ID: 11888-1.PJA

Mr. John DiGregorio
235 Pello Road
Bricktown, NJ 08724

Dear Mr. DiGregorio:

This responds to your May 2, 1996, letter asking how Federal regulations would affect your product, a Atransparent tint@ film that sticks by static cling directly to the outside side view mirrors of vehicles. You state that the purpose of the product is to reduce glare from the mirror.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have any specific Federal motor vehicle safety standard directly applying to tint film for mirrors. However, if your product were manufactured for a new vehicle, Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), would apply to the vehicle. Standard 111 prescribes construction requirements for all mirrors, including the driver=s outside mirror on passenger cars. S11 of the standard requires a single reflectance mirror to have an average reflectance of 35 percent. If your product were installed on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the mirror/film combination reflected at least 35 percent of incident light.

There are other Federal requirements that affect the manufacture and sale of your product. Your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you would be subject to the requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to a statutory provision, that prohibits them from Amaking inoperative@ any device or element of design installed in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. ...." A business, such as a car dealer or repair shop, could not install your film on a new or used vehicle if it reduced the mirror reflectance below 35 percent.

We do not regulate vehicle owners adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles. Thus, if your product were installed by the vehicle owners, they would not need to meet any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Nevertheless, NHTSA urges them not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles. As for information on state requirements, we suggest you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in the states the tint will be sold or used.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:111 d:6/14/96

2

ID: 9638

ID: nht81-1.4

DATE: 01/22/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Davis Trailer Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 7, 1980, letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, in which you requested information concerning the legality of using welded mobile home axles and mobile home tires on trailers.

We have no regulations concerning the axles which may be used on trailers. However, the use of mobile home tires on new trailers would violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). For your information, I have enclosed a copy of this standard. Section S5.1 of the standard requires all new trailers equipped with tires for highway service to use tires that comply with either Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Use on Motor Vehicle Other Than Passenger Cars, or Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars. Tires which have the label "For Mobile Home Use Only" have been expressly exempted from the performance requirements of Standard No. 119. Because of the exemption, these tires may only be used on mobile homes. Therefore, the use of these tires on new trailers would render the trailers in violation of Standard No. 120. A manufacturer using these tires on a new trailer would face a fine of up to $ 1,000 for each mobile home tire used, pursuant to the provisions of sections 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1398). If you are aware of any such violations, the agency would appreciate any information you could supply.

As I have stated above, we have no regulations specifying performance requirements for the axles on trailers. If you have any further questions or need any further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

DAVIS TRAILER MFG CO

NOVEMBER 7, 1980

(Illegible Words)

Dear Sir:

In regards as to our conversation on 11.5.80 I am asking for information on using Mobile Home (Illegible Word) cut into, welded back together an (Illegible Word) to the Public. As you might know on some axles & all mobile home tires are stamped these words. For Mobile Home use only.

If you will mail me some paper work on this matter I will surely appreciate it any information on trailers as to the law of the land. I want to know about it. My competers around me are about to put me out of business using this sort of luck

Hoping to hear from you soon.

Yours truly

Charlton C Davis -- OWNER, Davis Trailer Mfg. Co

ID: nht88-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/88

FROM: SPENCER A. DARBY -- SATE-LITE MFG CO

TO: JOAN TILGHMAN -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 125

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/07/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO SPENCER A DARBY, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 125; TELECOPY DATED 08/30/88 FROM SPENCER A DARBY TO JOAN TILGHMAN RE 2166

TEXT: Dear Ms. Tilghman:

Sate-Lite Manufacturing Co. is one of the countries leading manufacturers of FMVSS 125 complaint Emergency Warning Triangles, and has been so since 1974. In a recent engineering review of the current FMVSS 125, some serious concerns have arisen, and I w ould appreciate your interpretation of the three areas stated below.

We understand that the applicable law requiring the three bi-directional emergency reflective triangles to be carried by vehicles over 80" wide used in" interstate commerce is a requirement of the Federal Highway Administration. And we further understan d that the triangles when used must be in conformance to FMVSS 125 as administered by NHTSA.

QUESTION #1: If the FHA requires three triangles, and since Para S5.1.5.(c) requires that "Figure 3" be included in the instructions for erection, why does Figure 3 show a passenger vehicle with only one triangle erected? For years Sate-Lite has placed the generally accepted diagrams for the over 80" tractor-trailer rig on either a divided highway, or a two lane highway on the inside of the container for the three triangles, as well as on the lower arm of the individual triangle, (see enclosed samples) per the S5.1.5.(c) requirement and is now concerned about the correctness of this practice. When used by the trucking industry, are these currently used diagrams correct, and in compliance with the requirements of S5.1.5?

QUESTION #2: More and more single triangles are being used in a non-required manner by passenger cars, especially the European imports. For this application, Sate-Lite has included on the inside cover of the single triangle container the "Figure 3" diag ram for proper erection of a single triangle when used by a passenger car. However, the triangle itself does not have the single triangle placement diagram for lack of room on the moldings. It is our opinion that since the single triangle is not regula ted for under 80" vehicle width usage, and since the usage by a passenger car owner is voluntary, the diagram does not have to be on the triangle itself. Is this a correct assumption?

QUESTION #3: Should not FMVSS 125 be amended to include a "Figure 4" for over 80" vehicles on a dividend highway, and a "Figure 5" for over 80" vehicles on a two lane highway? And if amended, should not Para S5.1.5 be revised to include specific ere ction requirements depending on the type vehicle?

As a major supplier of the Emergency Warning Triangles to the industry, we are naturally concerned. Our sales are to a few OEM Lighting manufacturers, or representatives, who then resell them to the ultimate consumer. We have no control over the end us age, and would not know if it were to be used as required by the FHA on over 80" wide trucks, or individually by the driver of an automobile or van. I can see problems arising if we were required to manufacturer two or three versions of the triangle, di ffering only in the erection diagram molded into the lower arm. Please advise

If I have raised more questions than I have asked, please feel free to call me at 312-647-1515 and we can discuss them of the phone.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

ENCLOSURE

ID: 1983-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peterson Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Scully Vice President Peterson Manufacturing Co. 4200 East 135th Street Grandview, Missouri 64030

Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of October 25, 1983, to Mr. Cavey of this agency asking for a copy "of an NHTSA ruling issued sometime ago which supposedly permits the triple identification lights normally mounted on the top rear center line of semi-trailers to be mounted at the lower sill location."

I enclose a copy of an interpretation furnished the State of Wisconsin on June 18, 1981, concerning this practice by Fruehauf Corporation. In summary, Fruehauf demonstrated to us the impracticability of mounting the lights at the top of a body with high-opening doors and a narrow header (chiefly because of vulnerability of the wiring).

The agency's interpretation was limited to vehicles of that specific configuration, and was not intended to apply to semi-trailers in general.

If you have any further questions, we shall be glad to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

October 25, 1983

Mr. Kevin Cavey Crash Avoidance The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Nassif Building Washington, DC 20590

Dear Kevin:

At the recent SAE Lighting Committee meetings, there was some discussion of an NHTSA ruling issued sometime ago which supposedly permits the triple identification lights normally mounted on the top rear center line of semi-trailers to be mounted at the lower sill location. Frankly, I was rather surprised at this and had not been aware of any such ruling. Most of the industry now feels that the NHTSA has granted the trailer industry permission to mount these triple identification lamps at the lower sill level rather than at the top most part of the trailer which had previously been required.

I would very much appreciate it if you could send me a copy of the reference letter which had been discussed granting permission for these lamps to be mounted at the lower heighth.

Since the rear clearance lamps are now normally mounted in combination with the turn signal lamps at the lower rear of the trailer, these identification lights were really the only high mounted lamps required on the rear of the trailers and they served well to indicate that a heavy, over 80" vehicle was on the highway. If these lights are permitted to be mounted at the lower level, the following drivers will have absolutely no means of knowing that a large, heavy-duty vehicle is in front of them. If information I have received is correct, in a few years time we have gone from these five high mounted lights on the rear of semi-trailers to no lighting at the top of the trailer. Obviously, a vehicle directly behind the trailer could block all access to the lower lights and a following driver, except the one directly behind the trailer, would have no way of knowing the vehicle was even there. I am quite surprised that NHTSA would grant such an exception on a permanent basis and therefore I would very much appreciate a copy of that so-called ruling which I understand has been issued.

Very truly yours,

Paul Scully Vice President

cc: Don Armacost, Jr. Joe Hodges

ID: nht79-1.31

DATE: 01/23/79

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

TO: Illinois Department of Administrative Services

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 23 1979

Mr. Ben Bagby Illinois Department of Administrative Services 716 Stratton Office Building Springfield, Illinois 62706

Dear Mr. Bagby:

This is in response to your letter of November 28, 1978, requesting our interpretation of the Federal odometer law. Your questions and answers are as follows:

1. Is the State of Illinois required to furnish odometer disclosure statements to purchasers of used vehicles which are sold by the State at public auction? Yes. For purposes of the Federal odometer law, it is irrelevant where or how vehicles are sold. The State is the transferor of the vehicles and as such is required under 49 CFR Part 580 to provide every transferee with an odometer disclosure statement.

2. If the Federal government donates to the State surplus vehicles, is the Federal government required to provide odometer information to the State? Is the State required to furnish odometer information to other governmental units and not-for-profit institutions to whom it sells these vehicles? The answer to both questions is yes. The Federal government has incorporated the odometer disclosure statement onto Standard Form 97, which is the form which officially transfers a vehicle and evidences its release from the custody of the Federal government. In some instances a separate form is used and is attached to Standard Form 97.

Part 580.3 of Title 49 defines "transferor" as "any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than by creation of a security interest." Therefore, it is irrelevant that the vehicles were donated by the Federal government rather than sold. The State as the new owner must, likewise, provide the purchaser with a disclosure statement.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

November 28, 1978 Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Kathy DeMeter

Dear Ms. DeMeter:

The Chicago Heights Office suggested that I contact you for a legal opinion on the following facts and questions.

1. The State of Illinois sells at public auction a number of surplus vehicles each year. For the most part the vehicles are purchased by dealers for resale, but a number are for the purchasers' personal use. Under these circumstances, is the State of Illinois required to furnish odometer information to the purchasers of the used vehicles?

2. The federal government donates to the State of Illinois a number of surplus vehicles. The State then sells these vehicles for a service charge to governmental units and select not-for-profit institutions. Under these circumstances, is the federal government required to provide odometer information to the State? Is the State required to furnish odometer information to other governmental units or not-for-profit institutions?

Let me thank you in advance for your help. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 217/782-4217.

Sincerely,

Ben Bagby Assistant Counsel

BB:ms

ID: 14245a.drn

William L. Shenkenberg, Esq.
Davis & Kuelthau, S.C.
111 E. Kilboum, Suite 1400
Milwaukee, WI 53202-6613

Dear Mr. Shenkenberg:

This responds to your request for an opinion as to whether your client, a Wisconsin school district, may lease vans with a 12-passenger capacity for "various activities." The answer to your question is that NHTSA interprets the Federal definition of "school bus" to permit dealers to occasionally lease vans for a special school activity, but not to lease new vans on a long-term basis. Also, state law may or may not permit the lease.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Under 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., a "school bus" is any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. A 12-passenger van that is likely to be significantly used to transport students is therefore a "school bus," and must be certified as meeting the safety standards applying to school buses.

If a new 12-passenger van ("bus") is leased for significant use as a school vehicle (e.g., leased on a long-term basis), the vehicle is a "school bus" and must meet the school bus standards. If the new van ("bus") is leased only on a one-time or very occasional basis, such use would not constitute "significant use" as a school vehicle. In the latter situation, the vehicle would not be a "school bus" and thus need not be certified to the school bus standards to be leased.

The onus of complying with NHTSA's school bus regulations is on persons manufacturing and selling or leasing new school buses. The purchaser or lessee (such as your client) is not subject to constraints under Federal law as to which vehicle it may use. However, states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, and Wisconsin law may affect the school district's use of vans. You may wish to contact the Wisconsin state director of pupil transportation to learn more about state requirements applicable to vehicles used as school buses.

In closing, school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. NHTSA therefore strongly recommends that all school children be transported in buses that are certified as meeting the school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/16/97

ID: 1984-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack DiMaio Technical Service Dept. Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. DiMaio:

This responds to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you asked whether it is necessary to mold the DOT symbol on the sidewall of a motorcycle tire used for racing on a production motorcycle, if the production motorcycle is to be used only on the race track. Standard No. 119 requires the DOT certification to appear on new motorcycle tires designed for highway use. If these tires are designed for use only on a race track, they need not have a DOT symbol on the sidewall.

Section S6.5( a) of Standard No. 119 specifies that each tire subject to the standard shall be marked with the symbol DOT, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section S3 specifies: "This standard applies to new pneumatic tires designed for highway use on...motorcycles manufactured after 1948" emphasis added. Thus, the relevant question in determining whether the DOT certification must appear on the sidewall of a tire is whether the tire is designed for highway use.

It is not clear from your letter whether these tires are designed for highway use. You noted that the motorcycles on which the tire is mounted are intended for use only on race tracks. If these tires are not designed for use on other motorcycles, the DOT symbol need not be molded on the sidewall of the tires. If, on the other hand, the tires are also designed for use on other motorcycles which wil1 be used on the highways, the DOT symbol must be molded on the sidewall of the tires. This is a determination which must be made in the first instance by Continental, but may be reexamined by this agency.

Please feel free to contact me if you need any further information on this matter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 20, 1984 NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Frank Berndt Dear Mr. Berndt,

In a recent visit to Continental A. G., in Hanover, Germany, the question of high speed motor cycle racing tires camp up. The question is as follows.

Is it necessary to mold the DOT approval on the sidewall of a motor cycle tire used for racing on a production racing motor cycle to be used on the race track only?

Your early response to the above questions would be greatly appreciated along with any comments relating to this subject.

Sincerely, Jack DiMaio Technical Service Dept.

ID: nht80-3.39

DATE: 08/28/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Department Michelin Tire Corporation One Marcus Avenue Lake Success, New York 11042

Dear Mr. White:

In your July 30, 1980, letter you requested more information concerning the interpretation of Standard 120 (49 CFR S 571.120) set forth in my July 14, 1980, letter to you Specifically, you noted this agency's previous interpretation that Standard 120 requires the tire load range to appear on the vehicle label as part of the tire size designation required by S5.3.1. You asked if it is permissible for a vehicle manufacturer to list the tire size as either (1) 275/80R22.5 (143) (G), or (2) 275/80R22.5 (G)(143).

Neither of your listed examples would be acceptable as shown. However, alternative (2) could be used if it is modified to explain what the 143 listing means. As I stated in my July 14 interpretation of Standard 120, the purpose of that standard's labeling requirements is to provide the consumer with permanent and useful information concerning tires which can safely be used on that vehicle. As a general rule, the information can be most clearly conveyed to the consumer by following the format shown in the truck example following S5.3 in Standard 120. Minor variations of that format are permitted, provided the variations do not change or obscure the meaning of the label.

Once the necessary information has been clearly expressed in the units of measurement most familiar to the American consumer, (e.g., load range G), there is nothing confusing or misleading about expressing the load carrying capabilities in a different system of measurement, if the manufacturer clearly indicates that such is the case. Neither of your examples gives the consumer any clue that the 143 is not a part of the G load range rating. The vast majority of these consumers would have no idea that the number refers only to the ISO load index for the tire. Your first example lists 143 ahead of the letter indicating the load range, which would even further confuse the matter.

To comply with the requirements of Standard 120, a vehicle lable must list the load range (in the form of a letter) immediately following the size designation for the tire. If the manufacturer chooses, it may then list the ISO load index rating for the tire if it is clearly indicated as a separate rating. For example, the tire size shown in your example would not be confusing if it were shown on the label as follows: 275/80R22.5 (G) or (143).

Sincerely,

Signed by

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

30 July 1980

Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Ref: NOA-30

Dear Sir:

This is in regard to your letter of July 14, 1980 which responds to our letter of June 10, 1980 wherein we requested an interpretation of appropriate tire marking required to appear on the vehicle certification label by 49CFR Part 567.

Your response is that listing the tire on the certification label as 275/80R22.5 143/140K would not be in compliance since the load range letter (in this case G) would not be indicated.

We are therefore considering have the tire size listed as follows:

275/80R22.5(143)(G) or 275/80R22.5(G)(143)

Please advise if these are acceptable. Your quick response would be appreciated.

Yours truly,

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

abb

ID: 18019.ogm

Mr. Christopher J. Roberts
Leoci & Meisenberg, P.A.
2256 Heitman Street
Fort Myers, FL 33901-3744

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This is in response to your letter requesting information about standards for motorcycle helmets, particularly those manufactured after 1980. In addition to information relating to standards for motorcycle helmets, you have also asked if the agency maintains records of helmets that have been recalled and how you might obtain copies of these records.

By delegation from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), NHTSA is the Federal Government agency responsible for improving safety on our Nation's highways. As part of our efforts to achieve that goal, we are authorized, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111, to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). These standards require minimum levels of performance for new vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has promulgated FMVSS No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets," which applies to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. Pursuant to 30012(a) of Title 49, it is unlawful to manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 218.

I have enclosed a copy of the current version of Standard 218 for your use. The Standard is also available in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 CFR 571.218. If you have access to the World Wide Web, the Code of Federal Regulations can be found at http://www.nara.gov.

Standard 218 was first promulgated in 1973 and amended in 1974, 1980, and 1988.

The performance requirements of Standard 218 remained unchanged from 1973 until 1988. The original version of the Standard applied to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. However, through a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 28, 1974 (39 FR 3554), the Standard was amended to restrict its application only to helmets that fit on a specific headform, known as the size "C" headform. This amendment was necessitated by difficulties in developing appropriate different sized headforms for testing. However, as these difficulties continued, the agency concluded that a precise fit was not as critical for testing purposes as had previously been thought and the "C" headform could be used more widely. Therefore, Standard 218 was again amended on March 10, 1980 (45 FR 151181) to apply to all helmets that could be placed on the "C" headform even if the helmet did not precisely fit that headform. After other difficulties with test headforms were finally resolved, the Standard was amended again on April 6, 1988 (53 FR 11280) to apply to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. The 1988 amendments also modified the performance requirements of Standard 218 in regard to the areas of the helmet subject to penetration and impact testing, temperature conditioning prior to testing and the properties of the test devices used to perform testing. Copies of each of the notices implementing these amendments are enclosed.

Information related to helmet recalls may be obtained from NHTSA's office of Technical Information Services (TIS). You may contact TIS at this address:

Technical Information Services (NAD-40)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 7^th Street S.W., Room 5110
Washington, D.C. 20590

The telephone number for TIS is: (800-445-0197); this number is answered between 1:00 and 3:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, by TIS staff in order to provide general assistance; however, reference requests must be made in writing. The FAX number, (202-493-2833), may be used to submit requests to TIS, however TIS will respond by mail or courier service (at the requestor's expense).

Information about the services offered by TIS is also available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/trd/.

I hope that this responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:218
d.12/1/98