ID: 1985-03.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/85 EST

TITLE: FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MABEL Y. BULLOCK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205, VSA 103 (D), VSA SECTION 108 (A)(2)(A); LETTER FROM MABEL Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINTING, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATING WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THORNBURG AND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES, REGULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DATED 05/06/88 FROM DAIRL BRAGG TO WILLIAM S. HIATT; LETTER DATED 10/28/82 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA, N0A-30; LETTER DATED 04/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO ARMOND CARDARELLI; 7/30/90 LETTER FROM P. J. RICE TO B. DITTEMORE (A35; STD. 205); 6/14/89 LETTER FROM B. DITTEMORE TO NHTSA (0CC 3633)

TEXT: The increasing popularity of window tinting in recent years has led to many questions on the effect of Federal auto safety laws on this practice. Is tinting allowed? If so, by whom and how much? And what about state tinting laws? The following discussion provides a brief explanation of the Federal laws in this area.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued a vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including vehicle windows.

In 1967, the agency issued Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials in new motor vehicles and those sold as replacement equipment. In addition to establishing some new provisions, Standard No. 205 incorporates a widely recognized industry standard on the subject -- the "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways" of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Under the ANSI standard, window tinting is permitted, subject to specified performance requirements on light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing.

Windows in New Vehicles

A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that the glazing used in its vehicles conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 205. Any person who manufactures or sells a new vehicle which does not conform to any safety standard is subject to civil penalties and recall action under the Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, all windows required to driving visibility, whether clear or tinted, must meet all of the requirements of the standard, including those on light transmittance and abrasion resistance. The agency considers all windows in a passenger car, and the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, to be requisite for driving visibility.

Likewise, if a dealer or other person places tinting film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to the sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of tinting film and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the abrasion resistance and other requirements in the standard.

2

Windows in Used Vehicles

In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. The 1974 amendment (15 U.S.C. @ 1397 (a)(2)(A) provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add tinting to windows in a motor vehicle, if that tinting would "render inoperative" the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties (of up to $ 1000 per violation) for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard. If any of those commercial businesses added tinting material which reduced the light transmittance of the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility to a level below 70 percent, the agency would consider that action's a "rendering inoperative" of the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205. The statute does not prohibit tinting by commercial businesses, but it does limit the use of tinting.

The Vehicle Safety Act does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners may, themselves, add any level of tint to the windows in their vehicles without violating Federal law. However, tinting done by individual owners would have to be done in accordance with applicable State law.

Effects on State Law

Federal law generally preempts any inconsistent state laws on the same subject covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)) provides:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment [,] any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Thus, States may not establish provisions regarding tinting or other vehicle window requirements which are either more or less stringent than those provided by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. For example, a State law which specifies a transmittance level less than 70 percent for windows requisite for driving visibility in new vehicles would be preempted. The adoption or retention of such a State law would have no effect on the Federal prohibition of such an installation. Further, any

3

State law or regulation permitting manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses to install tinting materials on a vehicle after its first sale in violation of Standard No. 205 would also be preempted.

States may establish and enforce requirements identical to any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, including Standard No. 205. They may also, as part of their motor vehicle inspection regulations, prohibit vehicle owners from modifying their windows, through tinting or otherwise, in any way that would violate Standard No. 205.

ID: nht81-1.26

DATE: 03/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Travel Accessories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mr. Ed Detwiler President Travel Accessories, Inc. P.O. Box 248 Orland, CA 95963

Dear Mr. Detwiler: This is in reply to your letter of February 12, 1981 with reference to the automotive aftermarket cruise control device offered by a competitor of yours which you believe does not comply with paragraph SS.3.1 of Standard No. 101.

That section, in pertinent part and in conjunction with Table 1 requires the illumination of the identification of automotive vehicle speed controls that are hand-operated if located other than on the floor, floor console, steering column or in the windshield header area. You have told us that the installation instructions advise that the control module "be mounted on the automobile's dashboard or console, as well as the steering column, the dashboard listed as being the preferred location."

Standard No. 101 is intended to apply to vehicles as delivered to their purchasers, rather than to individual aftermarket equipment items installed on them. If the device you describe is added after first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, there is no requirement that the device comply with Standard No. 101. If it is added before such purchase, the dealer selling the vehicle would have the legal responsibility of insuring that the identification of any dashboard mounted control was illuminated. We do not require a separate lamp for each control, and ambient illumination provided by lights for other controls could be sufficient to meet the requirements.

Under the circumstances, the manufacturer or importer of the device you describe would not appear to be in violation of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 12, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt U. S. Department of Trasportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to notify your agency that at present an automotive aftermarket cruise control device is being marketed in this country which is in direct violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, section 5.3.1.

The unit in question is called the Zemco Zt and Zemco Ztll currently marketed by Zemco, Inc. 12907 Alcosta Blvd. , San Ramon, California. These wits feature a control module , which according to the manufacturer' s installation instructions ad advertising materials is designed to be mounted on the automobile's dashboard or console , as well as the steering column, the dashboard listed as being the preferred location. This control module is not illuminated as required under the aforementioned standard.

The result of this violation is obvious. When the module is installed as recommended, it becomes a safety hazard. Travel Accessories, Inc., as a domestic manufacturer of a electronic cruise control which is in full accord of all U. S. Department of Transportation safety standards , objects that this product which is manufactured in Taiwan be allowed to be continued to be sold in this country while in obvious violation of our own government's regulations.

Continued condoning of this violation perpetuates a unfair competitive advantage. Zemco, Inc. currently enjoys a pricing advantage over Travel Accessories and other domestic manufacturers of this product category because of lower costs of materials and labor by not having to meet U.S. standards.

Travel Accessories, Inc. owns two plants in the United States totalling over 150,000 square feet and employing in excess of two hundred and fifty people. We have spent over a three year period of research and development and a great deal of funds bringing to market a quality piece of merchandise which complies with all of our own government regulations at what we believe to be a fair ad equitable price. file are forced to meet stringent government requirements ad standards in those countries we attempt to export to, only to find that a product such as this finds its way into our own domestic channels of distribution unregulated, with a minimal investment.

We request that the department of transportation take immediate action to have existing inventories of this product upgraded to meet all safety standards of the U. S. Department of Trade and further requires all future shipments of product received in this country to meet those stated requirements, as well.

I await your earliest response.

Sincerely,

Ed Detwiler President ED/sv

ID: nht90-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 1, 1990

FROM: Jamie McLaughlin Fish -- Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: Connie Mack -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-30-90 from G.N. Routh to C. Mack; Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from G.N. Routh to NHTSA c/o J. Medlin

TEXT:

Thank you for your recent letter to Mr. Tom Enright, our Regional Administrator for the southeastern States, on behalf of your constituent Mr. G. Nick Routh, the President of American Energetics in St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr. Routh wrote to you concern ing Federal safety standards on light transmittance through motor vehicle windows.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards which require specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. One of ourstandards requ ires that a certain amount of light be transmitted through the windows (called glazing in our standard) of motor vehicles. The purpose of this standard is to ensure driver visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle cras h.

Under Federal law, a motor vehicle manufacturer must certify that the glazing in its new vehicles meets the light transmittance requirements of our standard. Under the law, there are limitations on tinting vehicle windows after sale to the first purchas er. Here, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from modifying equipment installed for compliance with our safety standards, if the modification causes the vehicle or equipment to no longer comply with the safety st andards. Thus, these business establishments cannot add tinting film if it reduces the level of light transmittance below that required by the Federal standard.

The individual States have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be operated or registered in the States, provided that those requirements do not conflict with the requirements of Federal law. Several states have passed laws that prohib it the operation or registration of a vehicle in those States if the vehicle's glazing has a light transmittance below a given level. These State laws do not purport to legitimize conduct -- tint installation firms adding film to glazing so that light t ransmittance is below the level required by the Federal standard -- that is illegal under Federal law. Thus, there is no conflict between Federal law and these State laws, and the States may continue to enforce their operating rules.

Your constituent is president of a company that sells and distributes solar window film to be installed on automobiles. As indicated above, this film is not allowed to be installed by the above-mentioned types of businesses if it results in a lower leve l of light transmittance for the windows than is required by our standard.

Specifically, your constituent enlists your assistance in urging NHTSA to adopt a change in our safety standard for light transmittance.

Changes to safety standards can be made by the agency in response to petitions. We have, in fact, been petitioned to change the light transmittance requirement in our safety standard. In order for us to make a change in a standard, we must determine th at sufficient facts are available to support a change. To obtain such information, the agency granted a petition (mentioned by your constituent) for a change in the light transmittance requirement, and published a request for comments on the issue.

However, the granting of this petition does not necessarily mean the standard will be changed. Rather, it indicates that we believed that a review of the current light transmittance requirements in our safety standard was appropriate.

Currently, the agency is completing our review of all the comments received. Based on our review and analysis of all information submitted to the agency, along with other data available, the agency will make a final decision on the appropriate regulator y action. The options include: proceeding with a notice of proposed rulemaking to change the light transmittance requirements; a termination of the rulemaking because our review and analysis did not indicate a change in the light transmittance requiremen ts is appropriate at this time; or leaving the rulemaking open, with no final decision, and continuing research into the question of the appropriate level of light transmittance. This last option would mean that the standard would remain as it is today - thereby precluding the use of certain window film -- but the agency would indicate that further research is necessary before a final determination on the question of changing the light transmittance requirement can be reached.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht90-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 1, 1990

FROM: Jamie McLaughlin Fish -- Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: Bob Graham -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

TEXT:

Thank you for your recent letter to Mr. John Womack, of our Office of Chief Counsel, on behalf of your constituent Mr. G. Nick Routh, the President of American Energetics in St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr. Routh wrote to you concerning Federal safety stand ards on light transmittance through motor vehicle windows.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards which require specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. One of our standards requ ires that a certain amount of light be transmitted through the windows (called glazing in our standard) of motor vehicles. The purpose of this standard is to ensure driver visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash .

Under Federal law, a motor vehicle manufacturer must certify that the glazing in its new vehicles meets the light transmittance requirements of our standard. Under the law, there are limitations on tinting vehicle windows after sale to the first purchas er. Here, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from modifying equipment installed for compliance with our safety standards, if the modification causes the vehicle or equipment to no longer comply with the safety st andards. Thus, these business establishments cannot add tinting film if it reduces the level of light transmittance below that required by the Federal standard.

The individual States have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be operated or registered in the States, provided that those requirements do not conflict with the requirements of Federal law. Several States have passed laws that prohib it the operation or registration of a vehicle in those States if the vehicle's glazing has a light transmittance below a given level. These State laws do not purport to legitimize conduct -- tint installation firms adding film to glazing so that light t ransmittance is below the level required by the Federal standard -- that is illegal under Federal law. Thus, there is no conflict between Federal law and these State laws, and the States may continue to enforce their operating rules.

Your constituent is president of a company that sells and distributes solar window film to be installed on automobiles. As indicated above, this film is not allowed to be installed by the above-mentioned types of businesses if it results in a lower leve l of light transmittance for the windows than is required by our standard.

Specifically, your constituent enlists your assistance in urging NHTSA to adopt a change in our safety standard for light transmittance. Changes to safety standards can be made by the agency in response to petitions. We have, in fact, been petitioned t o change the light transmittance requirement in our safety standard. In order for us to make a change in a standard, we must determine that sufficient facts are available to support a change. To obtain such information, the agency granted a petition (m entioned by your constituent) for a change in the light transmittance requirement, and published a request for comments on the issue.

However, the granting of this petition does not necessarily mean the standard will be changed. Rather, it indicates that we believed that a review of the current light transmittance requirements in our safety standard was appropriate.

Currently, the agency is completing our review of all the comments received. Based on our review and analysis of all information submitted to the agency, along with other data available, the agency will make a final decision on the appropriate regulator y action. The options include: proceeding with a notice of proposed rulemaking to change the light transmittance requirements; a termination of the rulemaking because our review and analysis did not indicate a change in the light transmittance requireme nts is appropriate at this time; or leaving the rulemaking open, with no final decision, and continuing research into the question of the appropriate level of light transmittance. This last option would mean that the standard would remain as it is today - thereby precluding the use of certain window film -- but the agency would indicate that further research is necessary before a final determination on the question of changing the light transmittance requirement can be reached.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: 1985-02.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Melvin Krewall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Melvin Krewall Administrator Transportation Section Finance Division Oklahoma State Department of Education 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-4599,

Dear Mr. Krewall:

This responds to your March 28, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning NHTSA's safety standards for school buses. You specifically asked, "May an air conditioner be mounted on the outside roof portion of a school bus without violating any FMVSS.?"

The answer to your question depends on the nature of the person making the modification to the school bus and whether the modification of the school bus will negatively affect the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (hereinafter "the Vehicle Safety Act"), which authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from rendering inoperative equipment or designs incorporated in motor vehicles in compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. S108(a)(2)(A). A person in the aforementioned categories could install an air conditioner on the roof of a school bus if, in so doing, he or she did not violate S108(a)(2)(A) by rendering inoperative the compliance of equipment or designs incorporated in the school bus. For example, that person could not modify the school bus in such a way as to render inoperative a school bus roof emergency exit installed pursuant to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Please note that the prohibition in S108(a)(2)(A) applies only to motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. It does not apply to an owner, such as a state or a school, which modifies its own vehicles. Thus, an owner may make any modification that it chooses to its buses. Such action does not violate the Vehicle Safety Act or render the owner subject to any penalty under the Act. However, private liability might occur if the modifications took the school bus out of compliance with the safety standards and if a student were subsequently injured in the school bus. The issue of private liability, as well as any state prohibitions against operating a noncomplying school bus, should be discussed with your attorney and insurance company.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

March 28, 1985

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is intended to formalize the telephone conversation we had with Mr. David Soule of your staff.

The question has been raised in our state, may an air conditioner be mounted on the outside roof portion of a school bus without violating any FMVSS?"

We appreciate your efforts in responding to our concerns. If you need additional information, please contact me at (405) 521-3472.

Sincerely,

Melvin Krewall Administrator Transportation Section Finance Division

MK:bam

ID: nht88-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/24/88

FROM: JOSEPH L. CIAMPA

TO: BEVERLY B. BYRON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/27/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO BEVERLY B BYRON; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205; MEMORANDUM DATED 08/14/85 FROM C. RICHARD FRAVEL TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE JOSEPH CIAMPA JR.; MEMORANDUM DATED 08/04.88 FROM ARTHUR J LOMART TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; LETTER DATED 08/01/88 FROM C. E. SHUE TO JOSEPH CIAMPH JR RE 0590630; LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM NANCY F MILLER TO BEVERLY B BYRON; LETTER DATED 08/25/88 FROM BEVERLY B BYRON T. NANCY MILLER

TEXT: Dear Congress Woman Byron:

The purpose of this letter is to ask your help with a problem I am having with the State of Maryland dealing with a federal regulation.

This has to do with tinted windows I have on my car (side windows only), since 1985 due to an exemption that I was granted by the State of Maryland for medical reasons. I have Diabetes and eyes sensiative to sunlight.

I am now being told by the State of Maryland that the Federal Government will not allow them to grant any more medical exemptions and that there is no recourse for appeal in this matter. I find this very difficult to understand when we are all talking a bout the plight of the handicapped. In my own way, this is causing me to have a problem by having severe headaches on a daily basis caused by bright sunlight. I consider this very much of a handicap over other people who do not suffer from this problem or with the disease of Diabetes.

Your help in getting medical exemptions restored to Maryland for myself and others with the same problems is greatly needed and will be appreciated. I feel to date that I have been talking to to uncaring ears regarding this matter.

Even though I am not a crusader, if I must I will start a campaine of letter writing and petitions because I feel this is being handled so unjustly.

Again, thank you for your immediate help in this matter because I have already had my automobile tags on one car suspended while pursuing this matter.

ID: 1984-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President MMC Services Inc. Suite 1960 3000 Town Center Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Kano:

This responds to your letter of April 13, 1984, addressed to Mr. Roman Brooks of NHTSA's Office of Enforcement. You stated that you were submitting the letter "to assure that the Agency and Mitsubishi agree in writing as we did verbally" concerning the compliance of a proposed electronic odometer design with Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You also stated that lead time dictates an imminent decision on design plans, that the agency's "early approval/response" to your selected solution is greatly appreciated, and that if you do not hear to the contrary within 30 days, you will assume the agency's concurrence. As discussed below, your letter indicates a serious misunderstanding of both Federal statutory requirements and NHTSA policies and procedures. Moreover, your apparent interpretation of Standard No. 101 is incorrect.

First, NHTSA does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements.

NHTSA is willing to provide interpretations and opinions in response to reasonable requests. However, such interpretations and opinions are only provided in writing and only by NHTSA's Chief Counsel. The agency does not consider itself bound by verbal statements made by agency employees or by interpretations made by persons other than the Chief Counsel.

Moreover, NHTSA does not offer interpretations by remaining silent in response to letters which assert that such silence is assumed to be concurrence. The agency considers the inclusion of such purported conditions to be inappropriate and does not consider itself bound by them.

The agency regrets if Mr. Brooks' conversation contributed to the misunderstandings apparent in your letter. In the future, questions of interpretation should be addressed in writing to the Chief Counsel.

Your question of interpretation concerns a proposed design for an electronic odometer which would display either miles or kilometers. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

According to your letter, the vehicle's speedometer would display, at the option of the driver, in either miles per hour or kilometers per hour. The selected unit of measure would he identified by a lighted display reading either "MPH" or "Km/h". The digits of the odometer would correspond to the units of measure selected for the speedometer, but the odometer itself would not identify its units of measure. As discussed below, such a design would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 101, since that standard requires an odometer that indicates kilometers to be identified by "KILOMETERS" or "km".

Section S5 of Standard No. 101 requires that "each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle and truck or bus less than 10,000 pounds GVWR with any display listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2, shall meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control or display." Odometers are one of the displays listed in column 1 of Table 2.

Section S5.2.f references the requirements of Table 2. Footnote 3 of Table 2 specifies the following requirement for odometers:

If the odometer indicates kilometers, then "KILOMETERS" or "km" shall appear, otherwise no identification is required.

Section S5.2.3 further provides that "the identification required or permitted by this section shall be placed on or adjacent to the display that it identifies.

Standard No. 101 thus requires odometers indicating kilometers to be identified by "KILOMETERS" or "km", and such identification must be placed on or adjacent to the odometer. Since your proposed design would indicate kilometers, it would be necessary to identify its units of measure according to these requirements.

I would note that these requirements cannot be met merely by placing the odometer adjacent to the speedometer. While the identification of the selected units of measure for the speedometer could be placed adjacent to both the speedometer and odometer, the identification requirements are different for the two displays. Table 2 requires that a speedometer graduated in miles per hour and kilometers per hour be identified by "MPH and km/h" in any combination of upper or lower case letters. As discussed above, the requirement for odometers is "KILOMETERS" or "km". A single identification of units of measure cannot meet these requirements simultaneously.

Please note that this opinion is limited to the specific issue raised by your letter and does not consider whether the proposed design would otherwise meet the requirements of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 13, 1984

Mr. Roman Brooks Enforcement Operating Systems and Occupant Protection National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Brooks:

Relevant to our conversation on odometer/speedometer nomenclature during the third week of March, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation hereby submits the letter you suggested in order to assure that the Agency and Mitsubishi agree in writing as we did verbally.

Description

MMC intends to introduce a future model instrument panel which will have an electronic digital speedometer, and electronic digital conventional and trip odometers.

As in the 1983 model Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Saporro, built by Mitsubishi and sold in the U.S., the digital electronic speedometer can be displayed at the option of the driver either in MPH or Km/h, and the selected unit is shown with a lighted display. In those vehicles the odometers (conventional and trip) are mechanical units which only display miles and no units accompany the odometer as FMVSS 101 allows.

However, the new model MMC intends to introduce will be equipped also with electronic odometers (conventional and trip). Because of the versatility of electronics, MMC intends to display the digits of the odometers also in the units (either miles or Km) which correspond to the units the driver has selected for the speedometer (either MPH or Km/h). An explanation will be put in the owners Manual, as you suggested, that the odometers will display the corresponding miles or Km to the lighted display at the speedometer which the driver has selected (either MPH or Km/h), but the odometer itself will not show its units.

Furthermore, the new odometer will be in comparable compliance with Title IV insofar as accuracy, difficulty to alter mileage, etc.

Request

Since lead time for this new model dictates an imminent decision on how to handle the nomenclature, your early approval/response to our selected solution is greatly appreciated.

If we do not hear to the contrary within 30 days of the date of this letter, we will assume your concurrence.

Thank you in advance for your attention to our request.

Very truly yours,

MMC SERVICES, INC. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President /sg cc: Messrs. A. H. Neill J. E. Glancy

ID: nht95-1.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Daining -- Supervisor, Vehicle Test and Development, ITT Automotive

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/18/94 LETTER FROM KEN DAINING TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 10316)

TEXT: This responds to your letter about Federal requirements applicable to an "on/off switch" for antilock brake systems (ABS). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that Chrysler Jeep owners disengage their ABS in response to the "perceived degraded performance it offers on off-road situations." You mentioned the possibility of designing a vehicle's gear system so that the ABS function is automatically disengaged when the vehicle is shifted into the four wheel drive-LO configuration. As e xplained below, while both manual and automatic ABS on/off switches are permitted under the current requirements, neither is required.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicl e equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its produc ts meet all applicable safety standards.

The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, which specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems. This Standard does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting ABS. Likewise, it does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting either a manual or automatic ABS on/off switch. Accordingly, either type of switch is permitted under the standard, provided the vehicle complies with the standard both when the devi ce is "on" and when the device is "off."

FMVSS No. 105 will continue to apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), notwithstanding the agency's recent adoption of FMVSS No. 135 Hydraulic Brake Systems; Passenger Car Brake Systems, which applies only to passenger car brake systems (60 FR 6 411, February 2, 1995). Even though FMVSS No. 135 does not apply to MPVs, you should be aware that FMVSS No. 135 prohibits passenger cars from being equipped with ABS disabling switches. The agency stated in a July 1991 notice that "such a switch could be left off when the ABS is needed, and that therefore, it would be more likely to be harmful than beneficial." Please note that this prohibition does not become immediately effective, even for passenger cars, since manufacturers can continue to certify compliance to FMVSS No. 105 for five years after FMVSS No. 135 takes effect.

If an automatic or manual ABS on/off switch were installed in a used vehicle, such a device must not "make inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, deale r or repair business from installing such a device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. For instance, if a vehicle could only comply with the stopping distance or other service brake requirements in Standard No. 1 05 when the ABS is activated, then installation of the switch would serve to make inoperative compliance with the safety standard.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-4.2

DATE: May 18, 1993

FROM: Richard Muraski -- President/CEO, Equa-Brake

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief General Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Armando Mena

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Richard Muraski (A41; Std. 121)

TEXT:

On July 2, 1992, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied a Petition of Rulemaking on an Air Brake System product presented by the Washington Corporation. The petition would have amended FMVSS Standard No. 121 to require a device that regulates air pressure differential between the two wheels on each axle. This ruling could impact our product, the Equa-Brake System which operates on a similar principal yet different design.

Equa-Brake is enclosing a packet on our product and would like an interpretation of this NHTSA action on it.

This interpretation is vital to our efforts. Equa-Brake understands that this denial of rulemaking does not prohibit Equa-Brake from installing its product on vehicles through manufacturers dealer or repair businesses provided it does not render the brake system to fall out of compliance with Standard 121. If you have any questions, please contact me at 702-329-7072 or Armando Mena at 703-938-5117. Thank you.

Attachment

EQUA-BRAKE is a MECHANICAL "auxiliary brake system" that increases brake force and improves brake performance on all vehicles that are equipped with air brakes.

Direct benefits of the Equa-Brake "auxiliary brake system" include safer, straighter, shorter (up to 30% shorter) stopping under panic braking situations.

Reduced one wheel lock-up coupled with significantly reduced brake drum temperatures (reduced brake fade) allows drivers to maintain control under emergency stopping conditions, virtually eliminating potential jack-knife problems.

Under normal braking - the increased brake force permits drivers to maintain their habitual braking patterns with substantially less application pressure. This reduces brake wear and also reduces the tendency for trailer wheels to lock-up - loaded or unloaded.

Tire life is extended from 10% to 20% or more by reducing flat spots caused by one wheel lock-up.

Additional direct benefits result in lower operating costs by extending brake component life up to 40% or more (some users claim extended brake life significantly exceeding 40%).

Indirect benefits derive from increased driver confidence in the vehicle being driven, along with potential insurance savings that result from a safer vehicle that could avoid costly accidents.

Unlike drive line retarders that have proven to be dangerous when activated on wet road surfaces - especially in turns or cornering the driver is always in control of any vehicle equipped with the Equa-Brake "auxiliary brake system".

The Equa-Brake "auxiliary brake system" is totally mechanical, does not use any type of electronics, does not require maintenance and is warranteed for five (5) years.

It is absolutely fail safe. In the unlikely event any component of the Equa-Brake "auxiliary brake system" should fail, the vehicle brake system will return to factory specifications.

Current users include fleets, concrete mixer trucks, fleets of trailers only and fire departments.

Users report improved brake performance, extended brake component life and increased driver confidence in the ability to control their vehicle during the braking sequence.

ID: nht87-2.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/18/87

FROM: TERRY B. QUINN -- HEHR INTERNATIONAL, CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF QUALITY

TO: ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY E QUINN; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 10/16/86 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO EDWARD T. FENNELL

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We are hereby requesting a letter ruling regarding the matter of proper identification of safety glazing materials to be used in over-the-road vehicles.

Hehr International Inc. is a prime glazing material manufacturer in that we temper glazing material used in vehicular windows produced by our (and other) companies.

Please reference 49 CFR 571.205 S6.1: "Each prime glazing material manufacturer ... shall mark glazing materials manufactured by him in accordance with Section 6 of ANS Z26."

Please reference American National Standard Z26.1-1983 Section 6 (Sentence 2): "They shall also be marked with the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark."

Our problem is this: We have a prospective customer for our tempered glass who will use it in windows which are competitive with those we build. This prospect naturally does not wish to have his competitor's name on the glazing etch of his windows. The question is: May Hehr International Inc. sell tempered glass without the distinctive designation or trademark (The Hehr Logo) and remain in compliance with the law? All other provisions as to certification and marking will continue to be complied with , of course.

Your early response to this question would be most appreciated.