ID: aiam4038

Dear Ms. House: Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1985, inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to two solar glare shading products you have developed. You described the first product as an 8 inch diameter acrylic disk which is of optical quality and tinted. The second product is a 4 inch by 4 inch sheet of opaque plastic. You explained that both products are designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we hav issued 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% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in *new* vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5326

"Dear Mr. Brooks: This responds to your letter asking about th operation and classification of a commercial vehicle you wish to manufacture. The vehicle will carry fewer than 10 passengers and its GVWR will be 11,500 pounds. You were particularly interested in the type of operator's license that would be required of the driver. Driver licensing requirements for vehicle operators are determined by state law. Since the vehicle's GVWR will be less than 26,000 lbs, and the vehicle will presumably be designed to carry fewer than 15 passengers, the driver will not be required, under the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Commercial Driver Licensing (CDL) regulations, 49 CFR part 383, to qualify for a commercial driver license. However, some states require that drivers obtain a commercial driver license to drive vehicles that have lower GVWRs. The driver licensing requirements of the state in which the vehicle is registered, will apply. For more information about the CDL requirements, you can contact the FHWA Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0834. Vehicle classification is relevant for the regulations and standards of our agency. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each FMVSS for motor vehicles applies to one or more particular types of vehicles, e.g., a standard might apply to passenger cars, buses, trucks, and/or trailers. To determine which FMVSSs apply to their vehicles, manufacturers classify their vehicles using the definitions in 49 CFR part 571.3 of NHTSA's regulations. Under part 571.3 (copy enclosed), your vehicle, which you said is built in a bus/truck chassis, appears to be a 'truck' or a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle.' Under part 567, a manufacturer must state the vehicle classification on the vehicle's certification label and certify that its motor vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA may take issue with a manufacturer's vehicle classification in an enforcement proceeding if the agency does not agree with the manufacturer's classification. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 07-002890drn-2

ID: 17563.ztv

The Honorable Jon Christensen
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-2702

Dear Mr. Christensen:

Thank you for your recent letter to the Department of Transportation on behalf of your constituent, Sam M. Person of Omaha.

Mr. Person first wrote you complaining of the use of parking lamps as daytime running lamps ("DRLs"). He stated that use of parking lamps while a vehicle is in motion violates Nebraska Statute 60.622. Mr. Person then wrote you stating that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits the use of turn signal lamps as DRLs, but that "on most vehicles the turn signal lamp and parking lamp are in the same housing and both display an amber lamp." He is unsure how a law enforcement officer can distinguish between the two. He has been informed that Standard No. 108 supersedes state laws.

States are permitted to enact and enforce their own motor vehicle safety standards. However, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)((1), a Federal motor vehicle safety standard will preempt any state standard covering the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard that is not identical to it. We see no conflict with Nebraska Statute 60.622. Although Standard No. 108 requires parking lamps as original equipment on passenger cars, it does not prescribe the conditions under which they are to be operated. In fact, the DRL requirements of Standard No. 108 specifically says that parking lamps may not be wired to operate as DRLs (paragraph S5.5.11(a)).

However, Standard No. 108 does permit turn signal lamps to be wired to operate as DRLs. As law enforcement officials become aware of this fact, they will be less likely to confuse a permissible turn signal DRL with a parking lamp that is not permitted to be used when a vehicle is in motion. We are not aware that use of amber turn signal lamps as DRLs has created confusion or a safety problem.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/22/98

ID: nht76-1.47

DATE: 11/17/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 16, 1976, question whether any Federal regulation requires that the maximum load rating assigned to a passenger car tire be reduced by approximately 10 percent in calculating its maximum load rating for use on a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), truck, or bus.

The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, became effective September 1, 1976, and provides for the reduced maximum load rating you describe. Section S5.1.2 of the standard provides in part that "[when] a tire listed in [the passenger car tire standard] is installed on a multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus, or trailer, the tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing by 1.10 before calculating the sum [that must at least equal the axle system's gross axle weight rating]." A copy of the standard, with subsequent amendments, is enclosed for your information.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

September 16, 1976

John W. Snow National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We have noted that page XI of the 1976 Tire and Rim Association standards, copy enclosed, requires that a passenger car tire be loaded to not more than 91 percent of its rated load when used on a truck, bus or multipurpose passenger vehicle. Is this limitation included as a part of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 or 119?

If the requirement is applicable, we propose to include it in our Vehicle Equipment Inspection Guide. If the restriction is not referenced in the standard, are we preempted from adopting it as a part of the enclosed State regulations on tires?

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

ID: nht88-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT W. STUCHELL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 4-30-88, TO MR. VINSON FROM, ROBERT W. STUCHELL, OCC-1973

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1988, to Mr. Vinson of this Office as to the existence of Federal or State regulations "governing sale and/or use of lighted signs of any shape placed on the inside of the rear window of aftermarket cars. Suc h signs would not be connected with any new car purchase."

The Department of Transportation has no restriction on the sale of signs for use inside motor vehicles. Nor are there any Federal regulations that would prevent an owner from installing or using such signs. However, if the sign were of such a nature th at it is intended to be installed by a dealer or motor vehicle repair business, the installer must insure that its installation does not render inoperative in whole or in part any device installed on the vehicle pursuant to a safety standard. For exampl e, if the sign is installed on a passenger car equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp, the sign must not block the light from the lamp, or operate in a manner so as to cause confusion with it. Its installation must not affect the wiring of the oth er lighting equipment. Other safety problems such a sign might create are a partial blockage of view through a rear view mirror, or the creation of light on the rear window, resulting in glare in the rear view mirror.

We are not in a position to advise you as to the acceptability of the device under State law. You may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203 for advice.

ID: 1985-03.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/85

FROM: Jerome J. Abt -- Trim-Line of West Wisconsin

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/12/86 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JEROME J. ABT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson;

I am writing in regard to the new Federal regulation requiring stop-lamps on all new cars. My business is the sale and installation of aftermarket auto trim and accesories to new and used car dealers. One of our most popular items in recent years has been flush mount luggage racks on the trunk lids of sedans. Because they are very low profile, these racks do not obstruct the the stop-lamps.

My problem is this: several of my best customers for this product are concerned that by installing these racks on the 1986 models, we might be encouraging someone to use them to carry a piece of luggage. It's our feeling that this is a trim item, but the fact is that someone could use it. These particular dealers have refused to buy anymore of these racks from me until we can determine if we are opening ourselves up to some kind of liability, should the stop-lamp be obstructed by luggage placed on this rack and a rear-end collision occur.

Now, we realize that the possibility may be remote of such a problem, but none the less, we feel the concern is legitimate considering the litigation-crazy world we live in. We need to know if, legally, we could be held responsible for any such problems.

I would very much appreciate any insight you can give me on this matter. This item represents a substantial part of our sales and we need to know where we stand so that we can make an adjustment if needed, as soon as possible.

Thank You Very Much For Your Help,

ID: GF001832

Mr. E. Paul Daniels
Pirelli Tire North America
406 Ridge Road
Orange, CT 06477




Dear Mr. Daniels:

This responds to your letter dated January 26, 2005, asking whether S6.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119 permits a motorcycle tire treadwear indicator height of greater that 0.8 mm.You asked about the possibility of raising it by as much as 0.6 mm, i.e., to 1.4 mm on new molds.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

The Federal standard applicable to your question is FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.The relevant portion of that standard reads as follows:

"6.4  Treadwear indicators Motorcycle tires shall have at least three such indicators which permit visual determination that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 0.8 mm (1/32 of an inch)."

The treadwear indicator requirement in S6.4 sets forth a specific standardized treadwear indicator height.A higher treadwear indicator is not permitted.We note that if the treadwear indicator height were raised to 1.4 mm, consumers would not be able to visually determine when the tire wore to a depth of 0.8 mm.

We further note that in a document published on January 30, 1996, the agency denied a petition for rulemaking from Herzlich Consulting, Inc. to increase the treadwear indicator height requirement for passenger car tires (see 61 FR 2991).The agency explained that the treadwear indicator height limit was based on a long-standing industry practice, and that NHTSA adopted this industry practice.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:119
d.3/24/05

ID: 9556

Mr. Adam A. Freund
Manager, Testing Services
Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc.
Post Office Box 592
1845 Harsh Avenue, S.E.
Massillon, OH 44648

Dear Mr. Freund:

This responds to your letter addressed to the attention of Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether Table II of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, contains certain errors.

You pointed out in your letter that Table I of FMVSS 119 specifies a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch for motorcycles, and 3/4 inch for 12-inch or smaller rims other than motorcycles. Table II, on the other hand, leaves blank the plunger diameter space in the motorcycle column, but lists 5/16 inch plunger diameter in the 12-inch or smaller rim column. You indicated your belief that the inconsistency is due to a typographical error in those columns of Table II and asked us to confirm your interpretation.

Your observation is correct. A November 13, 1973 rule adopting Tables I and II (38 FR 31299) (copy enclosed) specifies the 5/16-inch diameter plunger for motorcycle tires, and the 3/4- inch diameter plunger for 12-inch or smaller tires and 17.5- inch or smaller light truck tubeless tires. Accordingly, the plunger diameter for the motorcycle column in Table II should read 5/16. Similarly, the 12-inch or smaller column in the current Table II is in error in specifying a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch. The correct plunger diameter for that column in Table II should be 3/4 inch to correspond with the plunger diameter specified for 12-inch or smaller rims in Table I.

Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. The agency will issue a correction to avoid any further confusion.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:119 d:4/12/94

ID: 24473.drn

J. C. Powell, Esq.
Powell & Majestro PLLC
405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200,
P.O. Box 3081
Charleston, WV 25331

Dear Mr. Powell:

This responds to your letter to Stuart Seigel, Safety Compliance Engineer at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting written confirmation that there is no "Federal Regulation requiring manufacturers to equip manual transmission vehicles with a starter interlock, also known alternatively as a neutral safety switch, starter safety switch, clutch safety switch, and clutch pedal position switch." Since you are asking for a legal opinion with respect to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) (49 CFR Part 571), I am responding on Mr. Seigels behalf. Your understanding that no FMVSS requires a starter interlock for manual transmission vehicles is correct.

As you are aware, Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect (49 CFR 571.102), applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Standard No. 102 specifies the requirements for the transmission shift lever sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, starter engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 kilometers [25 miles] per hour.

Paragraph S3.1.3 specifies a starter interlock only for vehicles with automatic transmissions. Standard No. 102 specifies requirements for manual transmission vehicles at paragraph S3.2 Manual transmissions. Paragraph S3.2 does not include a requirement for starter interlocks.

Please note that Standard No. 102 has never included a requirement for starter interlocks on manual transmission vehicles. Hence, in 1989 and in 1990, there was no manual transmission starter interlock requirement in Standard No. 102.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:102
d.6/26/02