NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: 1985-02.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Pat Reese -- Mannesmann Pipe and Steel Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 24, 1985 Mr. Pat Reese Mannesmann Pipe & Steel Corp. 1900 Post Oak Blvd., 18th Floor Houston, TX 77056

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120). Specifically, you indicated you were writing on behalf of Mannesmann Kronprinz, a German branch of your company which manufactures wheels. You noted that section S5.2(d) of Standard No. 120 requires rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars to be marked with the name, trademark or symbol identifying the rim manufacturer, and asked if this requirement meant that the German branch of your company had to register its logo or trademark with this agency. Standard No. 120 does not require manufacturers to register trademarks whose vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment are imported into the United States to file a designation of agent with NHTSA, and this designation must include a listing of the marks, trade names or other designations of origin used by the manufacturer on its products. A check of our files shows that no such designation has ever been filed by Mannesmann Kronprinz. Section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 sets forth the rim marking requirements applicable to all rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. One of the items of information required to be marked on such rims is "a designation that identifies tha manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol;" S5.2(d). This information allows the agency and the public to identify the manufacturer of the rim if there is some problem with it. The use of a trademark or symbol is allowed, instead of the manufacturer's name, because the agency can easily determine the identity of the manufacturer from the trademark or symbols would be registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In the case of foreign manufacturers, 49 CFR 551.45 requires them to file a designation of agent with this agency. One of the items of information required to be included in the designation agent is a listing of the marks, trade names, or other designations of origin" which appear on any of the manufacturer's products in lieu of its legal name. Both 49 CFR 551.45 and 15 U.S.C. 1399(e) require all foreign manufacturers to file a designation of agent with NHTSA before importing motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, including wheels, into the United States. I have enclosed copies of the regulation and the statute for your reference. As you will see Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on Mannesmann Kronprinz under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address for Mannesmann Kronprinz; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin for any of Mannesmann Kronprinz's products which do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by Mannesmann Kronprinz; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by Mannesmann Kronprinz, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. Further, 49 Cfr Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment covered by our standards to provide certain information to NHTSA. The required information is simply the manufacturer's full name, address, and a brief description of the motor vehicle equipment it manufactures. Should you have any further questions in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-04.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Kenneth E. Deane -- Application Engineer, Mallory Timers Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenneth E. Deane Application Engineer Mallory Timers Company P.O. Box 986 Indianapolis, IN 46206

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

With reference to the center high-mounted stop lamp and the acceptability of a switch you have designed, you have asked whether the new lamp and the vehicle's primary stop lamps "must be energized simultaneously, or that the low mount light must come on first, followed by the high mount light within 35 milliseconds." You have designed a switch which would energize these lamps within 80 milliseconds of each other.

Paragraph S4.5.4 requires that the stop lamps on a vehicle be activated upon application of the service brakes, and, further, that the center high-mounted stop lamp shall only be activated upon application of the service brakes. We interpret this as meaning that all stop lamps on a vehicle must be activated simultaneously. Lawrence J. Fogel's "Human Information Processing" (Prentice-Hall, Inc. (1967), p. 101) indicates that the eye cannot discern delays of 50 milliseconds or less. Therefore, we believe that an observer would not be able to detect a 35 millisecond delay but would be able to detect an 80 millisecond delay. Accordingly, a 35 millisecond delay would be considered to be "simultaneous," but an 80 millisecond delay would not.

You have also asked whether "slow 'teasing' of the brake pedal must not cause intermittent 'blip' flashing of the high mount light when the hazard warning signal is employed." A center high-mounted stop lamp is allowed to flash with the hazard warning system on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1986, but it must be steady burning at all times on passenger cars manufactured on or after that date.

I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

July 25, 1985 Mr. Taylor Vinson SMVSS108 NHTSA Room 5219 U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20024

Dear Mr. Vinson:

I have been referred to you by Mr. Kevin Cavey of the NHTSA for a clarification of one of the requirements for the High Mounted Brake Light on passenger cars.

We have designed and tooled a brake switch for this application in which the low mount brake lights and the high mount brake lights are energized within 80 milliseconds of each other. (This is at a brake lever actuation speed of 5mm/second.) To further clarify, either light could come on first, followed by the other light within 80 milliseconds.

Recent inputs from our customer, B-O-C Detroit, indicate that both lights must be energized simultaneously or that the low mount light must come on first, followed by the high mount light within 35 milliseconds. Also that slow "teasing" of the brake pedal must not cause any intermittent "blip" flashing of the high mount light when the hazard warning system is employed. In conversation with B-O-C engineering they indicated that they "think" this is the NHTSA requirement.

A complete redesign of our already tooled product would be necessary to meet these new requirements at considerable cost and subsequent program delay. For this reason, we request your input and interpretation of the NHTSA's intentions in this area.

Thank you for your early consideration. Respectfully, Kenneth E. Deane Application Engineer KED/s cc: Messrs. E. Eaton P. Johnson J. Smith R. Stafford J. Wiser

ID: 8292

Mr. John B. White
Industry Standards & Government Regulations
Michelin
Post Office Box 2501
Greenville, SC 29602

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify our certification procedures for the information of some of your customers. Specifically, you stated that some customers believe that you are required to test your tires for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), and that this agency then certifies your tires after reviewing and evaluating your test results.

Those impressions are incorrect. All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified by the manufacturer as complying with FMVSS 109, New pneumatic tires, found at 49 CFR 571.109, while all new tires sold for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be certified as complying with FMVSS 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, found at 49 CFR 571.119. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act) establishes a self-certification procedure applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. This means that the tire manufacturer, and not a governmental agency such as NHTSA, certifies that its tires comply with applicable FMVSSs. Each new tire must be certified as meeting the applicable FMVSSs regardless of whether the tire meets an equal or higher standard in another country.

The UTQGS are set forth in 49 CFR 575.104. Those standards do not require certification in the same manner as the FMVSSs. The UTQGS require that manufacturers mold onto or into the sidewalls of their tires the comparative ratings of those tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance for the use and benefit of consumers. Again, that is the manufacturers' responsibility and NHTSA neither reviews nor approves the ratings prior to their assignments by the manufacturers.

Neither the Safety Act nor NHTSA standards and regulations require that a manufacturer base its certifications on any specific tests, any number of specified tests or, for that matter, any tests at all. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of each tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with applicable Federal safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all applicable Federal safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire. If manufacturers conduct any tests, they are not required by Federal law or regulation to release their test results to the public.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or certification of tires, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture, before introduction into the U. S. retail market. Similarly, NHTSA does not approve or certify manufacturers' test results. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If they fail the tests and are determined not to comply with any applicable standard or standards, the manufacturer is responsible for recalling the tires and remedying the noncompliance without charge to the consumer. Government compliance test results are available to the public upon request from the NHTSA Technical Reference Division (NAD 52), 400 Seventh Street SW, Room 5108, Washington, D.C. 20590; (202) 366-2768.

I hope this information will assist you in clarifying tire certification requirements to the satisfaction of your customers. If you have any further questions or desire further clarification, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:#109#119#575 d:4/27/93

ID: 21610michelin

Mr. Larry D. Weiman
Magenheim Bateman & Helfand
5600 Houston Center
1221 McKinney Street
Houston, TX 77010

Dear Mr. Weiman:

This responds to your May 2, 2000, letter asking for assistance in locating information pertaining to the marketing, testing, application and certification of a particular type of Michelin tire: Michelin XM + S 244 Reinforced Radial X, size 205R16 104T.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this authority, we issued a number of standards for tires. All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified by the manufacturer as complying with FMVSS 109, New pneumatic tires, found at 49 CFR 571.109, while all new tires sold for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be certified as complying with FMVSS 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119). All retreaded passenger car tires must be certified as complying with FMVSS 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires (49 CFR 571.117). We also have authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, including tires.

The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) are set forth in 49 CFR 575.104. Those standards do not require certification in the same manner as the FMVSSs. The UTQGS require that manufacturers mold onto or into the sidewalls of their tires the comparative rating of those tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance for the use and benefit of consumers.

Finally, 49 CFR 574.5 requires each tire sold in the United States to have a tire identification number (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewall by the manufacturer to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect.

Our statute establishes a self-certification process applying to the manufacture of vehicles and equipment to our safety standards. This means that NHTSA does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or certification of tires, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture, before their introduction into the U.S. retail market. Instead, each tire manufacturer must certify that its tires comply with applicable FMVSSs. We do not require that a manufacturer base its certification on any specific test or on any number of specified tests. However, manufacturers must exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of each tire manufacturer to determine what tests results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify, with due care, that its tires comply with applicable Federal tire safety standards.

Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all applicable Federal safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire. If manufacturers conduct any tests, they are not required by Federal law or regulation to release their test results to the public.

NHTSA tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers or distributors and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. Those test reports are made public. If the tire passes the tests, no further action is taken. If it fails the tests and is determined not to comply with any applicable standard or standards, the manufacturer is responsible for recalling the tires and remedying the noncompliance without charge to the consumer.

As discussed in correspondence to you dated June 8, 2000, from NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, no compliance or defect reports have been located for the tire type and size you specified.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:109
d.7/12/00

ID: nht89-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WOLFRED FREEMAN -- FREEMAN & COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/22/89 FROM WOLFRED FREEMAN TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Freeman:

This is in reply to your letter to June 22, 1989, to the Administrator-Designate, General Curry, in which you "petition . . . for permission to produce a color coded (Green-Amber-Red) rear light device for all types of motor vehicles." You have designed "a workable auxiliary system that can be adopted to cars and trucks on the road."

We are treating your letter as a request for an interpretation of whether your device would be permissible for sale and use as an item of aftermarket equipment under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency. By aftermarket, we mean sale of the device for installation on cars and trucks in use, as contrasted with sales by dealers for installation on new cars. The principal regulation of this agency pertaining to motor vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard N o. 108. The only requirements it establishes for the aftermarket is for equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment specified by the standard (for example, headlamps and stop lamps). As your device is not a required item of mo tor vehicle lighting equipment, there is no Federal standard that applies to it.

However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act has a direct relationship to the acceptability of aftermarket equipment. The Act prohibits modifications by persons other than the owner of the vehicle if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment that is installed pursuant to a safety standard. Under Standard No. 108, this equipment includes stop lamps, turn signal lamps, hazard warning signals, turn signals, backup lamps, taillamps, and the license plate lamp. On large trucks, it also includes identification lamps and clearance lamps. If the potential effect of an auxiliary lighting device is to create confusion as to the intended message of any lighting device required by Standard No. 108, we regard the auxiliary light as h aving rendered the required lamp partially inoperative within the prohibition of the Act.

Thus, the question is whether your device has the potential to create confusion so that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor,

dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would be a violation of the Act. We do not conclude that the device has this potential. In your device, a steady-burning amber light would signal that the accelerator had been released (and that neither the acce lerator nor brake pedal were being applied). Amber is the recognized signal for caution. This signal will extinguish when either the accelerator (green signal) or brake pedal (red signal) is applied. Furthermore, it is steady burning whereas other rear lamps where amber is an optional color (turn signals and hazard warning signals) flash in operation. Therefore, it does not appear that your device would create confusion with required items of lighting equipment.

You must also consider whether the device would be acceptable under the laws of any State where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. However, we believe that in several Western States, there has been specific legislation that would permit your device.

We appreciate your interest in enhancing vehicle safety through improvement in rear lighting systems. We believe that improvements, such as the center highmounted stop lamp, should be introduced as standardized, mandatory lighting equipment on vehicles, rather than as optional aftermarket devices. Contrary to your understanding, our studies of a system similar to yours showed no discernible improvement in reaction time or accident avoidance over current systems.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-3.24

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: John B. White -- Industry Standards & Government Regulations, Michelin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-13-93 from John B. White to General Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8292)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify our certification procedures for the information of some of your customers. Specifically, you stated that some customers believe that you are required to test your tires for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), and that this agency then certifies your tires after reviewing and evaluating your test results.

Those impressions are incorrect. All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified by the manufacturer as complying with FMVSS 109, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES, found at 49 CFR 571.109, while all new tires sold for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be certified as complying with FMVSS 119, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES FOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS, found at 49 CFR 571.119. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381, ET SEQ. (Safety Act) establishes a self-certification procedure applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. This means that the tire manufacturer, and not a governmental agency such as NHTSA, certifies that its tires comply with applicable FMVSSs. Each new tire must be certified as meeting the applicable FMVSSs regardless of whether the tire meets an equal or higher standard in another country.

The UTQGS are set forth in 49 CFR 575.104. Those standards do not require certification in the same manner as the FMVSSs. The UTQGS require that manufacturers mold onto or into the sidewalls of their tires the comparative ratings of those tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance for the use and benefit of consumers. Again, that is the manufacturers' responsibility and NHTSA neither reviews nor approves the ratings prior to their assignments by the manufacturers.

Neither the Safety Act nor NHTSA standards and regulations require that a manufacturer base its certifications on any specific tests, any number of specified tests or, for that matter, any tests at all. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of each tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with applicable Federal safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all applicable Federal safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire. If manufacturers conduct any tests, they are not required by Federal law or regulation to release their test results to the public.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or certification

of tires, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture, before introduction into the U.S. retail market. Similarly, NHTSA does not approve or certify manufacturers' test results. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If they fail the tests and are determined not to comply with any applicable standard or standards, the manufacturer is responsible for recalling the tires and remedying the noncompliance without charge to the consumer. Government compliance test results are available to the public upon request from the NHTSA Technical Reference Division (NAD 52), 400 Seventh Street SW, Room 5108, Washington, D.C. 20590; (202) 366-2768.

I hope this information will assist you in clarifying tire certification requirements to the satisfaction of your customers. If you have any further questions or desire further clarification, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.16

DATE: November 20, 1992

FROM: L. Schmidt

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-93 from John Womack to L. Schmidt (A41; Std. 301)

TEXT: I am writing to obtain some information regarding changing engines in cars -- the questions are.

1. Is there any law that forbids replacing a worn out gas engine in a U.S. or foreign automobile with a diesel engine -- like a 6 cylinder Diesel Cummins engine which is in a Dodge pickup truck? (the 3/4 ton type)

2. If there is a law that forbids that -- does it only apply to the zone in a state where emissions tests are yearly required?

Please let me know about this. I was told its possible there is a law on this.

I would assume that the GM Diesel engine passenger cars could have engines switched to other better diesel engines if there was a law against switching the other way.

Please let me know as we would like to know about this.

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: aiam1702

Dear Senator Eagleton: I am pleased to respond to your November 18, 1974, letter asking for clarification of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations that might affect disconnection of the ignition interlock and continuous buzzer in 1974- and 1975-model passenger cars. Chrysler Corporation has suggested that our regulations make disconnection more complicated than contemplated by the 'Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974.'; The NHTSA has issued no regulations which govern the disconnection o any safety devices, including the ignition interlock and continuous buzzer. The only interlock or belt warning system requirements issued by the NHTSA specified installation of these safety features at the factory, and they are unrelated to disconnection of these devices by the dealer or any other person. The regulation in question (Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*) specified installation of ignition interlocks until October 29, 1974, when that requirement was deleted in response to legislation enacted October 27, 1974. The regulation also specified installation of a 'continuous buzzer' until December 3, 1974, when that requirement was modified in response to the same legislation, after the new system had been proposed and had been commented on by interested persons. The new system conforms to the legislative prohibition on continuous buzzers, and it is optional until February 24, 1975, when it becomes mandatory.; The only restrictions on disconnection of safety devices are statutor and, as such, are not subject to modification by the NHTSA. Specifically, the Safety Act of 1966 prohibits sale of a vehicle which does not comply with applicable standards at the time of sale, and this effectively prohibits disconnection prior to sale (S108(a)(1)). Until the Safety Amendments of 1974 become effective on December 26, 1974, (sic); The new system consists of a continuous or flashing reminder light tha operates only during the 4- to 8-second period after the ignition is operated, and a continuous or intermittent audible warning signal which operates only during the 4- to 8-second period after the ignition is operated if the driver's lap belt is not in use. Either the old system or new system can be provided in passenger cars until February 24, 1975, when the law requires that the old system be discontinued.; Since the permissibility of disconnection is the subject of a la passed by Congress, our regulation does not address the issue. We have prepared a short discussion of the disconnection law and I enclose a copy that explains its effect. The NHTSA is, of course, not authorized to modify this law.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4552

"Dear Mr. Gallagher: This responds to your letter seeking a interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.119). More specifically, you asked whether the letter 'B' must appear as part of the size designation of a motorcycle tire if that tire is of bias belted construction. The answer to your question is no. As you noted in your letter, section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 sets forth the marking requirements for tires used on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, including tires for use on motorcycles. Subsection S6.5(c) states that each such tire shall be marked with 'The tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1.' Section S5.1, in turn, specifies tire and rim matching information that must be provided to the public. Generally speaking, the size designation of a tire shows only the physical dimensions of that tire, not necessarily its construction. Thus, the common meaning of the term 'size designation' does not necessarily include an indication of the tire's construction type. Further, no provision of Standard No. 119 requires a tire's size designation to indicate the tire's construction type. The only reference in section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 to a tire's construction type is in subsection S6.5(i), which requires the word 'radial' to appear on the tire's sidewall if the tire is of radial construction. Therefore, in response to your question, Standard No. 119 does not require the letter 'B' to be included in the size designation of bias belted motorcycle tires. You noted that your company sometimes adds the letter 'B' to the size designation of these tires as an internal code. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to include additional information on the sidewall of their tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the required information. In this case, the addition of the letter 'B' to the size designation would not appear to confuse or obscure the meaning of the size designation. Hence, there would be no apparent violation of Standard No. 119 by including the letter 'B' in the size designation of bias belted motorcycle tires. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";