ID: 19837.ztv

[       ]

Dear [     ]:

This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1999, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to a new product you are developing. Because the product is new, you have commented that you would appreciate our "discretion and confidentiality."

As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you on April 9, 1999, our interpretations are a matter of public record, and lighting devices must be described with sufficient detail for the interpretation to be understandable. However, we can, on request, withhold from copies of the interpretation available to the public any material that identifies the addressee and company. You agreed to this treatment of your letter.

You are about to begin the design of a rear identification lamp system which would be a "light bar" with three identification lamps contained within a single lens/base. The lamps would be spaced on 6 to 8-inch centers. You have asked if this conforms to Standard No. 108 "as long as each individual lamp meets the requirements for an identification lamp and as long as there are three distinct 'hot spots' shining through the single lens."

Identification lamps must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J592e Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 2.4 of SAE J592e defines identification lamps as "lamps used in groups of three." This can be interpreted as meaning that the lamps must be separate, individual units. However, we would view this aspect of the identification lamp requirement as met if the light bar were constructed so that the three lamps would be perceived as individual lamps. This does not appear to be the case with your system. We interpret your description as indicating that the entire light bar would be illuminated with the hot spots intended to be discernable from the rest of the light bar. If our understanding is correct, your system would not meet the identification lamp requirement of Standard No. 108. However, if you design the light bar with three chambers behind the single lens so that the assembly when lit has the appearance of three separate lamps with no spillover between the chambers, we would consider that as a design that meets this requirement of Standard No. 108.

You have also asked whether this product can also incorporate "a set of brake lights to act as a 'third eye' brake light, similar to those required for automobiles." In other words, the identification lamp bar would act as a supplementary stop lamp when the brakes are applied.

Standard No. 108 permits supplementary lamps as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard (S5.1.3). The function of the identification lamps is to indicate the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. This effectiveness of this function would not be impaired by an increase in intensity of the lamps when the brake pedal is applied. Therefore, your product can incorporate a supplementary stop lamp function.

If you have any questions you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/23/99

ID: 1983y

Mr. Bernie Cantleberry
5958 Maplewood Road
Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44l24

Dear Mr. Cantleberry:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You asked several questions about the standard's requirements for parking brakes. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first question concerns section S5.2. That section requires specified vehicles to be "manufactured with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement . . . ." You asked what is meant by a "parking brake system of a friction type with a mechanical means."

In understanding section S5.2, I believe it is helpful to focus on three aspects of the language quoted above. First, a vehicle must be "manufactured with a parking brake system." The term "parking brake" is defined in 49 CFR Part 57l.3 as "a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle." Second, the required parking brake system must be "of a friction type," i.e., it must prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle by means of friction. For example, a parking brake which presses a brake shoe against a brake drum operates by friction, whereas the parking pawl of an automatic transmission does not. Third, the required parking brake system must have a "solely mechanical means to retain engagement." Thus, the parking brake cannot be held by non-mechanical means such as fluid, air or electricity.

Your second question concerns section S5.2.2. You asked whether it is necessary to meet S5.2.2.l, S5.2.2.2, and S5.2.2.3 (i.e., all three subsections) in order to comply with section S5.2.2, or just one of the subsections. Section S5.2.2 provides that "(a) vehicle of a type described in S5.2.l at the option of the manufacturer may meet the requirements of S5.2.2.l, S5.2.2.2, and S5.2.2.3 instead of the requirements of S5.2.l," if the vehicle has a transmission or transmission control which incorporates a parking mechanism, and the parking mechanism must be engaged before the ignition key can be removed. (Emphasis added.) Given section S5.2.2's use of the word "and" (as highlighted above), it is necessary to meet the requirements of all three subsections in order to comply with that section's compliance option.

You also asked whether a vehicle which has a parking control in the transmission must also have a hand or foot operated control for the brake system. In responding to this question, I assume that the term "parking control in the transmission" refers to a parking pawl. As noted above, a vehicle manufactured with a parking pawl alone, without an additional parking brake, would not meet section S5.2's requirement that the vehicle be "manufactured with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement . . . ." Thus, a vehicle which has a parking control in the transmission must also have an additional parking brake "of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement. . . ."

Finally, you asked whether a vehicle with a hydraulic locking system would be sufficient to meet the requirements specified in S5.2.2. This question was asked both for a vehicle that has a parking control in the transmission and for a vehicle with a manual transmission. The requirement that a vehicle be "manufactured with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement" cannot be met by a hydraulic locking system, since such the parking brakes on such a system are held by fluid pressure rather than by "a solely mechanical means." Thus, regardless of whether a vehicle has a parking pawl or has a manual transmission, a hydraulic locking system cannot be used to meet Standard No. l05's parking brake requirements.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l05 d:8/l7/89

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: 1984-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Goldstein; Serlin; Grass & Eserow; P.C.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Stuart Goldstein, Esq. Goldstein, Serlin, Grass & Eserow, P.C. 3000 Town Center- Suite 505 Southfield, MI 48075

This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1984, alleging discrimination by the U. S. Customs Service in enforcing regulations governing importation of vehicles that do not meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked that this agency direct Customs "to allow importers to make the speedometer substitution or modification prior to release of the vehicle..."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires that all vehicles imported into the United States be brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. The Act does not differentiate between individual and commercial importers. Pursuant to the Act this agency, the Customs Service, and the Department of the Treasury issued an implementing regulation, 19 C.F.R. 12.80. Under this joint regulation, vehicles that do not conform are to be entered under bond for production of a statement within 120 days (an additional 60 available upon request) that all necessary compliance work has been done. Thus, no directive of the nature you ask is needed because under the regulation importers must make all required modification before vehicles are released.

However, in developing the regulation, the issuing agencies took into account the heavy traffic that exists at the Canadian and Mexican borders and the impracticability of requiring a written declaration (Form HS-7) from each person driving a car over the border into the United States. Each district director at Canadian and Mexican border districts was provided discretionary authority (19 C.F.R. 12.80 (f)) to waive the written declaration "for a United States, Canadian or Mexican registered vehicle arriving via land borders" for vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1968, for vehicles conforming to standards except for readily attachable equipment items to be installed before sale, and for vehicles imported by foreign tourists not intending to stay for over a year. No authority, however, was provided to waive the written declaration for vehicles permanently entering the United States that were not in compliance.

We are not aware that Customs officials have been abusing their discretionaly authority at the Canadian border by waiving the declaration requirement and by allowing permanent importation into the United States of vehicles of recent manufacture with speedometers graduated in kilometers rather than miles per hour. However, your client's car must be brought into compliance with this requirement. It should not, however, take six (6) months to resolve safety issues if the speedometer is the only item in question.

If we can help you further, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Fank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 27, 1984

National Highway Transportation Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTENTION: Chief Counsel RE: 15 U.S. Code 1403 (Pub.L. 89563, Title I, S 114, Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 726.) (copy attached)

Dear Administrator:

Our office represents a foreign car importer. Because of an erroneous interpretation by my client of the above law, certain vehicles imported were seized by U.S. Customs at Detroit, Michigan. The seized vehicles complied with all E.P.A. Standards. The seized vehicles complied with all D.O.T. Standards with the sole exception that the speedometer registered speed in kilometers per hour, rather than miles per hour as required by D.O.T. Our client, because it desires to comply with the law, is unable to substitute a miles-per-hour speedometer for the kilometers-per-hour speedometer prior to importing the vehicles to the United States. Our client's only option, pursuant to the Customs' requirements as enunciated is to complete a form (HF7) stating that the vehicle does not conform to E.P.A. and D.O.T. Standards.

Since the date of enactment of the law in 1966, steps have been taken by all foreign automobile manufacturers to comply with U.S. E.P.A. and D.O.T. Standards for cars capable of being imported into the United States. The policy in effect at Customs if an individual purchased a vehicle with a speedometer registering speed in kilometers-per-hour, allows an individual to bring the vehicle into the United States without stating that the vehicle is non-conforming and without requiring substantial costs and time for conformity. This is discriminatory! At other Customs check points, the relaxed standard allowing importation of vehicles with kilometers-per-hour speedometers has been allowed for business importers as well. This too is discriminatory.

In order to obtain the certificate cf conformity to comply with Customs, there is approximately a six month administrative delay. This delay is unreasonable and costly not only to my client, but to our Government as well.

A Directive from your office to E.P.A., D.O.T. and Customs regardinq the speedometer problem to allow importers to make the speedometer substitution or modification prior to release of the vehicle from Customs, would save substantial Federal time and money. This directive would not affect the manufacturer's certificate as to E.P.A. Standards as the odometer does not relate to the E.P.A. Standards. Since D.O.T. is concerned with safety, the directive as proposed by our office could satisfy all concerned saving both time and money.

If this recommendation is inappropriate, an alternate suggestion by you would be appreciated.

Should you have any questions, please contact me.

Very truly yours,

GOLDSTEIN, SERLIN, GRASS & ESEROW, P.C.

STUART GOLDSTEIN ST:pls cc: The Vice President cf the United States George Bush

ID: 1984-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Standards Attache; The French Embassy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. Chambord Standards Attache The French Embassy Suite 715 2000 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Chambord:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Katzke of my staff, asking for information on requirements applicable to tire rims for vans. The three points set forth in your letter are correct statements of the requirements, but I will reiterate them to be certain that you provide accurate information.

(1) Vans are considered "motor vehicles other than passenger cars" for the purposes of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.120), and Standard No. 120 sets forth requirements which must be met by all new rims for use on vans. No other standard contains requirements applicable to those rims.

(2) Section S5.2(c) of Standard No. 120 requires the rim manufacturer to permanently label each of its van rims with the letters "DOT" as a certification that the rim satisfies the requirements of Standard No. 120. The manufacturer is expected to exercise due care before making such a certification. No outside inspector, either governmental or privately employed, need be consulted by a manufacturer before certifying the compliance of its rims.

(3) Rims entering into the United States are not individually inspected, provided that the package containing the rims or the van on which the rims are installed bears an appropriate certification label. The only inspections at the port of entry are checks to see that a certification label is attached to the package of rims or the van.

Should you need any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 10, 1988

Mr. Steve Kratzke Legal Department Vehicle Systems Group Crash Avoidance Division NHTSA (NRM 11) 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Our reference: NOTEL 273 (NOREX/LNE)

Subject: Tire rims for vans

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Mr. Arturo Casanova referred me to you for help with NHTSA regulations. In order to ascertain my understanding, would you please send me written confirmation of the following points:

1) Vans are considered "Motor vehicles other than passenger cars" and the only standard applying to van rims is FMVSS No. 120;

2) Certification of compliance to FMVSS No. 120 is conducted by the manufacturer of the rims. No outside inspector, either governmental or privately employed, is required;

3) Rims entering into the United States are not individually inspected, provided the package or the van on which they are installed bears an appropriate certifications label. Are there any inspections at the port of entry?

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

A. CHAMBORD Standards Attache