ID: 1984-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/84 EST

FROM: FLORIDA LEGISLATURE

TITLE: 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/25/90, FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; A35; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/90 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR-WINDOW TINTERS-LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.

TEXT: An act relating to state uniform traffic control; creating ss. 316.2951 through 316.2957, Florida Statutes; providing definitions; providing requirements with respect to motor vehicle windshields; providing requirements with respect to motor vehicle side windows; providing requirements with respect to all windows behind the driver; providing sunscreen requirements; providing requirements with respect to labeling, providing tolerance levels; providing penalties; providing exemptions; repealing s. 316.295, Florida Statutes, relating to motor vehicle windshield requirements; repealing s. 316.296, Florida Statutes, relating to the prohibition against selling a motor vehicle equipped with windows which are reflective or nontransparent; repealing s. 316.297, Florida Statutes, relating to the prohibition against selling reflective or nontransparent material for motor vehicle windows; repealing s. 316.298, Florida Statutes, relating to exemptions for manufacturers with respect to motor vehicle windows; providing an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. Sections 316.2951, 316.2952, 316.2953, 316.2954, 316.2955, 316.2956 and 316.2957, Florida Statutes, are created to read:

316.2951 -- Motor vehicle windows; definitions -- Whenever used in ss. 316.2951 . 316.2957, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

(1) "Sunscreening material" means products or materials, including film, glazing, and perforated sunscreening, which, when applied to the windshield or windows of a motor vehicle, reduce the effects of the sun with respect to light reflectance or transmittance.

(2) "Reflectance" means the ratio of the amount of total light, expressed in percentages, which is reflected outward by the product or material to the amount of total light falling on the product or material.

(3) "Transmittance" means the ratio of the amount of total light, expressed in percentages, which is allowed to pass through the product or material, including glazing, to the amount of total light falling on the product or material and the glazing.

(4) "Motor vehicle" means any vehicle as defined in s. 316.003, except vehicles used in farm husbandry, which is registered or required to be registered in the state.

(5) "Windshield" means the front exterior viewing device of a motor vehicle.

(6) "Window" means any device designed for exterior viewing from a motor vehicle, except the windshield, any roof-mounted viewing device, and any viewing device having less than 150 square inches in area.

(7) "Multipurpose passenger vehicle" means a motor vehicle with motive power designed to carry ten persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.

316.2952 -- Windshields; requirements; restrictions. --

(1) Windshields in a fixed and upright position, equipped with safety glazing as required by federal safety glazing material standards, are required on all motor vehicles which are operated on the public highways, roads, and streets, except motorcycles and implements of husbandry.

(2) No person shall operate any motor vehicle on any public highway, road, or street with any sign, suncreening material, produce, or covering attached to or located in or upon the windshield, except the following:

(a) A certificate or other paper required to be displayed by law.

(b) Sunscreening material along a strip at the top of the windshield, so long as such material is transparent and does not encroach upon the driver's direct forward viewing area as more particularly described and defined in FMVSS 205 and FMVSS 128 as the AS/1 protion of the windshield.

(3) The windshield on every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device for cleaning rain, snow, or other moisture from the windshield, which device shall be constructed as to be controlled or operated by the driver of the vehicle.

(4) Every windshield wiper upon a motor vehicle shall be maintained in good working order.

(5) Grove equipment, including "goats," "highlift-goats," grove chemical supply tanks, fertilizer distributors, fruit-loading equipment, and electric-powered vehicles regulated under the provisions of s. 316.267, shall be exempt from the requirements of this section. However, such electric-powered vehicles shall have a windscreen approved by the department sufficient to give protection from wind, rain, or insects, and such windscreen shall be in place whenever the vehicle is operated on the public roads and highways.

316.2953 -- Side windows; restrictions on sunscreening material. -- No person shall operate any motor vehicle on any public highway, road, or street on which the side wings and side windows on either side forward of or adjacent to the operator's seat are composed of, covered by, or treated with any sunscreening material or other product or covering which has the effect of making the window nontransparent or which would alter the window's color, increase its reflectivity, or reduce its light transmittance, except as expressly permitted herein. A sunscreening material may be applied to such windows if, when tested on 1/8-inch clear glass, the material has a total solar reflectance of visible light of not more than 25 percent as measured on the non-film side and light transmittance of at least 35 percent in the visible light range.

316.2954 -- All windows behind the driver; restrictions on sunscreening material. --

(1) No person shall operate any motor vehicle on any public highway, road, or street with any windows behind the driver which are composed of, covered by, or treated with any sunscreening material, or other product or material which has the effect of making the window nontransparent or would alter the window's color, increase its reflectivity, or reduce its light transmittance, except as specified below:

(a) Sunscreen material consisting of film which, when tested on 1/8-inch clear glass, has a total solar reflectance of visible light of not more than 35 percent as measured on the non-film side and light transmittance of at least 18 percent in the visible light range; provided, however, that sunscreen material may be used on multipurpose passenger vehicles, which, when tested in 1/8-inch clear glass, has a total solar reflectance of visible light of not more than 35 percent as measured on the non-film side and light transmittance of at least 8 percent in the visible light range.

(b) Perforated sunscreening material which, when tested in conjunction with existing glazing or film material, has a total reflectance of visible light of not more than 35 percent and light transmittance of no less than 30 percent. For those products or materials having different levels of reflectance, the highest reflectance from the product or material will be measured by dividing the area into 16 equal sections and averaging the overall reflectance. The measured reflectance of any of those sections shall not exceed 50 percent.

(c) Louvered materials, if the installation of the materials does not reduce driver visibility by more than 50 percent.

(d) Privacy drapes, curtains and blinds, provided such covering shall be in an open and secure position when the motor vehicle is being operated on any public highway, road, or street.

(2) No person shall operate any motor vehicle upon any public highway, road or street, on which the rear window is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material which has the effect of making the window nontransparent, unless the vehicle is equipped with side mirrors on both sides that meet the requirements of s. 316.294.

316.2955 -- Window sunscreening material; compliance labeling; tolerances. --

(1) Each installer or seller of sunscreening material shall provide a pressure sensitive, self-destructive, nonremovable, vinyl-type film label to the purchaser stating that the material complies with the provisions of ss. 316.2951 - 316.2954. Each installer shall affix the required label to the inside left door jamb of the motor vehicle. In addition, the label shall state the trade name of the material and the installer's or seller's business name. Labeling shall not be required for factory glazing which complies with FMVSS 205.

(2) All percentage measurements required by ss. 316.2951 - 316.2954 shall be subject to a plus or minus 3 percent tolerance.

316.2956 -- Violation of provisions relating to windshields, windows, and sunscreening material; penalties. --

(1) Any person who operates a motor vehicle on which, after the effective date of this act, material was installed in violation of ss. 316.2951 - 316.2954, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.084.

(2) Replacement or repair of any material legally installed is not a violation of ss. 316.2951 - 316.2954.

(3) Any person selling or installing sunscreening material in violation of any provision of ss. 316.2951 - 316.2955 after the effective date of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

316.2957 -- Exemption for motor vehicle manufacturers. -- The provisions of ss. 316.2951 - 316.2956 shall not apply to the manufacturer's tinting or glazing of motor vehicle windows or windshields which is otherwise in compliance with or permitted by FMVSS 205 as promulgated in 49 C.F.R. 571.205.

Section 2. Sections 316.295, 316.296, 316.297, and 316.298, Florida Statutes, are hereby repealed.

Section 3. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.

ID: 1984-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rod L. Stafford Fryford Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting information on which of the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering. You described the product as a "hammock-like seat which, unrolled and fastened into the rear bed of any pickup truck, forms a comfortable passenger seat which may be easily stowed inside the truck cab." You stated that you plan to sell your product as an item of aftermarket equipment and asked about the application of our regulations to your product.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 209, 210, and 302. We were pleased to learn that you have nevertheless voluntarily designed your product to conform to those standards.

As a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

WILLIAM SMITH -- Office of the Chief Council, National Traffic & Highway Safety Administration

Mr. Smith,

We are a manufacturer of an aftermarket product with the trade name "2nd Seat," and this letter regards the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Standards to our product.

The "2nd Seat" is essentially a hammock-like seat which, when unrolled and fastened into the rear bed of any pickup truck, forms a comfortable passenger seat which may be easily stowed inside the truck cab. The seat is designed to be installed in a rearward-facing attitude, and the rider position is recumbent with an upper body angle which is reclined more than 45 degrees from the vertical axis. The width of the bench thus formed is 45".

We have designed our product to conform to the requirements set forth in Sec. 207 thru 210 of the motor vehicle codes, and the Sec. 302 which refers to Fire Retardant standards. We have performed an engineering study which indicates that our product exceeds the requirements for both the strength of the seat body, and the safety restraint system. However, we understand that the standards are not specifically directed at the aftermarket and that compliance on our part may therefore be subject to a specific ruling from your Department.

If you require more detailed information about the "2nd Seat" or if there is a customary posture which the Administration generally assumes in such cases, please inform us at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Rod L. Stafford -- Fryford Corporation

ID: 1984-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nr. Karl-Heinx Faber -- Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President, Product Compliance and Service Administration Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, New Jersey 07645

This is in response to your September 14, 1983, letter in which you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirm that the Unimog vehicle produced by Mercedes-Benz is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). The agency stated in a March 9, 1972, letter that a previous version of the Unimog would not be classified as a "motor vehicle."

The principal differences between the 1972 version of the Unimog and the version expected to be sold in the near future are, based on your representations made in a September 8 meeting with agency staff increases in engine horsepower, gross vehicle weight rating, wheelbase, length, width, height, and certain ground clearance specifications. The anticipated sales level for the vehicle is slightly higher than the past level, as well.

It appears that none of these changes would affect the classification of the Unimog under the Safety Act. Therefore, we conclude that the vehicle is still not a "motor vehicle." This conclusion presumes that the Unimogs would still be marketed, as in the past, principally through farm machinery and heavy equipment dealers, and that the vehicle would have affixed in the cab a label stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use.

Sincerely Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel cc: Mr. J. Sonosky Hogan and Hartson 815 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

September 14, 1983

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

Subject: Classification of the Unimog Vehicle

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On March 9, 1972, after a thorough review, NHTSA advised us that the Mercedes-Benz Unimog was not a "motor vehicle" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) and therefore was not subject to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The letter also mentioned that the Agency's decision was subject to future review and reconsideration on the basis of any relevant information that might come to its attention.

On September 8, 1983, a meeting took place at the Agency with Messrs. Wood, Shifflet and Fairchild of your staff, Mr. Sonosky of Hogan & Hartson, counsel to MBNA, and members of my staff present. In this meeting, the planned expansion of the Unimog marketing program and technical changes in the vehicle were discussed in detail. A table showing specifications of the new Unimog models we intend to introduce as well as several brochures showing the intended uses of the vehicles were left with your staff. For your convenience, we enclose a duplicate set of that material. The number of models with only minor differences in GVWR and engine horsepower reflects our aim to provide that best suited equipment for each individual use.

In the discussion, your staff expressed interest in obtaining marketing data which would substantiate the off-highway nature of the vehicle as indicated by actual sales and implement applications. Enclosed please find a list of implements and attachments sold with Unimogs from 1975 to this date, the Unimog sales figure for the same period, and a summary of the Unimog use by business.

Other issues raised by your staff include whether the vehicle will continue to be labeled as in the past and sold through a dealer network related to farm machinery and heavy equipment. This is to re-affirm our intention to maintain both practices in our expanded program.

We trust that the information provided to your staff at the meeting, and the information contained in the enclosed material, are sufficient to enable you to maintain the decision expressed in the Agency's letter of March 9, 1972, for the new generation Unimog models which differ in size from the Unimog 900 but which, like their predecessor, were designed as off-road implement carriers and not intended primarily for use on roads and highways.

Since the initiation of our new marketing program is imminent, we respectfully request your expeditious review of this matter. Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Sincerely, Original signed by (?) Enclosure

Implements and attachments sold with Unimogs during Calendar Year 1975 through 1983 by order of sale volume:

QUANTITY IMPLEMENT/ATTACHMENT

150 Snowplow 112 Snowblower/Cutter 80 Backhoe 74 Doser Blade 64 Salt and Sand Spreader 34 Railroad Switcher 32 Front End Loader 24 Three-Point Hitch for Agriculture 23 Broom/Sweeper 23 Mower 18 Crane 24 Winch 11 Digger Derrick/Auger 10 Wood Shredder 9 Western Fire Package 5 Mobil Drill 3 Trencher 2 Man Basket 2 Forklift 2 Cable Plow 2 Dump Bed 1 Tree Spade 1 Sludge Pump 1 Brush Cutter

Comparison Unimog/Attachment Sales (Detail) 1975 - 1983 Ratio Unimog Sales Implement/Attachment Sales Unimog/Attachment 441 697 1 : 1.58

Unimog Use by Business

Federal, State, County and Municipal Departments 39% Contractors 15% Utility and Telephone Companies 11% Airports 10% Railroads 10% Agriculture 7% Others 8% PAGE 37 LEVEL 1 - 12 OF 169 ITEMS

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bob D. Troxel -- Vice President and General Manager, J.F. Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys (RVI Inc.)

TEXT:

Mr. Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager J. F. Enterprises, Inc. Box 583 Wakarusa, Indiana 46573

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, your company manufactures innerspring mattresses, some of which are used in motor vehicles. You noted that the mattress covers on those mattresses for use in motor vehicles must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, and that you had interpreted the mattress cover to consist only of the covering applied over the finished mattress. Hence, under your interpretation, Standard No. 302 would not apply to the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. However, you were told by several ticking manufacturers that a recent decision by this agency stated that ticking used on mattresses for use in motor vehicles must also satisfy the flammability requirements of the standard. It is correct that the ticking must satisfy Standard No. 302's flammability requirements.

The mattress cover has been interpreted by this agency to include both a covering put over a finished mattress and the permanent mattress ticking since Standard No. 302 became effective. Hence, the information that this was a recent decision by this agency is incorrect. For your information, I have enclosed a 1973 letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute setting forth this interpretation over ten years ago.

Should you have any other questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302 to your products, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure - 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys omitted here.

December 7, 1983

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Our company is a manufacturer of innerspring mattresses. A small percentage of our production goes to the Recreational Vehicle Industry. Of this portion of our business a portion goes into Motorized Vehicles (Mini Homes, Motor Homes, etc.).

I am told that you may be able to clarify an item pertaining to how these mattresses are affected by the FMVSS 302 Flammibility Standard. We have been informed that the DOC FF 4-72 Standard that all of our mattresses are manufactured under applies and FMVSS 302 applies only to mattress "covers". The term "cover" we understand applies to a covering applied over the finished mattress and not the ticking used as the outside of the mattress.

I have recently been "told" by several manufacturers of "ticking" that a recent decision has been made that the ticking must meet FMVSS 302 when the finished product is used in a Motorized Vehicle.

I am asking your help in clarifying this question of the FMVSS 302 as it applies to an innerspring (or poly) mattress used in a Motorized Recreational Vehicle.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager

BDT:csy

ID: 1984-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bob D. Troxel -- Vice President and General Manager, J.F. Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys (RVI Inc.)

TEXT:

Mr. Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager J. F. Enterprises, Inc. Box 583 Wakarusa, Indiana 46573

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, your company manufactures innerspring mattresses, some of which are used in motor vehicles. You noted that the mattress covers on those mattresses for use in motor vehicles must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, and that you had interpreted the mattress cover to consist only of the covering applied over the finished mattress. Hence, under your interpretation, Standard No. 302 would not apply to the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. However, you were told by several ticking manufacturers that a recent decision by this agency stated that ticking used on mattresses for use in motor vehicles must also satisfy the flammability requirements of the standard. It is correct that the ticking must satisfy Standard No. 302's flammability requirements.

The mattress cover has been interpreted by this agency to include both a covering put over a finished mattress and the permanent mattress ticking since Standard No. 302 became effective. Hence, the information that this was a recent decision by this agency is incorrect. For your information, I have enclosed a 1973 letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute setting forth this interpretation over ten years ago.

Should you have any other questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302 to your products, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure - 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys omitted here.

December 7, 1983

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Our company is a manufacturer of innerspring mattresses. A small percentage of our production goes to the Recreational Vehicle Industry. Of this portion of our business a portion goes into Motorized Vehicles (Mini Homes, Motor Homes, etc.).

I am told that you may be able to clarify an item pertaining to how these mattresses are affected by the FMVSS 302 Flammibility Standard. We have been informed that the DOC FF 4-72 Standard that all of our mattresses are manufactured under applies and FMVSS 302 applies only to mattress "covers". The term "cover" we understand applies to a covering applied over the finished mattress and not the ticking used as the outside of the mattress.

I have recently been "told" by several manufacturers of "ticking" that a recent decision has been made that the ticking must meet FMVSS 302 when the finished product is used in a Motorized Vehicle.

I am asking your help in clarifying this question of the FMVSS 302 as it applies to an innerspring (or poly) mattress used in a Motorized Recreational Vehicle.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager

BDT:csy

ID: 1984-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J.N. White

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. N. White 1300 California Drive Rolla, MO 65401

This is in response to your January 3, 1984, letter to Roger Fairchild of this office regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 (Rearview Mirror Systems). You have requested information on the applicability of that standard, particularly in regard to aftermarket mirrors.

FMVSS 111 is a rule or regulation (the terms are generally used interchangeably) establishing requirements for rearview mirrors on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses, and motorcycles. Aftermarket mirror manufacturers do not have to certify compliance with our standards. However, the addition of an aftermarket mirror to a motor vehicle may be subject to certain legal requirements. Section 108(a)(2)( A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or any motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses cannot remove a rearview mirror installed as original equipment in compliance with our standard and replace that mirror with a noncomplying aftermarket mirror. Replacement by other individuals or organizations or replacement with a complying aftermarket mirror would be permitted.

With regard to your final question as to requirements applicable to the use of non-glare glass in mirrors, this agency issued on November 6, 1978, a notice of proposed rulemaking on possible upgrading of rearview mirror requirements (copy enclosed). One part of this proposal would establish image luminance criteria for rearview mirrors. The agency has not yet determined whether this requirement should be implemented, and no action is imminent on that proposal.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

January 3, 1984

Mr. Roger Fairchild Legal Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: FMVSS-111 -- Rearview Mirror Systems

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

I have some questions regarding FMVSS-111 and Mr. Kevin Cavey of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, suggested that I write to you for the specific answers.

1. Is FMVSS-111 a rule, regulation or law?

2. Does it apply only to new car/truck manufacturers?

3. As far as the sections that apply to rearview mirror systems, specifically convex mirrors, does it apply to "after market" manufacturers, where their product is sold through warehouse distributors, jobbers, mass merchandisers, etc., to the general, public?

4. Is there any pending "legislation" that might prohibit the use of "non-glare" glass in rearview mirrors?

I want to thank you in advance, for your time and efforts in helping me, with the answers to the above questions.

Sincerely,

J.N. White 1300 California Drive Rol1a, MO 65401 cc: J. L. Levenberg & Associates

ID: 1984-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/28/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John H. Schmidt -- Certification Supervisor, Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/30/76 letter from J. Womack to Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.

TEXT:

John H. Schmidt, P.E. Certification Supervisor Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. 3700 W. Juneau Avenue P.O. Box 653 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

Dear Mr. Schmidt:

This responds to your February 6, 1984 letter to Roger Fairchild of this office, in which you asked whether your company may include on vehicle certification labels gross vehicle weight rating and gross axle weight rating information expressed in kilograms. The metric units would be used in addition to information expressed in pounds, with the English units appearing first on the label and the metric units following in parenthesis. Our certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) provide that this information is to be specified in pounds.

The inclusion of metric weight ratings in addition to the English units specified in our regulation (with the English units appearing first) has previously been approved in an agency interpretation letter, a copy of which is enclosed. Therefore, your proposed certification labels are authorized under the certification regulations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure (6/30/76 letter from J. Womack to Toyota omitted here)

February 6, 1984

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

The Harley-Davidson Motor Company would like to add metric equivalents to the vehicle weight ratings on its Certification Labels.

An example of the addition would be the following (sample label attached):

Present Proposed

GVWR: 1085 GVWR 1085 LB (493 KG) GAWR: Front-390 with ... GAWR F 390 LB (177 KG) with ...

GAWR: Rear-695 with ... GAWR R 695 LB (316 KG) with ...

Part 567 seems neither to permit nor to prohibit additional information on the Certification Label. Showing metric equivalents would be helpful in export of our motorcycles and would be consistent with a general objective of reducing international trade barriers.

We would appreciate a statement of concurrence from the Office of Chief Counsel.

Sincerely,

John H. Schmidt, P.E. Certification Supervisor

/pat Attachment

cc: Paul Golde, MIC Walter MacKay, MMIC

ID: 1984-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent, Fox, Kintner,Plotkin and Kahn

TEXT:

Mr. Lawrence F. Henneberger Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Washigton Square 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

This responds to your letter of August 27, 1984, on behalf of your client, the Breed Corporation. You asked whether section S4.5.2 of Standard No . 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would apply to totally mechanical air bag restraint systems such as those to be produced by Breed. As explained below, the readiness indicator requirements do not apply to a totally mechanical system.

The readiness indicator requirement was first adopted by the agency in November 1970. The text of the rule provided, in applicable part, that "an occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a crash should have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator. The system components monitored shall include all electrical and compressed gases, if present." As you correctly pointed out, the agency explained in the problem to the November 1970 rule that it was particularly concerned about monitoring electrical circuitry and pressure vessels, two critical elements of then available crash-deployed system. The agency said that "although manufacturers are urged to provide monitoring for all system elements for which it is feasible, the specific requirements of the standard in this regard are that electrical circuitry and pressurized gases, if present, be monitored,...."

In response to petitions for reconsideration, the agency modified the readiness indicator requirement on October 1, 1971. Several petitioners argued that monitoring of pressure vessels and electrically actuated explosive release devices could impair the integrity or reliability of those devices. The agency deleted the specific reference to an electrical and compressed gas monitoring system so that manufacturers could "avoid designs that are prone to deterioration. . . ." The amendment did not, however, otherwise affect the coverage of the requirement and therefore a totally mechanical system does not have to have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 27, 1984

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation; Inapplicability of Readiness Indicator Provision of FMVSS 208 to Non-Electric Crash Protection System

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Our firm represents Breed Corporation, located in Lincoln Park, New Jersey, which anticipates the production and marketing of a mechanical, self-contained air bag module. Breed seeks a letter of interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirming that sub-section 54. 5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, the "readiness indicator" provision, does not apply to totally mechanical airbag restraint systems such as those to be produced by Breed.

Regulatory Background

A readiness indicator requirement, as proposed by NHTSA, first appeared in an advance notice of proposed rule making for passive occupant restraint systems such as the air bag in July of 1969. Passive crash protection technology then and for a number of years thereafter suggested electrical, rather than mechanical, systems for this purpose.

Indeed, in a final rule notice issued on November 3, 1970, Douglas Toms, the then Director of NHTSA' s predecessor agency, the National Highway Safety Bureau, observed:

"The proposed requirement for a readiness indicator for crash-deployed systems brought forth several questions as to which system elements were required to be monitored. Obviously any deployable system will have some qualities . . . that are not suitable for monitoring, and other aspects whose monitoring would be very difficult and costly. System monitoring of electrical circuitry and pressure vessels, two of the most critical elements where they exist, is, however, feasible with present technology. Therefore..., the specific requirements of the standard in this regard are that electrical circuitry and pressurized gases, if present, be monitored...." (35 Fed. Reg. 16928 (1970).)

The narrow application of subsection S4.5.2 was reconfirmed in an October 1971 rule making notice, in which the Safety Administration observed:

"To permit manufacturers to avoid designs that are prone to deterioration, the readiness indicator requirement has been amended by omitting specific reference to compressed gases and electrical circuits. " (36 Fed. Reg. 19254 (1971).)

Request for Interpretation

Breed Corporation respectfully submits that its completely mechanical air bag system, which consists of five basic components (knee bolster, steering column, nonpressurized, solid state gas generator, air bag and crash sensor), is not subject to the readiness indicator requirement of subsection S4. 5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, 49 C.F.R. 571.208, which is intended to cover occupant protection systems with electrical circuitry and/or pressurized gases.

We request that the agency confirm, by letter of interpretation, our understanding of the city provision.

Sincerely,

Lawrence F. Henneberger cc: Thomas C. McGrath, Jr., Esquire John C. Culver, Esquire

ID: 1984-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Nigel Stansfield -- Product and Training Manager, JCB Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nigel Stansfield Product and Training Manager JCB Inc. Box 209 White Marsh, Maryland 21162

Dear Mr. Stansfield: This responds to your letter of October 4, 1984, asking whether Standard No. 205, Glazing Material, applies to your JCB rubber tired backhoe loaders and rough terrain loadall machines. As explained below, your loaders and machines are not considered motor vehicles and thus Standard No. 205 would not apply to them.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and other requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to vehicles manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways. Construction vehicles which are manufactured for use at off-road job sites but which will use the public roads on a frequent basis for moving between job sites are subject to these requirements. However, the agency has previously concluded that construction vehicles which use the public roads in frequently and which would stay at a particular job site for an extended period of time are not subject to our requirements.

You state in your letter that the vehicles involved are designed primarily for off-highway use, but will use the highway for travel from site to site at speeds not exceeding 25 mph. Based on your description and the specification brochures you enclosed, the agency has decided that the backhoe loader and rough terrain loadall machines you manufacture are not motor vehicles for the purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Chief Council NHTSA RE: Specifications of the tyre of glass required for installation in the cab windshield of JCB rubber tired backhoe loaders and rough terrain loadall machines.

Dear Sirs:

Federal safety standard 205 and ANSI Code Z 26.1 1977, 26.1a 1980 indicate the glass used must be a laminated type meeting AS 1 specifications.

These regulations and standards relate primarily to vehicles designed specifically for on highway use.

JCB Inc. wish to be advised if laminated glass meeting AS II specifications is acceptable in our case where the vehicles involved are designed primarily for off highway use but will use the highway for travel from site to site at speeds not exceeding 25 mph.

A set of specification brochures are enclosed for your information.

Yours sincerely,

JCB INC.

Nigel Stansfield Product and Training Manager

enclosures: Specifications brochures omitted.

ID: 1984-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Anthony Lauro, President, Vredusu

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Anthony Lauro President VREDUSA P.O. Box 766 South Plainfield, NJ 07080

This responds to your recent letter asking for an interpretation of the Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you sought an interpretation of the term "limited production tire," as set forth in 49 CFR S 575.104(c). That section specifies that the UTQGS applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars, but does not apply to certain types of tires . The tires excluded from the UTQGS include limited production tires, as defined in 49 CFR S575.104(c)(2). You noted that your company produces two different tread designs in fourteen different sizes, and asked if limited production tires are determined by the number of sizes, the number of tread designs, or both. The UTQGS specify that a tire may qualify as a limited production tire if the annual domestic production or importation of tires of both the same design and size as the tire in question does not exceed 15,000.

Subparagraph (c)(2) of 5575.104 specifies that a tire will be considered a limited production tire if the tire meets the four criteria set forth in that section. Two of those four criteria specify that no more than 15,000 tires of the same design and size may be manufactured in or imported into the United States. The tire design is defined as "the combination of general structural characteristics, materials, and tread pattern, but does not include cosmetic, identifying, or other minor variations among tires." Hence, if you wish to determine how to group these tires to see if they qualify as limited production tires, you must determine how many tires are imported with both the same size and tread pattern.

Judging by the last paragraph in your letter, however, it is not necessary for you to determine if these tires qualify as limited production tires to exclude them from the requirements of the UTQGS. You stated that all of these tires have a nominal rim diameter of 10 to 12 inches. 49 CFR S575.104(c)(1) excludes all tires with a nominal rim diameter of 10 to 12 inches from the requirements of UTQGS, regardless of whether those tires would qualify as limited production tires.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 10, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Councel Office of the Chief Councel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building, Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: section 575.104 of title 49 Transportation Chapter V of the Code of Federal Regulations

Dear Mr. Berndt:

By way of correspondence with National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, manager of Regulatory affairs, Mr. K. Wayne Malbon, I am writing this letter to obtain your opinion to a specific area of concern-namely "limited production of tires".

Vredusa, Inc. is the U.S. Sales and Marketing office of Vredestein Banden B. V. Enschede, Holland, the Manufacturer of Vredestein tires. Our Dutch office has asked us to obtain a clearer understanding into the criteria of what is meant by "limited production tires". More specifically, if the manufacturer produces two different tread designs with fourteen difference sizes, how is the criteria detemined, is it per size, per design or a combination of both?

We raise this question with respect to tires we produce with nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches, which the Dutch office is classifying as "limited production tires".

Your comments and early response would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Anthony Lauro President

AL/bf TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Mr. Noel M. Torres

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Noel M. Torres 2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, California 92704

Dear Mr. Torres:

This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1984 asking questions about the relationship of your "Panic-Stop Detection Brake-Lite System" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The photographs you enclosed show a segmented lamp mounted on the centerline of a passenger car directly below the rear window. Another picture shows the lamp installed on the rear of a motorcycle above the license plate. These pictures contain the notation "The harder you brake the faster the lite sweeping motion." Your questions are:

"(1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108?"

Section 108(a)(2) ((A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device, or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This would appear to preclude removal of the mandated center high-mounted stop lamp on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, and replacement of it with your lamp.

"(2) Is it legally all right to use it now on cars and motorcycles?"

Standard No. 108 was recently amended to permit manufacturers to install the center high-mounted lamp on passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and General Motors is already equipping some of its 1985 models with it. Thus, a center high-mounted stoplamp already installed on a passenger car in accordance with Standard No. 108 would be subject to the prohibition in Section 108(a) (2) (A) discussed above.

As for other passenger cars, we assume that you wish to make your lamp available as an aftermarket device. In this circumstance, where it is installed on a vehicle in use, its permissibility is to be determined under local law; Federal law does not apply.

Finally, as to motorcycles, your photograph, by depicting your lamp mounted above the license plate, indicates that it substitutes for the original equipment stop/taillamp. Inasmuch as the stop/taillamp was installed in accordance with Standard No. 108, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) apply to it as well.

We are returning your tape to you and appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, Ca 92704 September 25, 1984

Madam Diane K. Steed NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Madam Steed:

I hope you don't mind my taking the liberty of sending you this letter together with a 10-minute videotape of a brake-lite system for cars and motorcycles which I thought you might want to review and evaluate, if you have the time.

I have been thinking for a while now that it is amazing in this day and age of space shuttles, maze of freeways and fast driving, our cars are still equipped with the most out-dated brake-lite system that have been in use for hundreds of years, and when driving on the road, there's no way of telling if a car braking in front of you is trying to make a panic stop.

An idea came to mind which I developed. I call it "PANIC-STOP DETECTION BRAKE-LITE SYSTEM", applicable for cars and motorcycles. I honestly believe it is a very effective system that would reduce more than 90% of rear-end collisions. You'll see what I mean when you view the videotape enclosed.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify two things for me: 1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108? 2) Is it legally alright to use it now on cars and motorcycles?

Thank you so much for your kind consideration and I hope to hear from you.

Yours truly,

Noel M. Torres

P.S. If you think you might want to see the prototype samples, I'll be more than happy to ship them to you.

Encls./ 3-photos, 1-videotape

ID: 1984-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Firma Laupp

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kevin C. Graves Firma Laupp Lerchenfelder Str. 63 1070 Wien Austria

Dear Mr. Graves:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch, of my staff, asking for information about testing your client's child restraint system for use in automobiles. You indicated that you were interested in making arrangements for testing that child restraint system under the U.S. requirements. You also stated that the restraint has been tested for compliance with the European ECE Regulation 44, and asked for instructions on how to proceed with testing, how much time should be allowed for testing, and an estimate of the costs involved in testing.

Every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213) (copy enclosed). This standard sets forth performance and labeling requirements which must be satisfied by the child restraint system. This country does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that the child restraint system fully satisfies all requirements of Standard No. 213. Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer's 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 child restraint systems comply with Standard No. 213. Certainly we recommend that a manufacturer selling child restraint systems in the United States test the systems according to the test procedures specified in the standard. Once a manufacturer determines that its child restraints meet the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by labeling that certification onto the child restraint, as specified in section S5.5 of Standard No. 213.

If your client decides to market its child restraint system in the United States, I would like to call your attention to the requirements of 49 CFR S551.45 (copy enclosed). That section requires that before offering any item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States, a manufacturer must designate an agent for the service of process. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under S551.45:

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 the origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its 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, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in S551.45(b).

Should you need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

Stephen Oesch Office of Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street SW. Washington D.C.

Kevin Graves Firma Laupp Lerchenfelder Str. 63 1 0 7 0 W I E N Austria telex # 13/6592 telephone 01143/222/93-82-04

April 11, 1984

Dear Mr. Oesch,

We are an Austrian Exporting firm who represent the manufacturer of a unique childrens automotive restraint seat. We are interested in making contacts with the appropriate department in order to make arrangements for testing the seat under your requirements.

We have recently undergone tests in Holland at the "Institut voor Wegtran-sportmiddelen" (Institute for road transport vehicles) or TNO under the classification of ECE regulation forty-four. It is my understanding that these requirements were to be incorporated into a United Nations regulation and therefore would suffice your particular requirements. However, I have not yet heard that this has actually taken place. Therefore I would appreciate it if you could give us the necessarry instructions on how to proceed, how much lead time we should allow for the required tests.

I have read the documents under the Standards for Vehicles and Equipment-Seating Restraints, and Occupant Protection, number 5120, 5135 dated 1980 but with amendments dated as recent as 9/27/82 by the Commerce Clearing House for the Consumer Product Safety Guide. Having passed all the required tests for TNO, must we actually retest for NHTSA or DOT or does the TNO test suffice? If not then which stipulations in particular must we pay attention to? The requirements and actual tests appear to be quite similar.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could assign to our firm one person to handle all communications. We have found that matters proceed with much less confusion this way, especially considering the complexities involved. As far as supplying information if it makes any difference I am a U.S. citizen. Please instruct us how to proceed, how much time we should allow for testing, and what the costs involved are. We thank you very much for your cooperation and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Kevin C Graves