ID: nht73-4.27

DATE: 06/14/73

FROM: AUTOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hayden; Smith; Ford & Hays

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1973, forwarding to us your second attempt to compose a letter that will conform to Part 577, Defect Notification, for a defect involving the lighting in boat trailers manufactured by V/M Custom Boat Trailers. We responded to an earlier letter from you on May 16, 1973.

Section 577.6 prohibits the making of any statement in the notification that either states or implies that the problem discussed is not a defect, or that it does not relate to motor vehicle safety. As we indicated to you in our letter of May 16, we considered your statement, "The defect on those trailers . . . does not affect the mechanical operation of said trailer except insofar as the lighting is inefficient as installed according to the U.S. Department of Transportation" to be prohibited by section 577.6. The additional phrase, "This statement is one of fact only and is not intended to be a disclaimer which is prohibited by section 577.6 of the Act", which you have now inserted, does not remedy that deficiency. The regulation states that such a statement may not be made at all; it does not allow it to be made and denied.

Our objection to the statement is with your description of the defect as an "inefficiency" according to the Department of Transportation. This safety related defect results, rather, from violations of law which require your client's products to meet minimim safe levels of performance. We recommend that rather than attempt once again to rewrite your statement, and risk violation of the regulation, you delete it entirely, and send the notification to purchasers forthwith.

In other respects your notification appears to conform to Part 577.

ID: nht72-2.26

DATE: 01/11/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Westinghouse Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of December 22, 1971 to Lawrence R. Schueider you ask for a clarification of the relationship between 49 CFR Part 566 "Manufacturer Identification, and 49 CFR @ 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically you ask whether identifying information is required for miniature bulbs.

Standard No. 108 establishes performance requirements for items of motor vehicle lighting equipment, and incorporates by reference certain SAE standards that specify requirements lamps must meet in laboratory tests when assembled. The SAE standard that applies to bulbs: J573d, Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units, is not incorporated by reference, and Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for the output of bulbs furnished with a lamp assembly. When a lamp is tested for conformity, the production bulb is removed and a calibrated bulb substituted, in accordance with Paragraph 0 of SAE Standard J575d, Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components; the test bulb is to be "representative of Standard bulbs in regular production" and must be "selected for accuracy in accordance with specifications listed in . . . SAE J573." In summary, Standard No. 108 does not specify performance requirements for lamp bulbs, and production bulbs are not used in lamp testing. Therefore, Standard No. 108 does not apply to bulbs and bulb manufactures are not required to certify conformance to Federal standards, or to submit information pursuant to the Manufacturer Identification regulations.

ID: nht73-1.37

DATE: 11/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 7, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking whether Standard No. 108 permits four identification lamps.

It does not. The purpose of the three-lamp system is that vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width be clearly identified as large vehicles, and only the three-lamp system specified by the standard is permissible. Standard No. 108, however, allows some latitude in mounting. The system need not be mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle if the manufacturer determines that is impracticable. Since you appear to have made such a determination, the front identification lamp system should be placed "as close as practicable to the vertical centerline" with height and spacing requirements in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Yours truly,

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel

Attention: Larry Schnieder

Dear Sir:

In regards to trucks of 80 or more inches, are the three (3) lamps for front identification a minimum requirement?

The front loader equipment requires a bumper guard across the center of the windshield over the cab which would obscure the center lamp. Would four (4) identification lamps be permissible, i.e., 2 on each side of the center?

I would appreciate any advice or reference to a standard.

Thanking you in advance.

Very truly yours,

Crane Carrier Company --

Darrell Gambill,

Standards Engineer

ID: nht87-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/87 EST

FROM: S.L. LEPOSKY -- EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CO

TO: ALL DISTRIBUTORS AND SALESMEN.

TITLE: NON USE OF DUCK BILLED STEEL TIRE HAMMERS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/11/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO BETH WHITMAN; REDBOOK A31, STANDARD 110, 120; SA 19 AR STEELHAMMERS 2J; SA 29 STEELHAMMERS 2J; LETTER DATED 01/21/87 FROM S. L. LEPOSKY TO DISTRIBUTORS; LETTER DATED 07/09/87 FROM LEO CARE Y TO BETH WHITMAN

TEXT: We have just returned from the annual National Wheel & Rim Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona. The tone of the meeting from Wheel & Rim Manufacturers was one of concern and rightly so. They have all reprinted and issued their new Rim & Tire Service Manuals ou t-lining and telling tire dealers, fleets, mining and construction users that they MUST NOT USE steel hammers to disassemble or assemble truck rim components. The practice still goes on and probably will until more people are injured and more lawsuits f iled.

For your convenience we have enclosed two pieces of instruction material produced by Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) and National Highway, Traffic Safety & Health Administration (NHTSHA). Have your salesmen carry this with them and discuss it wit h your customers.

The logical alternative to the steel duck bill hammer is the "COMBI" Truck & Farm Tire Bead Breaker. If your people will talk about the regulations, your customers will soon start to buy the proper equipment to replace the hammer.

One of the best places to start is with local City, County, State and Federal service operations. They are very cognizant of the OSHA regulations.

ID: nht90-2.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel.,NHTSA

TO: Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-21-90 To Taylor Vinson and From Dipl.- H. Westermann; (OCC 4484); Also attached to letter dated 2- 7-90 To Richard van Iderstine and From Dipl.- H. Westermann.

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 21, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety standard No. 108 with respect to whether two designs for center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) you enclosed are permissible. You wish to know whether tbe ECE definition of "lamp unity" can be applied, and whether the designs form a CHMSL unity in the sense of Standard NO. 108. The question, as we see it, is not whether the ECE definition can be applied, but whether the two designs you submitted would meet the clearly expressed requirements of standard No. 108. The standard requires that there be a single lamp, that it have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, that its signal be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and that it provide specified minimum photometric values at 13 specific test points. The design represented in Enclosure 1 appears to pass through the center of the lamp, at the H-V test point, thus affecting compliance of the lamp. Measurement at test points can only be determined by photometric testing. The design represented in Enclosure 2 would not comply with the standard. It is, in effect, two lamps mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline. standard No. 108 requires a single lamp, to be mounted on the vertical centerline.

ID: nht93-3.32

DATE: May 4, 1993

FROM: St. F. Steiner -- Consultant, AET Network

TO: John Womack -- Chief Council, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-17-93 from John Womack (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to St. F. Steiner (A41; Part 591)

TEXT: As an environmentally, concerned company, our goal is to become proactive before the new California 2010 Emissions State Law is to be effective and the President of the United States signs the new Environmental Protection Laws. We think it's time to aggressively contribute in the development of human responsibility and thus, build up an agreeable base for our children and future.

Because of this, our company is into environmental protection by way of contributing toward the reduction of gasoline pollution attributed to the transportation industry. In our efforts, our goal is to import electric automobiles from Europe for research and exploration. In order to do this, we need your assistance on the following U.S. laws and D.O.T. requirements for 3 and 4 wheelers with 1 to 5 passengers.

o Are there any safety standards and regulations for the above mentioned automobiles?

o Is there a minimum speed standard regulation for the above mentioned automobiles?

o Are there weight limitations for the above mentioned automobiles?

o What conversions would be required in order to meet U.S. specifications and standards? o Could these automobiles be permitted on highways?

Thank you for taking the time to review our needs. Your immediate response and assistance would be greatly appreciated in supporting our effort towards improving our environment. If you should inquire additional information about our electric automobiles please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht95-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1995

FROM: Ricardo Martinez -- M.D., NHTSA

TO: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co., Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM SHIN-CHIANG CHEN TO DOT MINISTER

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1995, to the Department of Transportation regarding your invention, the "brake condition warning sensor." You ask whether such an invention is permissible in this country.

The sensor causes flashing in "the third brake light" keyed to the rate of deceleration.

Under the Federal regulations in the United States, motor vehicles must be manufactured so that the third brake light (or "center highmounted stop lamp" as we call it) and all other stop lamps are steady-burning when they are in use.

After the vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from installing the sensor to modify the performance of the third brake light and cause it to flash.

However, Federal law does not prohibit the owner of the car from installing the sensor. In this circumstance, the law of the State in which the vehicle is operated must be consulted to determine whether a flashing third brake light is permissible. We a re not able to answer questions about State laws. If you wish an opinion on State laws governing flashing third brake lights, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John Womack Acting Chief Counsel (202) 366-9511.

ID: nht95-5.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1995

FROM: Ricardo Martinez -- M.D., NHTSA

TO: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co., Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM SHIN-CHIANG CHEN TO DOT MINISTER

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1995, to the Department of Transportation regarding your invention, the "brake condition warning sensor." You ask whether such an invention is permissible in this country.

The sensor causes flashing in "the third brake light" keyed to the rate of deceleration.

Under the Federal regulations in the United States, motor vehicles must be manufactured so that the third brake light (or "center highmounted stop lamp" as we call it) and all other stop lamps are steady-burning when they are in use.

After the vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from installing the sensor to modify the performance of the third brake light and cause it to flash.

However, Federal law does not prohibit the owner of the car from installing the sensor. In this circumstance, the law of the State in which the vehicle is operated must be consulted to determine whether a flashing third brake light is permissible. We are not able to answer questions about State laws. If you wish an opinion on State laws governing flashing third brake lights, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John Womack Acting Chief Counsel (202) 366-9511.

ID: 11475DRN

Edwin J. Kirschner, Ph.D.
President
Space Coast Writers Guild, Inc.
P. O. Box 804
Melbourne, FL 32902-0804

Dear Dr. Kirschner:

This responds to your question whether school buses are authorized to load or unload school children on highways with posted speed limits in excess of 40 miles per hour. The conditions for loading and unloading zones for school children on school bus routes are not regulated by this agency. The are governed by State laws, so your question is one the State must answer.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration establishes minimum safety standards for the manufacture of new motor vehicles, including school buses. The agency has, however, issued guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs. Guideline 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" notes recommendations for State pupil transportation safety programs. We have enclosed a copy of Guideline 17 for your information. I direct your attention in particular to paragraphs C.2.a., C.2.b., and E.6., which relate to school buses stopping on public highways.

Nevertheless, each state determines how school buses will be operated in that state. Guideline 17 will affect the operation of school buses in your area only to the extent it has been adopted by state officials. For information on Florida's procedures for safe conduct in school bus loading and unloading zones, you may contact:

Mr. Charles F. Hood Administrator, School Transportation Department of Education Florida Education Center, Suite 824 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400

Mr. Hood's telephone number is: (904) 488-4405.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#571.3 D:4/5/96

ID: 1992y

Commander
U.S. Army Missile Command
(Mr. Bob Bergman)
ATTN: AMCPM-FM-TM
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 35898-5793

Dear Commander:

This is in reply to a letter of August 7, l989, from Jerry L. Dooley, Deputy Project Manager, Non-Line of Sight, with respect to "safety standards of the military nature", in particular those that would apply to the M1037 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheel Vehicle (HMMWV), as well as the M993 Bradley Fighting Vehicle System (BFVS).

This agency has jurisdiction over all motor vehicles, defined as vehicles driven or drawn by mechanical power which are manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Our principal role is the issuance of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the monitoring of the notification and remedial campaigns of manufacturers upon the occurrence of noncompliances with the standards, or safety related defects in vehicles. We have never issued safety standards for military vehicles. Quite the opposite; although we interpret our authority as covering military vehicles, the agency has always specifically exempted from compliance with the standards any motor vehicles manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in accordance with contractual specifications.

Frequently, military contracts for procurement of vehicles will call for their conformance with the Federal safety standards, when the nature of the vehicle is such (e.g. passenger car, bus) that conformance with the standards is not inconsistent with the configuration required to accomplish their mission. None of our safety standards for civilian vehicles cover driver field of view, basic visibility requirements, or ingress/egress. Our glazing standard does specify minimum levels of light transmittance, and our rearview mirror standard covers rear view mirror placement and rearward field of view. I am enclosing copies of these standards for your information.

If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures - Standards Nos. lll, 205

ref: 571.7 d:9/7/89