ID: 1983-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Susan Reilly -- Reilly Manufacturing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Susan Reilly Reilly Manufacturing P.O. Box 51 Mt. Vernon, Iowa 52314

Dear Ms. Reilly:

This responds to your letter asking whether a motorcycle helmet fastener your company produces, called "Alpha Clip," complies with Federal requirements.

By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, includes various minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets. The only requirement directly relevant to your fastener is the retention test, which is set forth at section S5.3. The letter you enclosed from the University of Southern California suggests that the clip passes that test.

I would note that Standard No. 218 only applies to new motorcycle helmets and not to replacement equipment for motorcycle helmets. Thus, unless your clip was sold as part of a new motorcycle helmet, the requirements of Standard No. 218 would not be directly applicable. (Please note, however, that the agency discourages helmet users from modifying their helmets. Section S5.6.1 of the standard requires that the following instruction be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications..")

I would also note that should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or by yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect. These provisions apply regardless of whether the device is covered by a safety standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

Sincerely

Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Reilly Manufacturing P.O. Box 51 Mt. Vernon, IA 52314 (319) 895-8479

Mr. Frank Berndt 400 Seventh St. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

At the advice of Mr. Gilky of the NHTSA Safety Compliance Office I am writing for your judgement as to the compliance of our Motorcycle Helmet Fastener to Federal requirements. We believe the "Alpha Clip" meets all requirements and is a safe and reliable product. I have included the clip, packaged for mail order, for your review. As of now, we market only the clip, not O-rings or helmets, and the consumer is responsible for installation.

I have also included a copy of a (unreadable) of U.S.C.. He then tested our fastener as a public service. Since receiving his letter we've added a plastic vinyl cap fitted to the hook, creating an interference fit.

Other recent information is as follows: 1 The hook is designed to fold in within itself when tension is released (we are in the process of moving the design patented)

2. Made of nickel plated (unreadable) steelwire of .142 +.005 - .000 inches dia. Length .900 I .020 in., width l.l90 I .020 in., width .702 I .010 Weight .

3. Has a deformation point of 600 pounds tensile

4. Does not protrude from the helmet

5. Installs directly to helmet strap - nothing is removed from the helmet.

I have also sent a clip and information to Mr. B. Roven, Coordinator of Motorcycle Safety for the Iowa DOT, if you wish to contact him for comment. Please let us know your judgement on our clips compliance as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely, Susan Reilly

June 3, 1983

Mr. Steve Reilly RR 2 Mount Vernon, IA 52314

Dear Steve,

Thank you for sending your new retention clip to us for evaluation. Professor Hurt asked me to run some tests on it and give you some comments.

The beauty of your clip design is that it could be retrofitted to most helmets providing a much more convenient method of fastening than conventional D-rings.

The first test I did was to use your clip on a complete helmet for the actual DOT retention test. Enclosed is that portion of the standard. I used an Electro E3 which has an extremely strong retention system. This choice of helmets made your part the weak link. With the Reilly clip in place, the test result was 0.54 inch elongation @ 300 lbs., about normal for an Electro. The clip showed no deformation at this load.

Taking the entire system up in loading, the strap began to slip at 640 lbs. when the unwelded ends of the clip deformed. This load at failure is typical for many helmets that pass the DOT requirements.

The problem that your design has is answered by many industrial safety codes that require a safety snap latch on all hooks. This spring-loaded device swings inward when engaging the hook and then returns to block the throat of the hook creating a closed loop. Bell Tourlite bicycle helmets use a somewhat similar hook with a safety latch made by Fastex. A less satisfactory solution would be to close up the radius of the hook bend to create an interference fit onto the D-ring.

Please feel free to send out any future revisions to us for evaluation. As with the better mousetrap, the world is ready for a better helmet retention strap fastener.

Sincerely, Original signed by David Thom, Laboratory Technician

ID: 1983-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/18/83 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LINDA ANDERSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NOVEMBER 21, 1982 LETTER FROM ANDERSON TO OESCH IS ATTACHED

TEXT: This responds to your November 21, 1982, letter and subsequent January 12, 1983, letter submitting supplementary information concerning a play tray that you want to produce. You ask in general whether that tray would be required to comply with any of the requirements applicable to child seating systems in Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. In a conversation that you had with Mr. Roger Tilton of my staff, you indicated that you no longer need information relating to the first two questions raised in your November letter. Accordingly, we will focus on the other issues that you raised.

The play tray that you describe would be attached to a child seat by the use of velcro fasteners secured around the restraint belts of the child seat. You state that the restraints would have to be in their proper position before the tray, which itself is not designed as a restraint, could be attached. You ask whether a manufacturer of a child seat could sell such a tray as a part of its child seating system or whether it could be marketed separately.

If the play tray were marketed as part of a child seat, it would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard applicable to child seats. Section S5.2.2.2 prohibits any fixed or moveable surfaces in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain the test dummy in the 20 mph test. If the tray attached to the child restraint so that it is the only surface in front of the child, the child restraint would have to be tested with just the tray as specified in Section S5.2.2.2. It does not appear likely that the tray would comply with those requirements.

If your tray is manufactured and marketed separately to consumers who own child restraint systems, it would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. That standard applies to new child seating systems that are designed to restrain, seat or position children. Your tray sold by itself would not constitute a child seating system designed to restrain, seat or position children and thus would not be subject to this standard.

You should be aware, however, that your tray would be considered motor vehicle equipment. As such it would be subject to our defect authority. If it were found that a substantial number of your trays were being improperly used as the sole restraint device on a child seat by connecting the tray without using the proper seat belt restraint system, the agency might determine that this constitutes a safety-related defect. Also, this could be the source of product liability suits in the event that your tray was involved in an accident where a child is injured while improperly restrained. From our analysis of your diagrams, this type of misuse appears to be likely.

In a final question, you asked whether the regulations ever change. The answer to that question is yes. The agency frequently amends its own regulations acting upon new information or changed safety needs. Further, the agency receives petitions from members of the public to amend its regulations. The process for submitting those petitions is outlined in Part 552 of our regulations (copy enclosed).

Enclosure

ID: 1983-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: China United Trading Corp. Ltd. -- Yang Ru-Tang, General Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements for importing tires into this country from China. I have enclosed a copy of a 1981 letter I sent to Mr. Deng Shin-Wen, the chief engineer of the Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant. That letter generally explains the requirements which must be met in order to import tires into this country. While that letter answers many of your questions, I will repeat the requirements to ensure that you understand them, and respond to those questions not covered in the previous letter.

To receive a DOT code mark, a tire manufacturer must complete the enclosed application form and return it to the address shown on the form. A separate application must be filed for each manufacturing plant, and a separate code mark will be assigned to each plant.

Before a code mark is assigned, the tire manufacturer must designate an agent for the service of process, according to the requirements of 49 CFR @ 551.45 (copy enclosed). That section specifies that the designation of agent must meet the following six criteria:

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

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

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name;

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

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

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

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature. When this agency has received a completed application for a code mark and a valid designation of an agent, a code mark will be assigned to the manufacturer promptly, usually within two weeks. You should note that the code mark is sent to the manufacturer at the mailing or main office address shown on the application, and not to the designated agent. The DOT code mark assigned to the manufacturer remains valid until such time as the manufacturer notifies this agency that it is no longer using that code mark.

No testing of the tires is done by this agency before assigning the DOT code mark. The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European Economic Community, in which the manufacturer is required to deliver tires to be certified to the governmental entity for approval. Instead, in the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that the tires comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109) if they are passenger car tires or Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119) if the tires are for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. 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 determines that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standards, 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 of 1966, as amended (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 tires 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.

With respect to the markings required on the sidewall of the tires, those markings and their required size and location are set forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109 for passenger car tires and S6.5 of Standard No. 119 for tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part Part 574 (copy enclosed) also sets forth marking requirements for all types of tires.

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

ENCLS.

Jan. 19, 1983

OCC

Raymond Peck, Administrator, Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration,

Gentleman,

We are China United Trading Corp. Ltd., Shanghai Division, newly established and located at One Penn Plaza Suite 1915, 250 W 34th St., New York, N.Y. 10119, and are agent of some import & export corporations in Shanghai, China. Now China National Chemicals Import & Export Corp., Shanghai Branch, located at 27 Zhongshan Road (E.1), Shanghai, China, who are the exporter of tires manufactured in Shanghai, intends to export and sell their truck and car tires in the United States.

We understand that an application must be made and approved with a Code Number before any foreign tires can be imported and sold in the U.S. market. In this connection, we need to get the following information with your assistance.

1. Is your office the right organization for the application to be submitted?

2. Should the application be made by the manufacturers or by their agent as mentioned above? What is the procedure in detail?

3. What is the procedure for quality examination of tires before you issue the Code No. and allow importation? Do you have your own laboratories for test or appoint any ones for test? Where shall the exporters or their local agents submit samples of tires for such a test?

4. Should each size, specification of the tires be tested in this way? How many tires are necessary as samples to complete such a test?

5. Is it necessary for the tires to be tested before they are allowed to be sold or to be tested by random selection at anytime from the market after selling?

6. If the tire does not pass the sellective examination, can re-examination be made or not? Is there any restriction for the re-examination?

7. What kind of responsibility would be borne by the manufacturer if the product does not pass the quality examination requirements? Is there any penalty in this respect?

8. Would the quality records by selective examination or test report be informed to the manufacturer?

9. What kind of reponsibility should be borne by the application agent and/or the manufacturer if any quality problems arise when a vehicle is in performance?

10. After DOT approval, where and what size should the DOT Code Number be put on the tires? Besides the DOT Code Number, what else are also necessary to be shown on the tires?

11. Once the DOT approval has been obtained, how long will it remain valid?

Please send us some papers concerning the above questions, if you have any.

Your early reply and assistance will be highly appreciated.

general manager yang Ru-tang

China United Trading Corp. Ltd., Shanghai Division

ID: 1983-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gold Bug

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 9, 1983, letter asking about the compliance of a device that you manufacture with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The device is a head support for children which has several uses, one of which would be in a car seat. You specifically ask to obtain the Federal seal for use on your package.

Only those items of equipment to which specific Federal safety standards apply are marked with the DOT symbol which indicates that they are in compliance with applicable safety standards. From our analysis of your product, it is not a piece of equipment subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Since your device does not need to comply with any of our requirements, you would not need, nor would you be permitted to use, the DOT symbol.

We would recommend, however, from a product liability point of view that you ensure that your product complies with flammability requirements. I am enclosing a copy of our flammability standard that you might use as a guideline, although as I stated earlier, you would not be required to comply with this standard.

ENC.

February 9, 1983

Diane Steed National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Steed,

Your name was given to us by Diane Emrick of the Colorado Division of Highway Safety.

We manufacture a product called Head Up. We are enclosing a sample for your inspection.

We would like to put the National Seal on the package. As you can see the Colorado Division has approved this item.

Please let me know the procedures for acquiring the National Seal. Thank you.

Robert P. Eschino, Vice President

ID: 1983-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Smithers Scientific Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking about the requirements of Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119) (copy enclosed). Specifically, you are representing a towing trailer manufacturer which would like to mount aircraft tires on its trailers as original equipment.

Paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.120) specifies that new trailers shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of either Safety Standard No. 109, which applies to passenger car tires, or Safety Standard No. 119. Your client intends to meet this requirement by equipping the trailers with tires which comply with Standard No. 119. However, your tests showed that the aircraft tires which the trailer manufacturer wants to use on the trailers could not pass the high speed test in Standard No. 119. You asked if the high speed test requirement could be avoided if those tires were speed-restricted to 55 miles per hour (mph) or less.

The answer is yes. Speed restrictions may only be placed on a tire by the tire manufacturer, and may only be specified at 35, 50, or 55 mph. To create a speed-restriction, paragraph S6.5(e) of Standard No. 119 requires the tire manufacturer to mark the notation "max speed 55 mph" on both sidewalls. When a tire is so marked, it is speed-restricted for purposes of Standard No. 119. Paragraph S6.3 of Standard No. 119 states that the high speed test requirement "applies only to motorcycle tires and non-speed-restricted tires."

Accordingly, no high speed tests are conducted on tires which are speed-restricted.

You should, however, be aware of the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Specifically, section 567.4(g)(3) and (4) requires a vehicle manufacturer to show a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on the certification label required to appear on all new vehicles. The NHTSA requires that the GVWR and GAWR placed on the certification label be unqualified by any speed restrictions and be based on the 60 mph capabilities assigned to the tires and rims by the Tire & Rim Association. Other GVWR and GAWR values may be assigned by the manufacturer, but they must be listed after the information required on the certification label, and they do not form the basis for testing a vehicle's compliance with safety standards, such as Standard No. 120.

Finally, I wish to emphasize that if these towing trailers are likely to be used at speeds in excess of 55 mph, the use of tires which are speed-restricted to 55 mph might well be determined to constitute a safety-related defect in the vehicle, under the terms of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). When a determination is made that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, section 154 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414) requires the manufacturer to repair or replace the defective vehicle or item without charge to the purchaser.

Should you need any further information on this matter, please contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 21, 1982 Steven Kratzke -- Office of Chief Counsul, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, National Highway Traffic Safety Admn.

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

This letter will confirm our meeting held in your office on Dec. 7, 1982 in which Wim Hermans of Sedelmayer and myself discussed use of his "towing axle" in the United States. You will recall that Mr. Hermans showed you sales literature describing Sedelmayer's "towed axle" which has been in service in Europe for some 18 years.

Our main question to you was to identify the correct and proper method by which to consider the 5.00"x5" size Goodyear brand aircraft tires currently being used on this "towed axle." The primary use for this device has been in towing disabled or damaged passenger vehicles to a dealership or repair garage at speeds below the posted 55 mph speed limit currently in force throughout the United States. As such, Smithers felt that Sedelmayer needed to brand his tires "55 mph speed restricted" and have tires tested to the existing DOT 119 regulations as a speed restricted tire. Once laboratory testing confirmed Sedelmayer's tire as passing the DOT 119 regulation, Sedelmayer would need to have Goodyear (or any other supplier) supply tires labeled for speed restriction to be within compliance with DOT 119 for tires other than passenger tires used on public highways.

You confirmed Smithers' summary of Mr. Herman's situation and told us that to proceed in the above stated manner would satisfy your office and the DOT 119 regulations.

Would you please forward to the writer your written understanding of this matter so that our records and proper sequence methodology are accurate as stated? I await your reply. Should you require additional information in this matter, please advise.

Sincerely, SMITHERS SCIENTIFIC SERVICES, INC.; David E. Williams -- Marketing Manager cc: Wim Hermans, Sedelmayer

ID: 1983-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Trucks -- Tom Dobbs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Tom Dobbs Oshkosh Trucks 2307 Oregon Street Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901

Dear Mr. Dobbs:

This responds to your recent telephone request asking whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, would prohibit the use of a hand control that would allow the vehicle operator to apply only the rear brakes if the driver so chooses. You question whether this can be proper in light of the requirement that vehicles be equipped with brakes that act on all wheels. Although the standard requires brakes acting on all wheels, nothing in the standard prohibits the type of hand control that you mention.

For years, tractor-trailer combinations have been equipped with brakes acting on all wheels. Some of these combinations also have been equipped with hand controls that allow the operator to activate only the trailer brakes. It has been argued that in some instances this control can be used to reproduce beneficial results in combination vehicles. While we can see no beneficial results that could possibly be gained by the use of hand controls in trucks, such a control would not be prohibited by the standard. The standard simply requires a service brake system acting on all wheels. The trucks that you mentioned would still have this system, and therefore, would continue to comply with the standard.

You should note that the agency does not encourage the use of such hand controls, particularly on trucks. This type of control provides a opportunity for vehicle operators to lessen the effectiveness of their braking systems. Should an operator use the hand control instead of the full service brakes in a stop and create an accident, there could be the potential for tort liability for both the operator that purchased vehicles with such systems and for the manufacturer who installed them knowing that they could lead to the easy missue of the braking system. We suggest that you contact your attorneys for further guidance in this area.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chromalloy -- Jack Fazio, Quality Assurance Manager, Safetee Glass Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack Fazio Quality Assurance Manager Safetee Glass Division Chromalloy 250 King Manor Drive King of Prussia, PA 19406

Dear Mr. Fazio:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether it is necessary for your company to obtain a new glazing DOT number when it transfers production of some of its safety glazing materials to a new plant location.

It is necessary for you to obtain a new DOT number since the status of your company is not changing. You indicate that this change only represents a move of production operation from one facility to another. We will note your additional address on our records and nothing further is required.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/83 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: HOUTAN MOSTAGHIM -- VICE PRESIDENT, PAN UNITED INC.

TITLE: NOA-30

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-4-83, FROM HOUTAN MOSTAGHIM, TO NHTSA, REF: PUI 109/383, TITLED DOG CLIP

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 4, 1983, asking whether there are any Federal regulations applicable to an accessory component used to secure pets to vehicle seat belts. The component latches into the seat belt buckle and is then attached to the pet's collar or leash. Your company intends to import these accessories.

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations applicable to the product you describe. Therefore, as far as this agency is concerned, there are no responsibilities you must meet prior to importing this item (i.e., there are no testing or licensing requirements). You should, however, contact State authorities to determine if they have any licensing requirements or regulations that would be applicable to the sale of such a device.

You will have to contact private counsel to determine the product liability implications and insurance needs of your enterprise.

Thank you for your inquiry.

ID: 1983-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. D. L. Boren, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 22, 1983 NOA-30

The Honorable David L. Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information on behalf of one of your constituents, Mr. John H. Kiser. Mr. Kiser is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing "privacy glass" or "one-way plastic films" on passenger car windows. He believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents law enforcement officers and other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Mr. Kiser thinks there should be Federal laws to prevent such installations in passenger cars.

A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances, precludes the practice referred to by Mr. Kiser. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 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.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such as the type referred to in Mr. Kiser's letter 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. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

The preceding discussion regarding tinting films would be equally applicable to "one-way privacy glass," if such glass did not have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent. This means that such glass could not be installed by a dealer on new passenger cars prior to their first sale, nor by the persons mentioned in section 108(a)(2)(A), on used vehicles, to replace complying glazing.

The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mr. Kiser may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing solar film on their automobile windows.

I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 205 for Mr. Kiger's information. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures Constituent's Letter Standard No. 205

United States Senate

February 28, 1983

Respectfully referred to:

Congressional Liaison Dept. of Transportation Washington, DC

PLEASE RESPOND TO ATTENTION OF: SS

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquires and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Your findings and views, in duplicate form, along with return of the enclosure, will be appreciated by

-------------------- U.S.S. David L. Boren

We think this subject is a matter for State legislation not federal. Would appreciate your views since he will not give up.

February 18, 1983

216 Bluebird Drive Midwest City, OK 73110

Senator David L. Boren Russell Senate Office Bldg Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

In October 1981 I wrote to you regarding control of privacy glass or one way plastic film in or on windshields, drivers window and passenger window.

Your November 4, 1981 reply advised that I should discuss the problem with local representative or senator.

I have said nothing to them and have delayed writing to your office again as I thought legislation might originate from another source. It seems to me that federal instead of state legislation is called for. If Oklahoma had a law prohibiting such privacy glass a traveler would be just as dead if killed as a result of a driver in another state having such privacy glass. A uniform stand is necessary so that:

a. Law enforcement officers can see who is inside or what weapons they might be pointing it at the officer.

b. Other drivers can see if driver approaching intersection is looking at all cars or changing the tuning of his radio.

c. Condition of driver can be determined by others.

Sincerely

John H. Kiser

ID: 1983-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cummins Engine Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 24 1983 NOA-30

Mr. J. N. Uranga Cummins Engine Company, Inc. Box 3005 Columbus, Indiana 47201

Dear Mr. Uranga:

This responds to your January 28, 1983, letter asking about the responsibilities of an original equipment manufacturer for compliance with Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, and other agency recall-related regulations. In particular, you ask questions concerning a hypothetically defective original equipment fan that is a component of an original equipment engine that you manufacture. You ask whether your company would be responsible for compliance with agency regulations if you notified the fan manufacturer of a defect in its product and if that manufacturer refused to report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Part 579, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility, states clearly that original equipment is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer. As such, the manufacturer(s) of the vehicles in which the equipment is installed would be responsible for recalling and remedying the defective fan. However, Part 573 states that in the case of original equipment, defect reports shall be submitted by either the equipment or the vehicle manufacturer when the defective equipment has been supplied to only one vehicle manufacturer. On the other hand, where such equipment is supplied to more than one manufacturer, both the vehicle manufacturers and the original equipment manufacturer must submit the required reports.

Your hypothetical situation further complicates the reports question because the original equipment is a component of the original equipment that you manufacture. The agency concludes that in the situation that you posit, the manufacturer of the fan and the manufacturer of all of the vehicles in which the fan is installed would be required to supply the necessary defect reports. Failure to do so would subject all manufacturers to the penalties provided by law. If the fan manufacturer refuses to submit the required reports, it would be the responsibility of your company to issue the report to the agency, since you would also be considered an original equipment manufacturer and the defective component would be part of your equipment. The agency would not require both your company and the fan manufacturer to report. A report submitted by either company would be considered compliance by both companies. However, failure of both companies to report could result in the imposition of penalties on both.

I trust this fully answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 25, 1983

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Aenid Rubenstein and David Allen of your staff recommended I request a written opinion from your office regarding the applicability of your operational regulations (49 CFR 573 et. seq.) to the following hypothetical situation:

Cummins Engine Company, Inc. manufactures only diesel engines. It sells such engines to OEM's for installation in their trucks. The OEM's attach various components to our engines as part of their installation. One of such OEM add-ons is the engine cooling fan. Assume an OEM manufactured fan, attached to our engine fails. Assume further that Cummins notifies the OEM that such fan has failed (along with particulars of where, when, frequency, etc.) and requests to know if the OEM will notify NHTSA. Assume the OEM does or does not conduct a safety defect investigation of the failure but indicates to Cummins that it will not report to NHTSA for whatever reason. Under this hypothetical situation, what is Cummins' responsibility vis-a-vis NHTSA?

Our concern in this hypothetical situation is for the truck user who may be injured and who will probably assume that the fan was an integral part of the engine.

The Corporate Product Safety Committee of Cummins is involved in reviewing and formulating corporate guidelines regarding product safety and would appreciate your timely response to the above question.

Yours truly,

Senior Counsel J.N.Uranga/cst