ID: aiam5407

"Dear Mr. Lavis: We have received your letter of June 6, 1994, wit respect to your 'Saf-T-Flec' reflectors. You say that you have been informed by a NHTSA representative that 'using the standard DOT approved reflector tape would allow the use of my reflector for the trucking industry.' Judging from the red, white, and amber samples you have enclosed, your 'reflectors' appear to be retroreflective tape which adheres to a semicircular aluminum base and is intended for vertical mounting on the side and back of vehicles. Several potential customers have asked whether your concept was 'DOT approved', and you have asked for a reply. The Department of Transportation has no authority to 'approve' items of motor vehicle equipment. We advise inquirers whether manufacture or use of any particular item of equipment is prohibited or permitted under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and associated regulations. However, if an item is deemed permissible, this must not be represented as 'approval' by DOT. Your letter is somewhat unclear as to the intended use and market for Saf-T- Flec. The fact that you have enclosed a highlighted copy of S5.1.1.4 leads us to believe that one application you envision for Saf-T-Flec is as a substitute for original equipment side reflex reflectors. This substitution is permitted if the reflective material conforms to Federal Specification L-S- 300 (September 7, 1965) and, as used on the vehicle, meets the performance standards of SAE Standard J594f Reflex Reflectors, January 1977. Accordingly, if your red and amber samples meet these two requirements, they may be used as the side front, intermediate, and rear reflex reflectors that Tables I and III require on trucks and trailers. However, Standard No. 108 does not allow sheeting material to be used on the rear of vehicles in lieu of reflex reflectors. What if your reflectors do not meet the two specifications listed above? In this instance, they may be used as supplementary side reflectors to the reflectors that are required by Standard No. 108, and you may employ amber devices for this use as well as red and white. As supplementary equipment, they are subject to the Federal restriction only that they not impair the effectiveness of the required reflex reflectors. We do not believe that additional reflectors would have this effect. Supplementary lighting equipment such as additional reflectors is subject to the laws of the individual states. We are not able to advise you as to their acceptability under state laws. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) provides opinions on state law. AAMVA's address is 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203. As you may know, S5.7 of Standard No. 108 requires red and white retroreflective material to be applied to the side and rear of large trailers that have been manufactured since November 30, 1993 (those whose overall width is 80 inches or more and whose GVWR is more than 10,000 pounds). This material may be retroreflective sheeting or reflectors. If sheeting is used, it must meet the photometric specifications of Figure 29. If reflectors are used, they must conform to SAE J594f, and provide specified minimum millicandela/lux at specified light entrance angles. Your initial question indicates that you may be interested in marketing Saf-T-Flec for use as a substitute for the conspicuity materials that conform to Standard No. 108. Manufacturers of conspicuity sheeting certify it with the material in a flat vertical plane (as evidenced by the DOT-C2 marking on your white sample). We have reservations whether the curved red and white Saf-T-Flec devices could meet the photometric specifications of Figure 29, for sheeting, or J594f and the millicandela/lux specifications of S5.7.2.1(b) or (c) for reflectors. Amber is not one of the specified colors for conspicuity treatment, and could not be used as a substitute. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0034

Dear Mr. Wilson: This is in response to your letter of August 16 in which you attached letter from your constituent, Mrs. Beverly Hoffman of San Diego. Mrs. Hoffman asked if there is any Federal or state regulation, or city ordinance, which forbids the removal or concealment of passenger seat belts in taxicabs. Mrs. Hoffman has raised an important question and one which is of vital concern to the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966: the retention of a (sic) safety equipment in a vehicle after its original purchase.; Since I expect that California law is of most interest to both Mrs Hoffman and you, I will answer her question on the basis of the California Vehicle Code. Since January 1, 1964, Section 27309 has made it an offense to sell in California any new passenger vehicle which does not have at least two state approved restraint belts or harnesses in its front seat. Retention of the front seat belts by the vehicle owner is indirectly required by Section 40001(b)(2) which makes it unlawful for 'an owner to request, cause, or permit the operation of any vehicle which is not *equipped as required in this Code*.' (emphasis supplied) Since California has no annual motor vehicle inspection, enforcement of this law has presumably been by spot inspection. Members of the California Highway Patrol (Section 2804) and city traffic officers (Section 2806) have the authority to inspect a vehicle to determine whether its equipment is in compliance with the Code.; With respect to rear seat belts which most directly concern Mrs Hoffman as a passenger, their installation has not been required by the Code. Such belts as she may have seen in the rear of California taxis have been provided as a courtesy of the owner rather than as a requirement of the law. But, as she correctly notes, all passenger cars including taxicabs manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One of these, Standard No. 208, will require taxis to be manufactured with lap restraint belts installed in each rear seating position. But if the California legislature has not amended the Vehicle Code itself to require their installation it would appear that there is no legal reason why a cab owner may not remove rear seat belts should he wish to go to the trouble.; Under the Act, the Secretary of Transportation does not have th authority to directly regulate motor vehicles 'after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Instead, Congress intended that used vehicles be regulated by periodic state inspection. To implement this intent the Secretary has been directed to study state inspection systems and, in due course, to establish uniform standards applicable to all used motor vehicles. A hypothetical standard--and one which we shall consider--requiring the presence of original equipment safety items at time of each inspection would be sufficient to cover retention of rear seat safety belts. But the Act establishes no requirement that the states or any individual follow any used vehicle standard. For the probably enforcement mechanism of used car standards it is necessary to turn to the companion Highway Safety Act of 1966. Under this Act each state is required to have a highway safety program in accordance with standards promulgated by the Secretary. One such standard, already issued, establishes minimum requirements for periodic motor vehicle inspection. Eventually it is possible that used car standards will be suggested to the states through this motor vehicle inspection standard, but enforcement of the used car standards will be left to the states.; Concerning concealment of the belts, I am aware of no legislation Federal, state, or municipal, which requires that a safety item not only be retained but also available for use. But I believe that sufficient authority may exist in the Highway Safety Act's mandate to the Bureau to include 'vehicle operation' in the highway safety program standards to warrant our serious consideration of it.; I hope that this has answered Mrs. Hoffman's questions and I appreciat her interest in traffic safety.; Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M. D., Director

ID: aiam3618

Dear Mr. Campbell: I have recently received a copy of your letter to Senator Gorto concerning the difficulties small manufacturers of motor vehicles have in complying with Federal standards. To alleviate these difficulties, you suggested that blanket exemptions from the bumper regulations and the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on side door strength be granted to all 4-wheel vehicles under 800 pounds dry weight.; As explained more fully below, this agency does not have authority fro Congress to grant an exemption from the bumper standard for the ultra-lightweight vehicles you describe. Such authority would require new legislation. However, we do have authority either to exclude all of those vehicles from the side door strength standard or to exempt particular manufacturers of those vehicles from that standard.; Congress set forth the guidelines under which this agency could issu exemptions from the bumper standard in section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1912(c)(1)). Exemptions may be granted only to passenger motor vehicles manufactured for a special use. While neither the Cost Savings Act nor this agency has defined 'special use', the Cost Savings Act is explicit that a vehicle can be exempted only if two conditions are met: (1) the vehicle is manufactured for a special use, (2) compliance with the bumper standard would unreasonably interfere with that use. The example Congress cited for such a vehicle was a Jeep with snow removal equipment on the front. The agency believes that the purpose of an ultra-lightweight passenger vehicle is essentially the same as that of a lightweight vehicle such as the Toyota Starlet, Honda Civic or Ford Escort, i.e., to carry passengers. The agency does not view that purpose to be a special use within the meaning of section 102. Further, even if the first condition could be met, it is not clear that the second one could be. Hence, an amendment to the Cost Savings Act would have to be made by the Congress before we could grant an exemption from the bumper standard to your ultra-lightweight passenger motor vehicles.; Concerning your request regarding Standard No. 214, side door strength NHTSA formerly excepted motor vehicles (other than trailers and motorcycles) of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight from all safety standards. However, that exception was eliminated in 1973 (38 F.R. 12808, May 16, 1973). At that time, the agency stated that manufacturers seeking relief from compliance problems peculiar to these vehicles could either petition for amendments to individual standards or petition for an exemption under section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410).; These options remain the ones available to manufacturers o ultra-lightweight vehicles. Thus, one option is to submit a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting the agency to amend Standard No. 214 to exclude those vehicles from that standard's applicability provision. I should point out that few, if any, petitions of this type have been submitted since the agency's May 1973 notice and none have been granted. Also, you should be aware that the rulemaking process is often a lengthy one.; The other option is for a manufacturer to submit a petition for th exemption of his vehicles from a particular standard. I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which sets forth the information that a manufacturer must include in its petition. Exemption petitions are not uncommon and are often granted at least in part. Also, because fewer procedural steps are necessary, the exemption process is typically much faster than the amendment process. Should you wish to submit an exemption petition, you may find useful the enclosed copies of section 123 of the Safety Act and Standard No. 214, *Side Door Strength* (49 CFR S 571.214).; If you need any further assistance or information on either of thes subjects, please do not hesitate to contact me. We try to minimize the regulatory difficulties experienced by small manufacturers to the extent we can do so consistent with our legislative authority.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 3235o

Mr. M. Iwase
Technical Administration Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken
JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is to provide you with a clarification of my letter to you dated March l6, l988. Your second question was whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamps and tail/stop lamps is required on a rear lighting array for motorcycles. I responded that "The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to comply with this requirement."

In actuality, the agency has required this separation only where a single motorcycle stoplamp/taillamp is mounted on the vertical centerline, and not when dual lamps are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline, the configuration depicted in your letter of January 25, 1988. Therefore, I am advising you that there is no legal requirement that the 4-inch separation distance be maintained in the configurations you depicted, and that we appreciate your continuing efforts to understand and comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

I enclose a copy of a letter from this Office dated November 2l, l984, which explains our views on motorcycle rear lighting configurations in more detail.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure Ref:l08 d:l2/l/88

ID: nht94-2.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus (Lima, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner; Also attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from Eric T. Stewart to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9792)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 17, 1994, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You requested clarification of the width requirement in S5.5 .3(c) for retroreflective tape.

You are correct that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. Enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

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

ID: nht94-7.12

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus (Lima, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner; Also attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from Eric T. Stewart to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9792)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 17, 1994, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You requested clarification of the width requirement in S5.5.3(c) for retroreflective tape.

You are correct that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. Enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

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

ID: nht95-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 17, 1995

FROM: Randall B. Clark -- A Concerned Citizen

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/16/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO RANDALL B. CLARK (A43; STD. 108; VSA 30122(6)

TEXT: I respectfully request clarification on the following paragraphs S5.1.1.27(a), Table III & Table IV, located in the "Code of Federal Regulations".

I contend the required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment requirements are the minimum requirements ONLY and do not state that this is the maximum stop lamps allowed on the back of any automobile.

In other words, my automobile has the normal two stop lamps and has a spoiler with a stop lamp built into it. The car also has a stop lamp mounted inside the back window which is not currently hooked up due to the fact that "Subaru of America" thinks the procedure is against the law. They have cited the above paragraphs & Tables as their authority.

I would appreciate a specific explanation from the "EXPERTS" stating that an automobile with four stop lamps is perfectly legal in the United States.

Thank you for your dedicated efforts on my behalf to clarify the correct point of view on Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment.

P. S. I have enclosed the specific paragraphs & Tables discussed in my letter.

(ENCLOSURE OMITTED)

ID: nht92-9.38

DATE: January 24, 1992

FROM: Larry J. French -- President and CEO, Magnascreen

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: 49 CFR, Part 571, Docket No. 91-11, Notice 2, RIN2127-AD81, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rearview Mirrors - Reflectance

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/26/92 from Paul J. Rice to Larry J. French (A39; Std. 111)

TEXT:

Magnascreen is presently developing electronically controlled dimmable (day/night) rearview mirror products for motor vehicles.

Magnascreen has reviewed the revised Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, 571.111, standard number 111, for motor vehicle rearview mirror requirements referenced above. Upon review, we are requesting that the NHTSA comment on the validity of Magnascreen's interpretation which follows:

"When a multiple reflectance level mirror is not powered by the vehicle power source, the reflectance of the mirror can be returned to a minimum of 35% reflectance (either automatically or by driver operated controls) USING AN ALTERNATE POWER SOURCE." (A power source other than the one intended to (illegible) the mirror.)

This interpretation allows multiple reflectance mirror designs to use an alternate power source to achieve the specified failsafe operation called out in CFR 49, 579.111, para. S11, Rearview Mirrors.

Your timely response will be appreciated, as this interpretation impacts Magnascreen's mirror product designs.

ID: nht72-6.16

DATE: 12/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Center for Auto Safety

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of 20 November, 1972, concerning alleged non-compliance of the Defect Information Report regarding Volkswagen Windshield Wipers, submitted by Volkswagon of American on October 12, 1972, with the requirements of NHTSA's Defect Reports Regulations, 49 CFR Part 573. We agree that Volkswagen has failed to supply information required by sections 573.4(c)(2) and 573.4(c)(8) of the Regulation, specifically, the months of manufacture of the affected vehicles and a chronology which includes warranty claims, field service bulletins, and other such information. We are contacting Volkswagon to determine why the Company has failed to furnish that information and to attempt to obtain it. We also agree with your conclusion that 100% of 1948-1949 Volkswagens are potentially affected by the windshield wiper defect. However, Volkswagen's statement that 'no information is available" as to either the total number of such vehicles operating in the United States, or the percentage potentially affected satisfies the disclosure requirement of the regulation (49 CFR 573.4(c)(3, 4)).

We cannot agree, however, with your remaining assertions of non-compliance with the Regulations. While the Volkswagen Information Report is lacking in detail and is a poor example of an informational communication, it does contain minimal responses to the enumerated requirements of the Regulations.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht69-2.1

DATE: 03/28/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: The Hail Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1969, to the Office of Standards Preparation, concerning the proposed lighting equipment on your dump trailers.

The lamps and reflectors shown on your drawing 701b1907 dated February 20, 1969, appear to be in conformance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 with the following exceptions:

1. The required license plate lamp is not shown.

2. The minimum mounting height for reflectors is 15 inches.

3. With respect to maximum mounting zones for lamps and reflectors, the limiting dimensions of 16, 30, and 24 inches indicated on your drawing appear to be too liberal for a trailer with essentially square corners.

With reference to Notes 2 and 3 on your drawing, certain restrictions as specified in paragraph S3.3 of Standard No. 108 are applicable for combination lamps.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only, and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from (Illegible Word) responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.