in applicability of FMVSS #205. At the March 13 meeting at NHTSA headquarters, staff advised us that the standard applies to the vehicle manufacturer, not the motorist. Are the states then on sound legal ground to regulate the vehicle owner, even a state's interpretation of "nontransparency" is stricter than the visibility definition incorporated by #205?

Your response to these questions will, hopefully, provide reasonable guidelines for dealing with the existing ambiguities.

Susan H. Soodek Assistant Director, Government Affairs & Liaison

[ENC. OMITTED]

ID: nht87-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Wally Lang

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Wally Lang Langco, In 1340 Walden Drive Elgin, IL 60120

Dear Mr. Lang:

I am pleased to respond to your request for a written statement of the legal requirements that would apply to a new product you plan to introduce. In telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke, of my staff, you described a new product that you would like to introduce. This product, which would be sold only as an item of aftermarket equipment, is a child safety seat belt buckle shield. This "buckle shield" is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle on a child r estraint system. The buckle shield would consist of a plastic strip that would completely cover the buckle on the child restraint. It would be clipped onto the child restraint belt on one side, and attached to the side of the buckle on the other side, so as to completely cover the buckle. To open the buckle, a person would have to firmly grasp the strip and pull it away from the child restraint system. The end of the strip clipped to the belt would pull off of the belt, thereby allowing the person to re lease the buckle.

Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @571.213), which app lies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard No. 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with th at Standard before selling the product.

Additionally, as Mr. Kratzke explained, you are not required to get "approval" from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. In stead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically t ests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-1 59 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said two years ago on the re lated topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in i nstances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger t he child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 PR 33722, August 21, 1985)

Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (21 (A)). That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an i tem of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the federal motor vehicle safety standards. Standard No. 213 specifies the elements of design with which a child restraint system might not comply if your buckle shield Here installed. Section 55.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shiel d would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section @5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires that each materi al used in a child restraints system shall comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CER 5571.302). If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, co mmercial establishments cannot legally install your device. The prohibition of section 108(a) (2(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard No. 213. However, our policy is to encourage child res traint owners not to tamper with their child restraints. Installation of your product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel