ID: 77-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rototron Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 1, 1977, with respect to moped tires. You have informed us that you wish to manufacture mopeds that would be equipped with an unspecified quantity of tires that are "not marked with the letters DOT and [do not] have the letters UY which is the code assigned by the DOT to this company. . ." You have asked "to have an interim approval from your office for use of this tire until we can arrange for this manufacturer to engrave the necessary letters in their mold".

The symbol "DOT" is the tire manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with all applicable requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Without that certification a moped manufacturer would appear to have no reasonable basis for certifying that vehicles of his manufacture equipped with these tires comply with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your use of these tires might therefore be an apparent violation of the certification requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act subjecting you to civil penalties. If the tires in fact failed to comply, additional penalties could be imposed, and you would be required to notify and remedy the noncompliance.

The fact that part of a foreign manufacturer's production may be certified as meeting DOT standards cannot be relied upon as an assurance that a tire that is not marked with the DOT symbol or manufacturer code letters will also comply. Indeed, it is a prima facie indication that the tire was not manufactured for the American market and does not meet Federal safety standards.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

September 1, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are about to enter the manufacture of a moped and we wish to make use of a tire which is manufactured by the CHENG-SHIN CO. of Taiwan. This tire is imported for the Worksman Trading Co. in Brooklyn, New York, and bears the name WTC and is marked "Made in Taiwan", but is not marked with the letters DOT and it doesn't bear the letters UY which is the code assigned by the DOT to this company whose product line generally speaking is DOT approved and marked accordingly.

We wish to have an interim approval from your office for use of this tire until we can arrange for the manufacturer to engrave the necessary letters in their mold.

Very truly yours, ROTOTRON CORPORATION; Stuart Pivar President

ID: nht78-1.14

DATE: 03/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of June 23, 1977, to Mr. W. M. Radler, you asked if Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, would apply to a special hose assembly intended for use with your Hydrobooster system. The diagram you enclosed showed the hose assembly interconnecting the charging valve with the brake booster unit. Power steering fluid is fed through it under pressure.

Your representative, Mr. Paul Utans, has presented two rubber hose assemblies in the recent past. On October 5, 1977, he submitted what we assume to be the design to be used with your Hydrobooster. It is stamped with the date 10/8/77.

In the preamble to Notice 11, Docket 1-5, published June 24, 1974, (39 FR 24012) all power steering type hoses that connected power steering pumps with accumulators were exempted from the standard. Hoses connecting accumulators with boosters were also exempted if redundant boosters were provided. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has reviewed this latter interpretation and determined that all power steering type hose should be exempt from FMVSS 106-74, whether or not redundant boosters are present.

Brake power booster systems must meet the applicable performance requirements of FMVSS 105-76, "Hydraulic Brake Systems" which does not require a redundant booster. Further, the requirements in FMVSS 106-74 are not appropriate for power steering hoses. The interpretation in Notice 11 is therefore modified to permit the exemption of all power steering type hoses and tubing assemblies used with hydraulically operated brake power boosters until performance requirements for them are established.

After consideration of the sample and the information you have supplied, we have concluded that the subject hose assembly must be classified as power steering hose. Consequently, your Hydrobooster hose assembly is considered exempt from coverage by FMVSS 106-74 until appropriate requirements for such hose assemblies can be included in the standard. A plastic tube assembly used in the same system would also be exempt.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Welfred M. Redler, P.E. -- Office of Crash Avoidance, NHTSA

June 23, 1977

Subj.: Request Dear Mr. Redler,

for one of our customers, a central hydraulic system is being installed since the beginning of production of the 78 model range; the wiring diagram of this system is attached. The tube which is presently mounted between accumulator and hydrobooster is to be replaced before long by a plastic hose for reasons of noise transmissions. Mr. Utans has already informed you that we cannot use a rubber hose with the required dimensions (internal dia. 10 mm) for this specific purpose. Since, however, we are not sure about the requirements the hose will have to meet in the U.S.A., we kindly ask you to inform us about them.

The following hose characteristics should be taken into consideration:

a) When installed in the system, the hose must withstand a permanent pressure of 36 - 52 bar (522 - 754 psi).

b) In the case of a failure of this hose, the system will still meet the requirements as per FMVSS 105-75, S 7.10.

c) Since it is a plastic hose, the requirements as per FMVSS 106-74, S 6.3, Whip Test, cannot be met. However, we hold the view that this is not necessary since the hose is used as a connection for two units attached to the same vehicle part (frame) where no important vibrations will occur. As has been mentioned before, this hose will be exclusively used as a noise deadening hose.

d) If, contrary to our expectations, you decide that our plastic hose is a hydraulic brake hose as defined by FMVSS 106-74, we should like to ask you to release us from the obligation to meet the requirements of sections 5.2 Identification and 6.3. Whip Test.

When taking a decision, please bear in mind that similar hoses are presently installed in production vehicles in the U.S.A.

Thanking you in advance for your kind assistance we remain,

Yours sincerely, Alfred Teves GmbH

P.P.9

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 23912.ztv

Mr. Denis Igoe
Automotive Lighting
47000 Liberty Drive
Wixom, MI 48393





Dear Mr. Igoe:

This is in reply to your fax of January 16, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to visually-optically aimable (VOA) headlamps.

You identified yourself as working in the automotive industry" for a "forward lighting manufacturer." With respect to a headlamp currently in production, you wrote that "a proposal for cost savings is to eliminate the horizontal VHAD and the ability to adjust in the horizontal." As you see it, "the issue becomes: through vehicle service it is possible a new headlamp w/o horizontal adjustment (& VHAD) could be paired with an old headlamp with horizontal adjustment (& VHAD) on the very same vehicle." You have asked, "aiming instructions notwithstanding, is this situation compliant or not, with existing NHTSA regs?"

Section S7.8.5.3(b) of Standard No. 108, applicable to VOA headlamps, prohibits horizontal adjustment of horizontal aim of the lower beam of a headlamp unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal VHAD. Thus a horizontal aim adjustment feature is not a requirement for VOA headlamps but an option of the headlamp manufacturer. The situation you posit is one in which a vehicle in service could have one lower beam that was horizontally adjustable and the other lower beam would not be horizontally adjustable.

This headlamp mixture would not be permissible as original equipment on new motor vehicles. Some years ago we were asked by Robert Bosch GmbH whether it would be permissible to install on one side of a vehicle a headlamp with VHAD (onboard aiming) for vertical aim and on the opposite side a VOA headlamp in the case where a vehicle manufacturer wanted to change from VHAD-headlamps to visually aimable headlamps during the production of a certain vehicle type. On March 10, 1998, we replied to Bosch (see the enclosed letter to Tilman Spingler) that "all headlamps within a headlighting system must comply with the same set of requirements, including its aiming features."

We have addressed the issue of compatibility of replacement headlamps in both the preamble to the final rule adopting VOA headlamps and in an interpretation letter to Stanley Electric Co. dated June 22, 1998 (copy enclosed). In the preamble, we observed that "any current headlamp design that is modified to include visual/optical aimability must still provide mechanical aimability if that headlamp is intended to be a replacement in vehicles in which the lamp was used before its redesign" (62 FR 10710 at 10714, March 10, 1997). Citing that language, Stanley informed us that it would modify headlamp aiming features on an existing model headlamp for a new model year headlamp but would continue producing the old design for replacement purposes. The two headlamp designs would have different parts numbers and lens identifiers. Stanley asked for confirmation that the new system need not continue to provide mechanical aimability. We replied to Tadashi Suzuki of Stanley on June 22, 1998, stating that we did not consider the new design to be a "replacement" requiring retention of the mechanically aimable feature because the two headlamps would have different part numbers and lens identifiers. We also advised that Stanley's intent would be "even clearer if the cartons in which each type of replacement headlamp is shipped are marked to identify the specific model year(s) for which replacement is intended."

In your fact situation, we assume that mechanical aimability is not an issue, and that both headlamps are VOA in type. Nevertheless, as we also advised Stanley, "[I]t is not advisable for headlamp on the same vehicle to have to be aimed by two different means." Accordingly we would encourage you to take steps to distinguish the new and old headlamp designs by the means that we suggested to Stanley (different part numbers, lens identifiers, carton marking), to minimize the possibility that a replacement headlamp might be installed that is not identical to the original headlamp, thereby creating a headlighting system that would not comply with the original equipment requirements of Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.4/5/02

ID: nht76-1.13

DATE: 07/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Moto Villa, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your May 27, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to brake hose assemblies that you import and contemplate importing for use on motorcycles.

I understand that you presently import brake hose assemblies for use only on off-road, moto-cross motorcycles. These assemblies are not "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) (the Act). Therefore, they are not subject to any requirements of Standard No. 106-74.

The other assemblies that you contemplate importing for onroad use, however, are subject to the standard. Your letter indicates that the manufacturer of the assemblies is prepared to affix bands to them, certifying that they meet all the performance requirements of the standard, but that he is not yet able to obtain hose and end fittings that are labeled pursuant to S5.2. The relief that you have requested, however, is found in S12, which reads as follows:

Brake hose assemblies manufactured from March 1, 1975, to August 31, 1976. Notwithstanding any other provision of this standard, a brake hose assembly manufactured during the period from March 1, 1975, to August 31, 1976, shall meet each requirement of this standard, except that the assembly may be constructed of brake hose which meets every requirement of the standard for hose other than the hose labeling requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1, and the assembly may be constructed of end fittings which meet every requirement of the standard for end fittings other than the end fitting labeling requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1.

You should note that the critical date for application of this section is the assembly's date of manufacture, rather than that of importation.

Please note further that Section 110(e) of the Act requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made.

You state in your letter that the brake system products that you plan to import are manufactured by Gri Me Ca S.P.A. In order to comply with section 110 of the Act it is necessary that Gri Me Ca designate an agent in the United States for service of process. There is no requirement in the Act that a motor vehicle importer, located in the United States, designate an agent.

In order for the designation to be effective, it is necessary that the procedural requirements of 49 CFR 551.45 (enclosed) be fulfilled by the submission of the following information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer of the brake system components;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations (Illegible Word) origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

May 27, 1976

Mark Schwimer -- Office of Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin

Dear Mark,

I would like to thank you for your assistance regarding the Brake hose standard, S106.

MotorVilla, Ltd. is the exclusive importer of products manufactured by Gri Me Ca S.P.A. 40068 S. Lazzaro Di Savena, Bolona Italy. Gri Me Ca is a small speciality manufacturer of wheels and brake products. They have not sold products into the United States until Jan. 1976 when we became their distributor. Moto Villa is involved in off road motorcycle racing and imports the Villa line of moto cross motorcycles. We have been promoting the Gri Me Ca brakes on our dirt track racers, and for sale to others for dirt track racing.

This product is not readily adaptable to on-road vehicles for several reasons. If a motorcycle doesn't already have disc brakes the entire wheel assembly must be changed including drum, disc, sprocket, rim, etc. Once this has been changed the complicated mounting problem must be tackled. Without a machine shop one could not even think about making this change. If the motorcycle happens to have disc brakes, and someone were to attempt to replace their equipment with ours, they would meet two big problems. First complicated bracketry must be fabricated to adopt our product, then the problem of different threads on the hose must be taken on. I think it is a fair statement that no one is likely to use our products for on-road use.

However, we are considering some other products that Gri Me Ca makes for on-road use. This is the main reason that we would like to get the D.O.T. requirements satisfied. We have sent a copy of Standard S106 to the manufacturer and they have informed us that they have gone through their testing procedure and have passed all the tests. They have indicated to us that this information was supplied to the Italian manufacturers using their product on their motorcycles. We have asked for a copy of this datum.

Gri Me Ca has said they can certify to the standard, however it will take several months to obtain the brake line and fitting with the correct labeling. They indicate that they have the ability to band the assemblies almost immediately with the proper information. We would like to request that they be allowed to do this possibly under S12 or S13.

Gri Me Ca was never made aware of the exacting labeling standards required in the U.S. until we provided them with the text. Their only exposure seems to have been to the performance standards, which Moto Guzzi or one of the other manufacturers provided them. They are being very cooperative and working very hard to do what is needed to be in full compliance with our laws.

We would like to request on their behalf that while new hose and fitting are being manufactured that they be allowed to "band" their current assemblies, which meet all other requirements of this standard except for the labeling. They will start shipping assemblies with all proper labeling as soon as they receive the parts to build complete assemblies. They will not attempt to use up their non labeled assemblies, but will sell them in countries other than the U.S.

Please let me know what other information you may need to facilitate our complying with the standard.

Sincerely,

Charles R. Cheatham -- General Partner, Moto Villa, Ltd.

ID: nht87-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/87 EST

FROM: PETER MCINTOSH -- PRESIDENT. STARDOR INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA

TITLE: REAR ENDER STOP LAMP

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/29/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO PETER MCINTOSH, REDBOOK A31, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 02/24/87 (EST) FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO HAL MCNAMARA

TEXT: Dear Mr Vinson,

Mr Kumbar of the A.A.M.V.A. suggested I write to you & inform you of our wishes to obtain approval for the marketing of our Rear Ender brake light.

This product was introduced into Australia in 1986 with great success and is now used by many corporations, government bodies & sporting groups to promote their product and incorporate a great safety device into their vehicles. With the statistics fr om the U.S.A. illustrating the reduction in rear end accidents by over 50% with the installation of a mid mounted brake light, acceptance of this concept was incredible with our promotional factor assisting to promote their use.

Due to the acceptance and the interest shown we decided to try and export the product to the U.S.A. where the market is so much larger and where so many millions of cars still lack this safety system. On showing the product to a number of interested parties in the U.S.A. it is evident that this concept should receive much the same acceptance. Apart from the promotional angle main selling feature to most end users is the big advantages offered in safety.

Our aim is mainly to introduce them to corporations for use in their own vehicles, used car sales for their stock and sporting groups for fund raising (support their team with endorsement on lights). Eventually we hope to introduce them onto the reta il market. With all new cars being factory fitted we do not see a market in this area, with the exception of 2wd vehicles and vans.

The size of the lens is 10" x 2 1/2" offers excellent visibility and the most important feature of the lens is the fact that the message dissapears when the brake light is illuminated, thus not interfering with the initial design characteristic requir ement of the light. This factor has gained acceptance by the police departments in Australia and has encouraged a number of insurance companies to offer bonuses to their clients utilizing the mid mounted lights, e.g. no loss of no claim in the event of a rear end collision.

The light has also been used by police and county vehicles to promote community messages such as "BUCKLE UP!", "SAY NOT TO DRUGS!" etc.

Please find enclosed a copy of our brochure and I trust this information will be of assistance to you in evaluating our product. Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to call me on (305) 3616908.

ID: nht81-1.35

DATE: 03/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M. Yasui & Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

In reply refer to: NOA-30

Mr. Harry Shirai M. Yasui & Company, Ltd. Togin Building Marunouchi 1-4-2, Chiyodaku Tokyo, Japan

Dear Mr. Shirai:

This responds to your October 17, 1980, letter to this agency in which you requested a clarification regarding the regulations applicable to importing used truck tires into the United States. As I understand from your letter, your company collects used truck tires in Japan and ships them to the United States for retreading. However, the tires you are shipping do not have a DOT number on them, which would represent the tire manufacturers' certification that the tires comply with all applicable U.S. requirements. Some of your U.S. customers have refused further shipment of the tires without DOT numbers, based on their belief that accepting the tires would violate Federal regulations. Your customers are correct in their belief that tires imported into the United States must have a manufacturer's certification that the tires comply with all applicable U.S. requirements. However, this requirement can be satisfied without a DOT number on used tires.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)), makes it unlawful for any person to import into the United States any item of motor vehicle equipment, including tires, manufactured on or after the date that an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect, unless the equipment (tire) is in conformity with the standard. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, took effect on March 1, 1975. That standard requires that tires for vehicles other than passenger cars pass certain performance tests (endurance, strength, and high speed performance) and that the manufacturer label the tire with a DOT number to certify that the tire complies with the requirements of the standard. Any tires without a DOT number that were manufactured after March 1, 1975, would not be in compliance with Standard No. 119. Therefore, such tires, could not legally be imported into the United States, as new tires.

However, there are three ways that used tire casings may be legally brought into the United States. The tires must either (1) have a DOT number, (2) be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975, or (3) be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally produced, met the requirements of Standard No. 119. If the tires do not have any of these certifications, the U.S. Customs Service will seize the tires. Should the tires slip through customs without being seized, the retreaders who import the tires into this country are liable for a fine of up to $1,000 for each tire they bring into the country which does not comply with the requirements, according to section 109 of the Traffic Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

Should you need any further information on this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 7170

Mr. Tom Mario
Vice President Sales
Sealco Air Controls, Inc.
215 East Watkins Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Dear Mr. Mario:

This letter responds to your inquiry about recent amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with respect to trailers. That final rule (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed) amended the standard by deleting the requirement for a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. It also added requirements for the retention of a minimum level of pressure in a trailer's supply line in the event of pneumatic failure and for the prevention of automatic application of trailer parking brakes while the minimum supply line pressure is maintained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

NHTSA promulgates safety standards that specify performance requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

One such safety standard, Standard No. 121, specifies performance requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, including most trailers. Any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible.

You first asked whether a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment becomes effective on October 8, 1992. The answer is yes. While the amendment deletes a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device. Your next two questions asked which air brake system would be required on certain axles for different types of trailers. As indicated above, any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. I note that while the standard does include certain specific requirements for braking at particular axles, all of the requirements amended or adopted in the October 1991 final rule are written in terms of overall vehicle braking performance. Therefore, in order to ensure compliance with these requirements, manufacturers must assess how the selection of brake designs at each axle will affect overall braking performance.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

ref:121 d:5/21/92

ID: nht92-6.44

DATE: May 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Mario -- Vice President Sales, Sealco Air Controls, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/31/92 from Tom Mario to Steve Wood (OCC 7170)

TEXT:

This letter responds to your inquiry about recent amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with respect to trailers. That final rule (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed) amended the standard by deleting the requirement for a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. It also added requirements for the retention of a minimum level of pressure in a trailer's supply line in the event of pneumatic failure and for the prevention of automatic application of trailer parking brakes while the minimum supply line pressure is maintained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

NHTSA promulgates safety standards that specify performance requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

One such safety standard, Standard No. 121, specifies performance requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, including most trailers. Any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible.

You first asked whether a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment becomes effective on October 8, 1992. The answer is yes. While the amendment deletes a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device.

Your next two questions asked which air brake system would be required on certain axles for different types of trailers. As indicated above, any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. I note that while the standard does include certain specific requirements for braking at particular axles, all of the requirements amended or adopted in the October 1991 final rule are written in terms of overall vehicle braking performance. Therefore, in order to ensure compliance with these requirements, manufacturers must assess how the selection of brake designs at each axle will affect overall braking performance.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht89-1.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/31/89 EST

FROM: VERNON ROBERTS -- NHTSA NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATISTICS AND ANALYSIS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TITLE: RESEARCH NOTES; CRASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG VEHICLES THROUGH MARCH 31, 1989

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/25/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HARRY REID -- SENATE. RED BOOK A33 [4] USA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 03/08/89 FROM PATRICIA KLINGER WATHEN -- DOT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; LETTER DATED 02/23/ 89 FROM HARRY REID -- SENATE TO DOT; LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM STEVEN P. ELLIOTT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE, RE AUTHORIZATION TO DISCONNECT AUTOMOBILE AIR BAGS; REPORT FROM DAVID J. ROMEO AND JOHN B. MORRIS, DRIVER AIR BAG POLICE FLEET DEMONSTRATION PROGRA M A 24 MONTH PROGRESS REPORT AT EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLE CONFERENCE OXFORD, ENGLAND, JULY 1-5, 1985

TEXT: In 1983 and 1984, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began two air bag fleet programs. The purpose was to demonstrate that both original equipment and retrofit air bag systems would provide occupant crash protection, with no sign ificant operational problems.

The air bags in these fleets have performed well in service. There have been a total of 167 crash deployments. We know of no cases where the air bags failed to deploy as designed and only two non-crash deployments (neither of which resulted in any pers onal injury or crash damage).

NHTSA supported the development, procurement, installation, and evaluation of 539 retrofit air bag systems in state police vehicles. The agency also joined the General Services Administration (GSA) in the purchase of 5,000 1985 Ford Tempos that were fac tory-equipped with driver air bags for use as Federal government fleet vehicles. GSA subsequently purchased 1,500 1987 Ford Tempos with air bags. The Department of Defense purchased 300 air bag equipped 1985 Ford Tempos for its use.

Air bags are designed to protect drivers in frontal crashes in which the change in velocity is greater than approximately 10 miles per hour (mph): speeds at which serious injuries may occur. Both the car makers and NHTSA recommend that vehicle occupants also wear the available safety belts.

In the operation of these NHTSA sponsored air bag fleets through March 31, 1989:

* There were no severe or critical injuries in any of the 167 deployment crashes. The drivers of these cars typically had no injury or only minor injury. Only 14 had moderate to serious level injuries, but none received more serious injuries.

* The most severe deployment crash was a frontal collision with a velocity change of approximately 25 mph. The primary injury to the driver was a mild concussion.

* There was one catastrophic, fatal, non-deployment crash judged as non-survivable (see the third footnote on the summary table overleaf). In all other crashes where the air bags did not deploy, the crashes were of such a low severity that the air bags were not designed to deploy, and did not.

* There were two air bag deployments in the absence of a collision. In one case involving a police car, the air bag readiness indicator light on the dashboard gave adequate warning of a fault in the electrical system, but no action was taken. The bag d eployed while the car was parked with no occupant. In the other case involving a Tempo, the bag also deployed while the car was parked unoccupied. Design changes were made in both systems to prevent similar occurrences.

SUMMARY OF THE CRASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG EQUIPPED FLEET VEHICLES AS OF MARCH 31, 1989

Government Air Bag Fleets Originally Placed Currently in Vehicle Fleet in Fleet Service Fleet Service 1985 Ford Tempos - Federal Government 5,300 1,974 1987 Ford Tempo - Federal Government 1,500 1,3421983-1985 Police Cars (retrofit systems) 539 240

Air Bag Fleet Crash Experience Deployment Injuries to Drivers/Right Front Passengers n1 Crashes AIS-0 AIS-1 AIS-2 AIS-3 AIS-4 AIS-5 AIS-6 Unknown n2 Fed. Tempo 126 31/1 82/21 8/1 3/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 Police Cars n3 41 9/2 26/5 2/0 1/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 Total 167 40/3 108/26 10/1 4/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 n1 Injuries are classified according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS): AIS 1 = minor, AIS 2 = moderate, AIS 3 = serious, AIS 4 = severe, AIS 5 = critical, and AIS 6 = untreatable (usually fatal).

n2 One deployment occurred when a driverless, stolen Tempo was pushed off a river bank and struck a tree. Another stolen Tempo was recovered with frontal damage and a deployed air bag. Nothing else is known about the driver or crash.

n3 There were three deployments in unoccupied police cars. They were parked with engines running when struck by other vehicles.

Number of Vehicles Involved in Each Deployment Crash by Mode:

Front . . . 139 Side . . . 16 Rollover . . . 4 Undercarriage . . . 8 Non-Deployment n4 Injuries to Drivers & Right Front Passengers Crashes AIS-0 AIS-1 AIS-2 AIS-3 AIS-4 AIS-5 AIS-6 Fed. Tempos 764 713 50 0 0 0 0 1 Police Cars 29 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total 793 741 51 0 0 0 0 1

n4 The information is incomplete because the crash notification criteria and injury information available on non-deployment crashes varies with each fleet. One Tempo crashed into a heavy truck at a closing speed of approximately 95 mph. This crash wa s so severe that the vehicle's electrical system was destroyed before the crash sensors could actuate the air bag. The car was catastrophically destroyed by the truck, fatally injuring the driver who could not have been protected by the air bag even had it deployed.

Air Bag Equipped Vehicle Exposure Vehicle Fleet Total Estimated Mileage Federal Tempos 250 million Police Cars 65 million

Results of Fleet Experience to Date

Experience with this current generation air bag fleet has been very positive. The air bags deployed in cases where the crash protection was needed. When air bags deployed, injuries typically were relatively minor.

ID: Lewis.2

Mr. William Heath Lewis
Automotive Manufacturing Group, Inc.
d/b/a A.M.G.
20479 Via Marisa
Boca Raton, FL 33498

Dear Mr. Lewis:

This responds to your July 29, 2004, e-mail to George Feygin in which you ask whether your companys products, truck clearance lamps with "clear application" (presumably emitting a white light), meet the requirements of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and how you would go about obtaining DOT approval for those products. Your e-mail attached four photographs of trucks that have a series of lamps on the cab roof, immediately above the windshield. As these depicted vehicles are equipped with both clearance lamps and identification lamps, this letter addresses the requirements for both types of lamps. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations and to discuss how they may affect your products.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571). NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by inspecting and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate possible safety-related defects.

The requirements for lighting equipment are contained in FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (see 49 CFR 571.108). The standard sets performance requirements for clearance and identification lamps, including color. Specifically, Table I requires multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, trailers, and buses that are 80 or more inches in overall width to be equipped with 2 amber clearance lamps and 2 red clearance lamps. Table I also requires those vehicles to be equipped with 3 amber identification lamps and 3 red identification lamps. These lamps must emit amber or red light, respectively.

Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies location requirements for clearance and identification lamps. Specifically, the standard requires two amber clearance lamps on the front and two red clearance lamps on the rear to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. The clearance lamps must be located, one on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable.

Table II also requires covered vehicles to be equipped with identification lamps on the front and rear of the vehicle. The standard requires three amber lamps on the front and three red lamps on the rear of the vehicle. The identification lamps are to be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, at the same height, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline, and with lamp centers spaced not less than 6 inches or more than 12 inches apart. Alternatively, the front lamps may be located as close as practicable to the top of the cab.

These requirements related to the color of clearance and identification lamps apply to both original equipment and replacement (aftermarket) lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard provides that " each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies shall be designed to conform to this standard. "

In light of the above and based upon the location of the lighting equipment in the photographs accompanying your correspondence, the standard requires your clearance lamps (or identification lamps) to emit amber light. However, we note that manufacturers are not required to use an amber lens to comply with the color requirements for an amber lamp. Rather, they may use any plastic material that complies with the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2, as long as the light emitted from the completed lamp complies with the applicable color requirements.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.9/23/04