ID: nht72-4.15

DATE: 07/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1972, on the subject of the options which may be included in the unloaded vehicle weight of a passenger car under S8.1.1 of Standard 208.

The definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" is intended to include a vehicle equipped with any combination of optional items that are installed by the factory or by the dealer with the factory's authorization. The weight of equipment installed by the dealer without authorization by the manufacturer would not be includable.

To answer your question by use of your example, you must concern yourself with both factory optional air conditioning and with dealer optional air conditioning that is authorized by the factory.

ID: 15590.ztv

Kiyoshi Narabu, General Manager
Technical Department
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado, Isehara
Kanagawa, 259-11
Japan

Dear Mr. Narabu:

This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically, the final rule allowing visually/optically aimable headlamps, published on March 10, 1997 (62 FR 10710).

Your first question is:

Paragraph S7.8.2.1(c) states that a visually/optically aimable headlamp that has a lower beam shall not have a horizontal adjustment mechanism, unless the mechanism meets the requirements of S7.8.5.2. New paragraph S7.8.5.2(c) was added as part of the visually/optically aimable headlamp specifications on March 10, 1997. This new paragraph applies to headlamps equipped with VHADs manufactured for use on motor vehicles manufactured on and after September 1, 1998, and requires that the calibration be fixed. The headlamp you describe appears to incorporate a VHAD that will be used only on the headlamp, at the time the headlamp was manufactured, and is not intended to be used thereafter. We view this design as conforming to the requirement of S7.8.5.2(c) that calibration be permanently fixed.

Your second question is whether NHTSA's failure to amend S7.8.5.2(a)(2)(iv) is an oversight, since the preamble indicated that the paragraph would be changed to eliminate an inconsistency. Yes, this was an oversight which we shall correct shortly.

Finally, you have said that "S7.8.5.2(c) does not specify the application of calibration for horizontal VHAD device or vertical VHAD device," and asked whether the requirement applies only for the horizontal VHAD device. Effective with vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, S7.8.5.2(c) requires that each headlamp equipped with a VHAD have its calibration permanently fixed. The definition of VHAD in S4 of Standard No. 108, as amended on March 10, 1997 (62 FR at 10717) indicates that it is a device used for determining the horizontal aim of a headlamp, or vertical aim, or both horizontal and vertical aim. Thus, the prohibition will apply to any VHAD with which a headlamp will be equipped, horizontal, vertical, or both.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/30/97

ID: 12124-4.pja

Mr. Thomas P. Darby
Vice-President, Marketing
Darby Industries, Inc.
R.R. 1, Box 311
Falls, PA 18615

Dear Mr. Darby:

This responds to your letter asking whether the small backhoe you manufacture is a motor vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, our answer is no.

Based on the promotional brochure you enclosed, the "Towable TRUCKHOE" is a "full-size backhoe" that can be towed behind a truck "without the need of a trailer." You state that the Towable TRUCKHOE is mainly used at construction sites and in cemeteries and that it has a hydraulic drive system that propels it around job sites at 2 or 3 mph.

NHTSA's regulations apply only to motor vehicles, which are defined in 49 U.S.C. 13102(A)(6) as "vehicle[s] driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways . . . ." Equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor vehicles. That is because the use of these vehicles on the public roadways is intermittent and merely incidental to their primary off-road use.

Based on your letter and brochure, we believe that the Towable TRUCKHOE is manufactured mainly for off-road use and that its transport on the roads (being towed from site to site) is intermittent and merely incidental to its primary purpose. Thus, the Towable TRUCKHOE is not a motor vehicle subject to our safety regulations.

Bear in mind, however, that States have the authority to regulate highway use, and some may have requirements applying to the use of the Towable TRUCKHOE. You may wish to consult State laws for information on possible operational restrictions on your product, such as State licensing and towing laws.

We also note a safety concern about another product shown in your brochure, the "TRUCKHOE." The TRUCKHOE is designed to be mounted "on any truck with a capacity of 3/4 ton or more." The dry weight of the TRUCKHOE is listed as 2,240 pounds. Mounting

the TRUCKHOE on a 3/4 ton vehicle would cause the vehicle to exceed its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), which may result in overloading the tires and other overloading problems that could degrade the vehicle's stopping distance and other aspects of performance.

Stopping distance is regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic brake systems. Truck manufacturers must certify compliance with Standard No. 105 based on the vehicle being loaded to the GVWR. Therefore, if the TRUCKHOE were installed by a dealer before sale of the truck, the dealer would have to assure that the vehicle still complied with all of our standards, including Standard No. 105. Even after sale, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to a statutory provision (49 U.S.C. 30122) that prohibits them from knowingly "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. For example, we would consider outfitting the vehicle in such a way that the vehicle exceeded the stopping distance requirements of Standard No. 105 as making the brakes inoperative.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply if the vehicle owner installs the TRUCKHOE, although we encourage owners not to degrade the performance of their vehicles. In addition, many States have laws prohibiting owners from exceeding the GVWR of their vehicles. You may want to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the TRUCKHOE will be sold or used.

If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d:8/30/96

ID: calendarwk23070

Dae-Ki Min
Attorney at Law
38 West 32^nd Street, Suite 1600
New York, NY 10001-3816





Dear Mr. Min:

This responds to your April 27, 2001, letter seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, on behalf of your client, Hankook Tire Co., Ltd. Specifically, you asked whether, for the purpose of section 574.5 (d) of this regulation, a tire manufacturer may be allowed to define "calender week" as 00:00 hour of Monday through 23:59 hour of the following Sunday. As explained below, the answer is no.

Motor vehicle tires are required by 49 CFR 574.5 to be labeled with a tire identification number (TIN) containing certain information. The last four digits of this number indicate the week and year of manufacture of the tire as follows: The final two digits are the last two digits of the year and the preceding two digits represent the week within that year. The numbering of the weeks begins with a"01" for the first full calendar week in each year and the agency has long held that the calendar week for the purposes of this regulation is defined as running from Sunday through the following Saturday. For example, "0101" indicates that a tire was manufactured during the week beginning Sunday, January 7, 2001, and ending Saturday, January 13, 2001.

The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. To allow an alternative definition of calendar week could obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. Therefore, marking a tire with a calendar week defined as 00:00 hour of Monday through 23:59 of the following Sunday is prohibited.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:574
d.6/1/01

ID: nht76-5.70

DATE: 07/01/76 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Roy A. Taylor; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1976, forwarding a plea from Mr. Ralph O. Howard, Executive Vice President of the North Carolina Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, for help in changing Public Law 91-265, HR 10105, that would permit voluntary registration of tires. The law which became effective May 22, 1971, amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to require tire manufacturers, including retreaders, to maintain records of the names and addresses of first purchasers. The law also authorized the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe procedures to be followed by distributors and dealers to assist manufacturers in securing the required information. In order to implement the law, our Regulation Part 574 (copy enclosed) specifies that tire dealers shall record the purchaser's name and address at time of sale.

The purpose of tire registration is to enable manufacturers to notify consumers in the event of defective or nonconforming tires. The Congress took steps in amending the Safety Act only after attempts by manufacturers and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to inform owners of defective tires proved ineffective. Congressional action would again be necessary to change the law as Mr. Howard's letter requests.

To provide additional orientation pertinent to this subject, we are enclosing a copy of Secretary Coleman's recent letter to the Honorable C. E. Wiggins.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. WASHINGTON, D.C.

May 21, 1976

Mr. Ernest R. Warner, Jr. Acting Director, Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 7th St., S. W. Washing, D. C. 20590

The attached communication is submitted for your consideration, and to ask that the request made therein be complied with, if possible.

If you will advise me of your action in this matter and have the letter returned to me with your reply, I will appreciate it. Very truly yours, Roy A. Taylor M.C.

11th North Carolina District.

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

May 21, 1976

Ralph O. Howard Excutive Vice President North Carolina Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc.

Dear Ralph:

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 14, 1976, containing the resolution passed by your Association in opposition to the Mandatory Tire Registration requirements. I am pleased to have the benefit of your views on this subject and in an effort to be of assistance I am today contacting the appropriate authorities of the Department of Transportation for any comments or information which could be supplied on this situation. As soon as any reply is received I will be back in contact with you.

Many thanks for sending us a copy of the 1975 Membership Directory of the Carolina Society of Association Executives. Also, both Evelyn and I and Mrs. Bobrowski and her husband enjoyed being with you for the congressional dinner.

With many good wishes.

Roy A. Taylor Member of Congress

Ralph O. Howard Executive Vice President

May 14, 1976

Dear Roy:

Because tire dealers are perplexed by a law (HR 10105, signed by the President May 25, 1970) which they do not feel is necessary the following resolution to relieve the burden of non-compliance is respectfully submitted to you for your assistance. Your efforts to change this law so that the customers can register tires if they so choose rather than requiring the tire dealer to make the registration will be greatly appreciated.

RESOLUTION OPPOSING MANDATORY TIRE REGISTRATION

"Whereas, the costs of recording, reporting, maintaining tire ales to the replacement tire market have compounded the economic problems of inflation, and been aggravating to tire customers and to tire dealers; and,

"Whereas, major relief has been proposed by the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association just by changing the law to make tire registration voluntary,

"Now, therefore, we commend our North Carolina Congressional delegation to inform the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the purpose of the law on Tire Registration and Record Keeping would be just as well served if mandatory provisions were changed to voluntary.

"This resolution approved by the membership of the North Carolina Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association at its annual convention on March 6, 1976."

Ralph O. Howard

ID: nht75-2.10

DATE: 09/09/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 14, 1975, concerning the permissibility of placing arrow-shaped markings on tire sidewalls to show the locations of the treadwear indicators.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 specifies certain labeling requirements for passenger car tires. Standard No. 119 specifies similar labeling for tires designed for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. Although the arrows which you have described are not required by either of these standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to such markings provided that none of the required label information is omitted.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 14, 1975

Ref. No. H1/67

James Schultz -- Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schultz:

We have been informed that the Japan Automotive Tire Manufacturers Association has decided to issue a new standard on marking of wear indicators.

The standard requires that all kinds of passenger car tires and truck and bus tires, in Japan, have arrow-marks on both sides of the tire to show the locations of tread wear indicators.

The below shown drawings are details of the arrow-marks:

(Graphics omitted)

We assume that some of the tires with the arrow-marks will be exported to the United States, occasionally.

Therefore, we would like to ask you a favor by telling us whether or not the tires with arrow-marks are illegal in the U.S.A..

If they are illegal, please explain what law prohibits the tires with the arrow-marks.

We would very much appreciate it if you could give us the answer within this week.

If it is convenient for you, we would like to visit with you to discuss this matter at 2:00 PM on July 17, 1975.

Thank you for your cooperation, in advance.

Yours truly,

HIDEKIMI INOUE -- Manager-Technical Liaison

ID: 1983-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/24/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Garvin-Fram Inc. -- Jack Garvin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack Garvin Vice President-Operations Garvin-Fram, Inc. 817 Albion Avenue Schaumburg, Illinois 60193

Dear Mr. Garvin:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff requesting information concerning any regulations applicable to the salvage and sale of farm implement tires exposed to a warehouse tire. This agency has no such regulations, and I am not aware of any Federal regulations.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), gives this agency authority to regulate motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Tires for use on motor vehicles are subject to regulation as motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1391(3)) defines a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways.." Farm implements have been determined not to be motor vehicles because they are not manufactured primarily for use on public roads. Therefore, tires for use on farm implements are not considered motor vehicles equipment, and are not regulated by this agency. The inventory sheet attached to your letter shows that these tires are of a size and strength that were designed for use on farm implements. Accordingly, you may conduct the salvage and sale of these farm implement tires as you wish without violating any of this agency's regulations.

In your telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, you mentioned that some tires for use on passenger cars were also involved in the fire and asked about any agency requirements for subsequent sale of these tires. With respect to those tires, the manufacturer that has certified the tires as complying with our safety standards ( by molding the letters "DOT" on the sidewall) must make a determination of whether the certification is still valid. If the manufacturer determines that the certification is still valid, the tires may be sold. If, on the other hand, the certification is not still valid, the manufacturer must remove its DOT symbol from the sidewall of the tires, and those tires coud not be sold. The means by which the manufacturer determines whether or not its certification is still valid is left completely to the discretion of the individual manufacturer. I have enclosed a 1981 interpretation explaining this more fully. I appreciate your concern for tire safety and for complying with our safety regulations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

January 18, 1983

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Council 400 7th St. S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. Attn: Mr. Steve Kratzke

RE: Farm Implement Tires

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Enclosed is an inventory of the farm implement tires I referred to in our phone conversation on January 18, 1983.

Basically, what we would like to know is are there any Federal regulations, particularly through the NHTSA, regarding the salvage and sale of distressed farm implement tires. In this case, the tires were involved in a fire in Zealand, Michigan, however these particular tires were approximately 50 to 75 feet away from the fire area. Additionally, there were approximately 1000 passenger tires between the fire area and implement tires, acting as an insulator from the heat.

I will await your reply in writing before disposing of the tires. Additionally, after receiving your letter, I will again contact the manufacturer to see if they would like to run tests on these tires for quality control purposes, which they have to date refused to do.

Very truly yours,

Garvin-Fram, Inc.

Jack Garvin Vice President-Operations

ID: 21419.drn

Mr. Mac Yousry
Global Vehicle Services, Corp.
1238 West Grove Avenue
Orange, CA 92865





Dear Mr. Yousry:





This responds to your request for an interpretation of wiped or cleared areas specified in Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You asked two questions, which are answered below.

Your letter concerns S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104, which establishes three windshield areas, designated as "A," "B," and "C," for passenger cars. Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the windshield area wiped as indicated in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a (May 1966), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III and IV of Standard No. 104. The standard also provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

You note that Standard No. 104 does not specify whether Areas A, B and C must fall inside the boundaries of the daylight opening of the windshield. You state that new passenger car designs may utilize smaller windshields, even though the overall width of the vehicle may not be any narrower than typical passenger cars. You believe that on such smaller windshields, parts of Areas A, B, and C may fall outside the daylight opening or even outside the area bounded by the windshield frame.

Your first question asks "Must all of the area of windshield areas A, B and C fall inside the area of the windshield bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening?"

The answer is no. In an interpretation letter of May 6, 1997, to Mr. Jiri Misik (copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated that Area A is that portion of the total area bounded by the angles in Tables I through IV of Standard No. 104 that is also within a perimeter 25 mm within the daylight opening of the windshield frame. The agency noted that it is not necessary that the windshield be large enough to contain the whole area bounded by angles (of which 16 to 18 is the left border).

Although the answer to Mr. Misik addressed only Area A, the analysis also applies to Areas B and C.

Your second question asks:

(a)  Should the percentage of the areas A, B and C, which must be wiped, be calculated utilizing the full areas of A, B, and C even if parts thereof are outside the daylight opening of the windshield?

(b)  Or, should the percentages of areas A, B and C, which must be wiped, be calculated utilizing only parts of areas A, B and C that actually fall inside the area of the windshield bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening?

As explained below, the answer to the second question is (b). In Standard No. 104, S4.1.2 states the following:

Wiped area. When tested wet in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield wiping system shall wipe the percentage of Areas A, B, and C of the windshield (established in accordance with S4.1.2.1) that (1) is specified in column 2 of the applicable table following subparagraph S4.1.2.1 and (2) is within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening.

The description and control of the minimum windshield area to be wiped is described at S3.1 of SAE Standard J903a (copy enclosed). S3.1.2.1 states in part:

The minimum windshield area that shall be wiped is described by the use of three specific areas on the windshield glazing surface. The three areas are identified in Table 1 as areas A, B, and C. Each area has been established using the angles of Table 1 applied as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. In Fig. 1 (side view), the upper and lower boundary of the area is established by the intersection of two planes, tangent to the upper and lower sides of the eye range contour, with the windshield glazing surface. The planes are fixed by angles above and below the glazing surface reference line. In Fig. 2 (plan view), the left and right boundaries of the area are established by the intersection of two planes tangent to the left and right sides of the eye range contour. The planes are fixed by angles to the left and right of the plan view reference line. ...

S3.1.2.1's description means that Areas A, B and C are not fixed, predetermined areas for all windshields, but are areas that vary from windshield to windshield. The variables are the angle of measurement and the width of the car. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 adds another variable by describing Areas A, B and C as within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening.

Please note that in Standard No. 104, Tables I, II, III, and IV all specify that after the test is conducted, a minimum of 80% of Area A must be wiped, a minimum of 94% of Area B must be wiped, and a minimum of 99% of Area C must be wiped.

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





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:104
d.8/11/00

ID: nht93-2.51

DATE: April 13, 1993

FROM: Bob Davis -- Quality Control Mgr., Horton Emergency Vehicles

TO: David Elias -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA - DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/27/93 from John Womack to Bob Davis (A41; Std. 206)

TEXT:

I would like to request an interpretation on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 571.206 "Door locks and door retention components".

We are an Ambulance and Emergency Vehicle manufacturer and must comply with this Standard. We are concerned with this particular Standard because all of our vehicles have two (2) rear doors. The streetside door is closed first with it's own double (top & bottom) two step latch and an inside and outside release handle with locking features both inside and outside. The curbside door is closed last of which overlaps the streetside door, and it too has a double (top & bottom) two step latch and same locking features as the left.

Some of our customers have requested that we eliminate the inside handle and locking features on the streetside door because they have people trying to open the streetside door from the inside quite frequently. They of course can't due to the curbside door overlapping this door, thus preventing them from doing so.

If we should eliminate both the inside door release handle and the inside/outside locking features, leaving only an outside release handle, will we still be able to comply with Code Of Federal Regulations Transportation 571.206?

Under section S4.1.3 "Door Locks" it states that EACH door shall be equipped with its's own locking mechanism. We are looking at this as if one of the doors is trapped by the other door, and the other door is lockable, doesn't this in a sense make the trapped door also able to become locked?

We would appreciate it very much if we could get an answer on this by April 27, 1993.

ID: nht76-2.33

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Flxible Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 7, 1976, to Mr. Dyson, formerly of this office, requesting a confirmation that an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, rendered to the Southern California Rapid Transit District on August 5, 1974, is still valid, and that it can be extended to include identification lamps as well.

In our earlier letter we advised the District that the installation of wiring by a manufacturer enabling a purchaser to connect it to normally steady-burning clearance lamps, enabling them to be flashed to signal a crime in progress, would not violate S4.6(b) which requires clearance lamps to be steady-burning, or S4.1.3 that prohibits installation of motor vehicle equipment which impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. This will confirm that that interpretation is still valid.

Your letter, however, raises two additional issues which deserve to be answered for the record. The first is whether the bus manufacturer rather than the purchaser may make the connection, and the second is whether identification lamps may also be included in the warning system. Since it is our opinion that use of the clearance lamps in an emergency mode creates an item of lighting equipment not required by Standard No. 108 and hence outside its coverage, we have concluded that the manufacturer may connect both clearance and identification lamps to the emergency circuit without any resultant nonconformances with S4.6(b) and S4.1.3.

I hope this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

THE FLXIBLE COMPANY

September 7, 1976

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: R. B. Dyson

Reference: FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

Our Company, a manufacturer of urban transit buses, is in receipt of a recent procurement solicitation for transit vehicles from the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD), Los Angeles, California, which specifies a requirement for a "crime alarm light" system. This system incorporates appropriate circuits, silent switches, a silent electronic flasher unit and a dual filament bulb, all of which are to be used in conjunction with the clearance lamps. Activation of the switch will cause the clearance lamps to flash signalling a crime-in-progress.

We recognize that Section S4.6(b), FMVSS No. 108, permits the flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps for signalling purposes. However, the referenced Section does not stipulate that the flashing of clearance lamps (and identification lamps which are normally on the same circuit) is permitted; in fact, S4.6 (b) requires "all other lamps shall be steady-burning...".

Effective January 1, 1976, the California Vehicle Code authorized the flashing of clearance lamps as crime alarm lights. A copy of this amendment is attached for your information. Also attached is a copy of an August 5, 1974, letter from your office to the SCRTD stating that the operation of the clearance lamps as a warning lamp causes the clearance lamps to become an item of lighting equipment outside the coverage of Standard No. 108. We are assuming the same provision would apply to identification lamps.

Since your previous letter was written over two years ago and in order to assure ourselves that, as a vehicle manufacturer our product is not in violation of S4.6, FMVSS No. 108, when we comply with an operator's requirement, we request that a similar letter, addressed to the Flxible Company, indicating that the flashing of clearance lamps and/or identification lamps as a warning lamp system is not prohibited by Standard No. 108 be forwarded for retention in our Part 576, Record Retention, file. It is suggested that perhaps an amendment to FMVSS No. 108 incorporating this information is in order.

We thank you for your effort in providing the above requested letter.

R. L. Ratz

Buses: Crime Alarm Lights

25275.5. Any bus operated either by a public agency or under the authority of a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Public Utilities Commission may be equipped with a system of crime alarm lights. The system of crime alarm lights shall consist of the installation of additional lamp sources, not exceeding 32 standard candlepower or 30 watts, in the front and rear clearance lamps required or permitted by Section 25100. Such lamps shall be approved by the department and shall be operated by a flasher unit or units that are not audible inside the bus. When actuated, both rear crime alarm lights shall flash simultaneously and both front crime alarm lights shall flash simultaneously. Crime alarm lights shall be actuated only when a crime is in progress on board the bus or has recently been committed on board the bus.

Added Ch 777. Stats. 1975. Effective January 1, 1976.