ID: nht95-6.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1995

FROM: Carrie Stabile; James v. Stabile, III

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Carrie Stabile (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: To Whom It May Concern,

I recently wrote to Senator Alfonse D'Amato regarding both my brother James and my concept on improving the safety of children while loading and unloading on and off the school buses. It is called "VEHICLE ILLUMINATED WARNING SYSTEM". Senator D'Amato contacted Mr. Charles Hott, Safety Engineer, who in return suggested we submit our idea to you, for further review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards.

The illuminated sign would be specially designed to boldly alert other motorists to the fact that the school bus is in the process of loading or unloading children and should not be passed. The sign would be easily visible during daytime, darkness and poor weather conditions. It is our opinion as well as other bus companies that this system would provide children with a safer loading and unloading zone. Features like the stop sign that extends out from the side of the bus do not effectively alert drivers and the safety of children has been greatly compromised.

Our intention with your approval would be to initiate a pilot study from a supporting bus company to survey its effectiveness and approval from the various school districts. We thank you for your consideration in this matter and look forward to hearing from you with regards to your guidance and support.

Enclosure

IN THE APPLICATION OF JAMES VINCENT STABILE III

CARRIE ANN STABILE For A VEHICLE ILLUMINATED WARNING SYSTEM

Filed With The United States Patent and Trademark Office

(Text omitted)

ID: nht95-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1995

FROM: Carrie Stabile; James v. Stabile, III

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Carrie Stabile (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: To Whom It May Concern,

I recently wrote to Senator Alfonse D'Amato regarding both my brother James and my concept on improving the safety of children while loading and unloading on and off the school buses. It is called "VEHICLE ILLUMINATED WARNING SYSTEM". Senator D'Amato co ntacted Mr. Charles Hott, Safety Engineer, who in return suggested we submit our idea to you, for further review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards.

The illuminated sign would be specially designed to boldly alert other motorists to the fact that the school bus is in the process of loading or unloading children and should not be passed. The sign would be easily visible during daytime, darkness and p oor weather conditions. It is our opinion as well as other bus companies that this system would provide children with a safer loading and unloading zone. Features like the stop sign that extends out from the side of the bus do not effectively alert dri vers and the safety of children has been greatly compromised.

Our intention with your approval would be to initiate a pilot study from a supporting bus company to survey its effectiveness and approval from the various school districts. We thank you for your consideration in this matter and look forward to hearing from you with regards to your guidance and support.

Enclosure

IN THE APPLICATION OF JAMES VINCENT STABILE III

CARRIE ANN STABILE For A VEHICLE ILLUMINATED WARNING SYSTEM

Filed With The United States Patent and Trademark Office

(Text omitted)

ID: 17258.ztv

Mr. Eric Williamson
Accessory Department
Accessories Sales & Marketing
Gulf States Toyota, Inc.
7701 Wilshire Place Drive
Houston, TX 77040

Dear Mr. Williamson:

This is in reply to your letter of February 16, 1998, with respect to rear deck spoilers incorporating center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSLs).

The spoiler with its lamp is designed for installation on vehicles whose original CHMSL is located in the rear window. This raises the question of whether the original CHMSL should be disconnected when the spoiler incorporating the new one is installed.

By way of background, and to be brief about it, modifications may be made to new vehicles before their initial sale as long as the vehicles remain in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which their manufacturers have certified them. Because the addition of a spoiler may partially block the light output and visibility of a CHMSL located in the rear window, resulting in a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting (Standard No. 108), we have advised that, under these circumstances, a second CHMSL should be added that meets original equipment requirements. When the second CHMSL is added, the original CHMSL then becomes merely a supplemental stop lamp. Supplementary lighting is permitted under Standard No. 108, provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. We do not believe that a supplementary CHMSL in the rear window impairs the effectiveness of a spoiler-mounted CHMSL.

This means that, under Standard No. 108, there is no Federal law requiring the original CHMSL to be disconnected. However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to the use of vehicles on the public roads. Some states may require the original CHMSL to be disconnected when a spoiler-mounted CHMSL is provided. We are sorry that we are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual states.

We note your comment that the spoiler includes "a D.O.T. approved rear brake lamp." This phrase is often mistakenly used to indicate a lamp that is designed to conform to the requirements of Standard No. 108. We assume that you meant a center stop lamp that will comply with all requirements of Standard No. 108 when it is installed on the vehicle. D.O.T. itself has no authority to "approve" or "not approve" any item of equipment and the phrase "D.O.T. approved" has no meaning and should not be used.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/8/98

ID: 8731

Mr. Richard J. Dessert
Proprietor, Sun Cycle Company
1550 Armacost Avenue #201
West Los Angeles, CA 90025

Dear Mr. Dessert:

This responds to your petition of May 28, 1993, to the Administrator for a temporary exemption for low emission motor vehicles that you would like to produce. These vehicles would be purchased by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The response deadline for LADWP's Request for Proposal (RFP) was June 1, 1993. You have informed us that

"As part of LADWP requirements for successful bidders, evidence of progress towards obtaining Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards certification may be provided through demonstration that an application was made with NHTSA for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards."

Because this matter affects LADWP as well as Sun Cycle Company, we are sending a copy of this response to the designated LADWP contact, Jeffrey S. Silverstone.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) did not receive your petition until June 8, and therefore had no chance to advise you with respect to it before the RFP deadline of June 1. We must inform you that the petition does not meet our procedural requirements and is not accepted for processing and action.

There are several areas in which the petition is deficient. Most importantly, it appears to be a request for a blanket exemption from compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. While the applicable law and regulation do not forbid this, you should know that the Administrator has never entertained a petition of this breadth and in all probability would never grant one. An applicant for a low-emission vehicle exemption must provide sufficient information upon which the Administrator may find that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the motor vehicle, and that the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor

Vehicle Safety Act. We do not believe that the Administrator could make the requisite findings to support a blanket exemption. It is NHTSA's policy to encourage manufacturers to manufacture conforming vehicles to the extent possible, and to narrow the scope of their requests for exemption. Low-emission vehicle petitions generally cover four to 14 standards.

As part of your argument, you must set forth each individual standard from which you request exemption, and provide a detailed description of how your vehicle differs from a conforming one. You must also provide reasons why an exemption from each standard for which request is made would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle, something more than the general statement you have made that the first prototypes will "substantially comply with all the safety standards." Finally, you must present your views why an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act. When we have received a petition from you that fulfills these requirements, we shall be pleased to accept it for consideration and public comment. As the vehicle you intend to manufacture is completely unknown to NHTSA, your new petition should also contain photographs or descriptive literature illustrating it.

Our closing comment is that you or the LADWP may be unclear about vehicle certification. A manufacturer does not "obtain" certification from NHTSA. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which the manufacturer certifies its vehicles after satisfying itself that it conforms to the standards, aside from those from which it may have been exempted. It does not have to have permission from NHTSA to do so. You intend to test the vehicles, and such testing could provide substantiation for your certification of compliance, or, alternatively, substantiation to NHTSA that an exemption would not unduly degrade the vehicle's safety.

If you have any questions about this matter, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366- 5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Jeffrey S. Silverstone

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Attn: Electric Vehicle RFP P.O. Box 111 Los Angeles, CA 90051-0100

ref:555 d:1/11/94

ID: nht94-2.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 27, 1994

FROM: DEAN LAKHANI -- PRESIDENT, GEM MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/3/94 from John Womack to Dean Lakhani (Std. 208)

TEXT: Dear Counselor,

Our company has been in business will over 50 years, manufacturing bumper guards for the passenger car, pickup truck and van industry. These products are used in our country and sometimes exported abroad. These products have over the years saved lot s of lives and a lot of money spent towards costs resulting out of collision damage.

There were several competitors in the days when all the auto vehicles had metal and five mile per hour crash bumpers. Now, it appears that (and we have been told by Ford and General Motors) we are the only bumper guard manufacturing company left in a ll the U.S. All the other bumper guards manufacturers have closed down because of lack of market for bumper guards.

Our primary market disappeared when the 2 1/2 mile collapsible plastic or fiberglass bumpers were approved. Now with the introduction of the air bags (Federal Motor Vehicle Standard # 208), our taxi-cab and police car markets are drying up.

General Motors and other auto manufacturers, it appears have advised consumers, taxi-cab and police fleet administrations that if a bumper guard or any other similar device is placed in front of the bumper, it would interfere with # 208 device (the ai r bag) and the car manufacturers guarantees or warranties would then be questionable. This has caused the consumers, taxi-cab and police car administrators enough concern so as to stop buying bumper guards from us. This has caused the taxi-cab bumper g uard market and the police car bumper guard market to reduce substantially and it is now literally drying up. We may be forced soon to close our doors.

2

We need your prompt assistance, your unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with Federal Motor Vehicle Standard # 208 devise (air bag device).

Sir/Madam, in our company, except for three employees, the next junior most employee has been with the company for 17 years and the 2 senior most employees have been with the business 43 years and 47 years, respectfully. By closing this business, bel ieve me, we will lose hands-on knowledge and talent that has been the backbone of our country's industrial might!

Please do help us. We are all praying for your prompt response.

ID: nht94-6.9

DATE: April 27, 1994

FROM: DEAN LAKHANI -- PRESIDENT, GEM MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/3/94 from John Womack to Dean Lakhani (Std. 208)

TEXT: Dear Counselor,

Our company has been in business will over 50 years, manufacturing bumper guards for the passenger car, pickup truck and van industry. These products are used in our country and sometimes exported abroad. These products have over the years saved lots of lives and a lot of money spent towards costs resulting out of collision damage.

There were several competitors in the days when all the auto vehicles had metal and five mile per hour crash bumpers. Now, it appears that (and we have been told by Ford and General Motors) we are the only bumper guard manufacturing company left in all the U.S. All the other bumper guards manufacturers have closed down because of lack of market for bumper guards.

Our primary market disappeared when the 2 1/2 mile collapsible plastic or fiberglass bumpers were approved. Now with the introduction of the air bags (Federal Motor Vehicle Standard # 208), our taxi-cab and police car markets are drying up.

General Motors and other auto manufacturers, it appears have advised consumers, taxi-cab and police fleet administrations that if a bumper guard or any other similar device is placed in front of the bumper, it would interfere with # 208 device (the air bag) and the car manufacturers guarantees or warranties would then be questionable. This has caused the consumers, taxi-cab and police car administrators enough concern so as to stop buying bumper guards from us. This has caused the taxi-cab bumper guard market and the police car bumper guard market to reduce substantially and it is now literally drying up. We may be forced soon to close our doors.

2

We need your prompt assistance, your unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with Federal Motor Vehicle Standard # 208 devise (air bag device).

Sir/Madam, in our company, except for three employees, the next junior most employee has been with the company for 17 years and the 2 senior most employees have been with the business 43 years and 47 years, respectfully. By closing this business, believe me, we will lose hands-on knowledge and talent that has been the backbone of our country's industrial might!

Please do help us. We are all praying for your prompt response.

ID: 1983-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jeff S. Brantner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1983, to the Urban Mass Transit Administration, which was forwarded to this agency for reply, concerning legal requirements regulating window stickers. The following discussion addresses the Federal requirements applicable to sticker or other films applied to glazing materials in motor vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that films such as the type referred to in your letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Please contact Stephen Oesch of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-1834).

SINCERELY,

Arthur E. Teele Jr. Urban Mass Trans. Admin.

November 9, 1983

Dear Mr. Teele.

I have designed an automobile sticker that I feel is very catchy and will hopefully be on the rear windows of a large number of vehicles. I do have a question though, regarding the legal size of a window sticker. My tentative design is three (3) inches high by sixteen (16) inches wide. I feel that the width is not as critical as the heighth as far as a visability restriction is concerned, yet I would like to keep it legal in order to avoid any trouble.

I will appreciate any help that you can give me, since this means a great deal to me. Thank you, in advance, for your time and effort.

Jeff Brantner

ID: nht90-2.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 2, 1990

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

TO: Earl W. Dahl -- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.,Vice President

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-31-90 To Stephen P. Wood and From Earl W. Dahl; Also attached to letter dated 5-31-89 To Garry Gallagher and From Erika Z. Jones

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR 574,Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked whether an additional symbol, which is intended to identify more precisely the year of manufacturer, is permitted to be in cluded in the tire identification number. As explained below, the answer is yes.

The purpose of the tire identification requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. Section 574.5 re quires that each tire be marked with the tire identification number. In particular, it requires that the fourth grouping contain three numerals of which the first two identify the week of the year and the third numeral identifies the year of manufacture. You believe that this requirement may lead to confusion because the third numeral, e.g. "9", could refer to more than one year, e.g., 1979 or 1989. Accordingly, you state that your company would like to be able to distinguish the year of manufacture in an interval longer than one decade. To do this, you would like to add a symbol immediately following the fourth grouping of the tire identification number to identify that this tire was produced in the decade 1990 through 1999.

Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires (49 CFR S571.109) and Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR S571.119) together with Part 574 require that, certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire s ubject' to the standards. In a May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire (copy attached), the agency explained that

The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information for the safe use of the tires. (These standards) permit tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall on the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.

Applying this standard to the question you have asked, we believe that the additional symbol, an isosceles right triangle, is not prohibited from appearing on the sidewall of your company's tires. As explained above, the labeling requirements are intende d to provide information about the tire, including the year of manufacture, in a clear and straightforward manner.

Because the suggested symbol does not appear to introduce additional information that might obscure or confuse tbe meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose, the agency has determined that marking a tire with an isosceles right triangle after the tire identification code is not prohibited.

ID: nht95-2.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 27, 1995

FROM: Mayo D. Tubbs -- Visionary Lighting Systems

TO: Philip Recht -- Acting Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Revised High-Technology Lighting System for the Trucking Industry

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MAYO D. TUBBS -- (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

I was disappointed to ascertain from your correspondence dated April 13, 1995 that my color selection of Aviation Green for the strip lighting system would not conform to Standard No. 108. While I feel strongly that the unique green color would incre ase drivers' visual acuity and enhance identification of trailers in low light and inclement weather conditions, the system is not limited to the color green. Subsequent discussions with Mr. Taylor Vinson concerning the use of amber and red colored stri p lights indicate the system may comply with Standard No. 108 if these colors were utilized in lieu of green. Attachment A provides color locations of the strip lights.

Selection of the proper red and amber colors will conform to CIE 1931 and 1976 UCS Chromaticity Diagrams. Amber will be in the 580 nanometer range while red will be in the 610 nanometer range.

All other system specifications remain the same as the original design. Light output will be in the 4fL range, the system power input requirement will be less than 1 amp D.C. and the physical shape of the lights will be the same. The inherent safety f eatures of the previously submitted lighting system will apply to red and green strip lights also.

Concerning the physical locations of the strip lights and the possible interference with the conspicuity reflective tape along the sides and rear of the trailer. I understand that covering or partial obscuration of the reflectivity tape will decrease tape effectiveness and consideration will be given in selecting proper areas of strip light installation. Mr. Taylor noted that new production trailers must have the reflective tape installed at the top, rear of the trailer in accordance with S5.7. Mo st trailers provide sufficient area to accommodate both the tape and the strip lights. If not, then no lights would be installed in this area. Attachment B provides additional information.

It is my understanding that if a trailer manufacturer installs the three identification lights at the top, rear of the trailer, then the clearance lights can be installed at the bottom of the trailer. If the identification lights are mounted at the b ottom of the trailer, then the clearance lights must be at the top, rear. See attachment C.

To provide a better understanding of this technology and the proposed lighting system, I can provide an on-site demonstration for the NHTSA and for George Parker of the Office of Research and Development.

I hope that this information concerning the revised lighting system will provide your office wilh sufficient data to evaluate the system and rule that it is in compliance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a).

Thank you for your time and consideration and I look forward to receiving your letter.

(Attachments A-C omitted.)

ID: 24579

Mr. Tom Peterson
Traffic Manager
Oshkosh Truck Corporation
2307 Oregon Street
Oshkosh, WI 54903

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This responds to your letter dated June 18, 2002, concerning a King Heavy Equipment Military Trailer Model GTS 100 which Oshkosh Truck imported on June 30, 1999, as a prototype trailer for testing and training purposes. The trailer was imported under a Temporary Import Bond, which has had two annual extensions. The 3-year limit is June 30, 2002. You would like to keep the trailer in the U.S. for further testing and training, and suggested that it might be "reclassified to off-road usage only." You indicated in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff that the further testing and training would relate to military use.

As discussed below, while we doubt the vehicle could be considered an off-road vehicle,^[1] we believe, based on the facts provided in your letter, that the trailer can remain in the U.S. under 49 CFR 571.7(c).

According to your letter, the trailer in question was designed and built in the UK strictly for military usage. Oshkosh Truck designed the trailer specifically to operate with the Oshkosh M1070 Heavy Equipment Transporter (HET) tractor for carriage of main battle tanks up to 72 tons in weight, or to carry two lighter armored vehicles up to 36 tons each. Oshkosh Truck won a bid to build 92 UK HET tractor/trailer combinations and the trailer was built as a prototype as part of the building process. Since the trailer has been in the United States, it has been hauled on a commercial double-drop trailer to various proving grounds, including the Aberdeen proving grounds in Maryland, for testing purposes.

Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), no Federal motor vehicle standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications. In a letter to Oshkosh Truck dated July 3, 1986, we stated that while this exception applies only to vehicles manufactured for sale, the agency had no objection to limited use on the public roads of nonconforming prototype vehicles that have been developed expressly for sale to the Armed Forces of the United States.

We believe the situation you describe is sufficiently close to that described in 571.7(c) and our July 3, 1986, letter that the prototype King Heavy Equipment Military Trailer Model GTS 100 can remain in the U.S. under that section. I emphasize, however, that this opinion is limited to the specific factual situation involving this vehicle and should not be considered as precedent as to how we might treat other situations. I note that we would not apply this section to individuals importing surplus military vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/25/02

^[1] According to information provided with your letter, in designing the vehicle, attention was paid "to meet existing and known future transport legislation to meet the anticipated peacetime movement requirements." More specifically, the semi-trailer was designed to meet European requirements for the movement of heavy loads with the ability to negotiate compliant surfaces and maintain a degree of "off-highway" capability. (Emphasis added.) Thus, while Oshkosh Truck may not plan to use this particular trailer on the U.S. highways, it does not appear to be an off-road vehicle.