ID: nht69-1.16

DATE: 05/21/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Amorada Glass Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1969, forwarded to me by the Federal Trade Commission.

A windshield classified as a second by the manufacturer must nevertheless meet the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (Glazing materials).

If you have any information indicating that windshields marked seconds do not comply with the standard I would appreciate your sending me such information with the names of the manufacturers and dealers selling the windshields so that the Bureau can further investigate the matter.

Sincerely,

National Highway Safety Bureau, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation,

Attention: Robert Brenner,

Acting Administrator.

Gentlemen:

The enclosed copy of a letter, dated April 22, 1969, from Mr. Richard R. Miller, President, Amerada Glass Company, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, referring to the installation of unsafe windshield glass is forwarded for appropriate consideration by your Bureau under applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

Mr. Miller has been advised of this referral.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,

Hugh B. Helm --

Chief, Division of Advisory Opinions,

Bureau of Industry Guidance,

Federal Trade Commission

Enclosure

April 22, 1969

Federal Trade Commission

Gentlemen:

Having received a copy of Steven John Fellman's letter of April 7, 1969, directed to your offices, regarding the installation of "seconds" windshields by members of the National Glass Dealers Association, I wish to advise the availability of further information on this matter for your immediate consideration.

"B" line insurance firms in many parts of the country are well aware of the availability of "seconds" and prepare their purchase orders accordingly. It is a known industry fact that the three largest independent manufacturers of curved windshields allow sales of "seconds" windshields only to their largest and preferred customers, those giving them the major share of the replacement business in their area.

This practice definitely discriminates against the small, legitimate buyer unable to buy the lower cost "second" from the independent manufacturer, distributing only through his selected distributor.

I feel very strongly that the Department of Transportation should be advised that the installation of rejects deceives the public, and provides unsafe windshields due to distortion, double vision and imperfections in the glass which would normally be considered rejects and destroyed by those original equipment windshield manufacturers who do not sell windshields considered to be unsuitable for original equipment or replacement installation sales.

A thorough review of practices indicated above should be made without delay. Your reply will be awaited with genuine interest.

Very truly yours,

AMERADA GLASS COMPANY --

Richard R. Miller, President

ID: nht94-2.62

TYPE: InterpretationNHTSA

DATE: April 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark M. McGregor

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/31/94 from Mark M. McGregor to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC-9847)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of March 31, 1994, with respect to Federal regulations that may apply to a motor vehicle rear lighting device that you have invented.

Your "Safe Driving Indicator Light," mounted on the rear of a vehicle, would emit one color ("possibly green") which would change to red when a vehicle following came too close.

To put it at its simplest, an invention such as yours is permissible under the Federal statutes and regulations of this agency as long as it does not negatively affect the performance of the lighting equipment that is required by Federal Motor Vehicle Sa fety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. This is the Federal standard that specifies what is required as original lighting equipment on motor vehicles.

More specifically, paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits non- required lighting devices as original equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. We believe that your invention, as described, has the potent iality to impair the stop lamp system. While running lamps of the color red are permitted (e.g. taillamps), the sudden change from green to red of the lamp of your system could be misinterpreted as a signal to the car following that the car ahead is pre paring to stop. However, the purpose of your lamp is not to indicate a stop but to warn the following driver that (s)he is too close.

As a warning lamp, we believe that your use of amber as a color, rather than red, would convey the desired message without impairing the effec- tiveness of the stop lamps. But you should consider the intensity and location of the lamps to avoid impairme nt of the rear turn signal lamps.

With respect to the aftermarket, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) (Section 108(a)(20)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as not forbidding activities by persons other than those named above that affect the compliance of a vehicle with th e Federal safety standards. Thus, the installation of your invention emitting a red color is not precluded if the invention is intended for installation by a vehicle owner, and is not prohibited for installation by others if the warning light color is a mber.

However, you must still determine whether use of the lamp is permissible under the laws of States where it will be used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest that you write for an opinion to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Admin istrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. 22203.

ID: nht73-6.1

DATE: 10/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Twin Coach Highway Products Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 22, 1973, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Following are answers to your four questions:

1. In a phone conversation with Richard Dyson on September 26 you explained that the window mechanism in question (which you mentioned you are no longer using) requires the release of both mechanisms before the window releases -- that is, before the window will no longer conform to the retention requirements in paragraph s5.1, s5.1.1, and s5.1.2 of the standard. In this case, only one of the force applications necessary to operate both mechanisms need differ by 90 degrees to 180 degrees from the direction of the original push-out motion of the emergency exit.

2. You are correct that the post in front of the window is not an obstruction so long as it permits passage of the ellipscid. However, when a post cuts a window opening into two segments as shown in your enclosed sketch, only the segment that passes the ellipscid, not the entire window opening, may count toward the measurement of total area specified in paragraph s5.2.

3. Although Figure 30 shows only the boundaries for high and low force access regions when the bus is upright (and when an obstacle is between the occupant and the unit), these same dimensions are these that are to be applied when the bus is overturned on either side, with the side on which the

bus is resting being considered as the floor. The transposition of these dimensions is illustrated to some extent in Figure 3D.

Whether or not both rear windows must be made into emergency exits rests solely on whether both windows are necessary for the bus to meet the unobstructed opening requirements, and the emergency exit release requirements of s5.3 and s5.5 when the bus is upright and overturned on either side.

4. The cut-off date for windows which do not comply with the standard is that of the date of manufacture of the bus in which the window is installed. All buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1973, must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask.

ID: 9847

Mr. Mark M. McGregor
7 Highfield Drive
Sandwich, MA 02563

Dear Mr. McGregor:

This is in reply to your letter of March 31, 1994, with respect to Federal regulations that may apply to a motor vehicle rear lighting device that you have invented.

Your "Safe Driving Indicator Light", mounted on the rear of a vehicle, would emit one color ("possibly green") which would change to red when a vehicle following came too close.

To put it at its simplest, an invention such as yours is permissible under the Federal statutes and regulations of this agency as long as it does not negatively affect the performance of the lighting equipment that is required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. This is the Federal standard that specifies what is required as original lighting equipment on motor vehicles.

More specifically, paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits non-required lighting devices as original equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. We believe that your invention, as described, has the potentiality to impair the stop lamp system. While running lamps of the color red are permitted (e.g. taillamps), the sudden change from green to red of the lamp of your system could be misinterpreted as a signal to the car following that the car ahead is preparing to stop. However, the purpose of your lamp is not to indicate a stop but to warn the following driver that (s)he is too close.

As a warning lamp, we believe that your use of amber as a color, rather than red, would convey the desired message without impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamps. But you should consider the intensity and location of the lamps to avoid impairment of the rear turn signal lamps.

With respect to the aftermarket, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) (Section 108(a)(20(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as not forbidding activities by persons other than those named above that affect the compliance of a vehicle with the Federal safety standards. Thus, the installation of your invention emitting a red color is not precluded if the invention is intended for installation by a vehicle owner, and is not prohibited for installation by others if the warning light color is amber.

However, you must still determine whether use of the lamp is permissible under the laws of States where it will be used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest that you write for an opinion to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:4/28/94

ID: nht94-6.8

DATE: April 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark M. McGregor

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/31/94 from Mark M. McGregor to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC-9847)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of March 31, 1994, with respect to Federal regulations that may apply to a motor vehicle rear lighting device that you have invented.

Your "Safe Driving Indicator Light," mounted on the rear of a vehicle, would emit one color ("possibly green") which would change to red when a vehicle following came too close.

To put it at its simplest, an invention such as yours is permissible under the Federal statutes and regulations of this agency as long as it does not negatively affect the performance of the lighting equipment that is required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. This is the Federal standard that specifies what is required as original lighting equipment on motor vehicles.

More specifically, paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits non- required lighting devices as original equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. We believe that your invention, as described, has the potentiality to impair the stop lamp system. While running lamps of the color red are permitted (e.g. taillamps), the sudden change from green to red of the lamp of your system could be misinterpreted as a signal to the car following that the car ahead is preparing to stop. However, the purpose of your lamp is not to indicate a stop but to warn the following driver that (s)he is too close.

As a warning lamp, we believe that your use of amber as a color, rather than red, would convey the desired message without impairing the effec- tiveness of the stop lamps. But you should consider the intensity and location of the lamps to avoid impairment of the rear turn signal lamps.

With respect to the aftermarket, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) (Section 108(a)(20)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as not forbidding activities by persons other than those named above that affect the compliance of a vehicle with the Federal safety standards. Thus, the installation of your invention emitting a red color is not precluded if the invention is intended for installation by a vehicle owner, and is not prohibited for installation by others if the warning light color is amber.

However, you must still determine whether use of the lamp is permissible under the laws of States where it will be used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest that you write for an opinion to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. 22203.

ID: nht92-3.1

DATE: October 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Spencer A. Darby -- Vice President, Engineering, Sate-lite Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/17/92 from Spencer A. Darby to Legal Counsel - FMVSS 125, NHTSA (OCC-7675)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a warning device would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices (49 CFR S571.125). You were specifically concerned about the implications of adding a battery operated flashing light to a warning device that otherwise complies with the Standard. You stated that placing flashing lights between the reflex reflectors would enhance the device's conspicuity at night. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our require- ments to you.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

As your letter states, Standard No. 125 applies to "devices, without self- contained energy sources that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (emphasis added; see section S3) In other words, Standard No. 125 does not apply to warning devices with self-contained energy sources. In previous interpretations, the agency has determined that the phrase "self-contained energy sources" includes such things as battery powered lights. Accordingly, a warning device to which a battery operated flashing light was added would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

You also asked whether a vehicle required to have three "125 warning triangles" would be required to have three non-lighted complying triangles set out as well. Please be aware that NHTSA does not regulate the use of warning devices. I am forwarding your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which is authorized to regulate some motor vehicle

operators and vehicle operations.

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: nht93-4.13

DATE: May 28, 1993

FROM: Richard J. Dessert -- Proprietor, Sun Cycle Company

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/11/94 from John Womack to Richard J. Dessert (A42; Part 555) and letter dated 5/7/93 from John W. Schumann

TEXT:

I, Richard Dessert, as owner of Sun Cycle Company, a sole proprietorship organized within the State of California, hereby petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for a temporary exemption from the safety standards of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 for a period of two years to facilitate the development of new motor vehicle low emission engine features. It is the intent of Sun Cycle Company to produce electric vehicles (EVs) that will comply with all NHTSA safety standards including those which are scheduled to take effect in 1995. Further, it is the belief of Sun Cycle Company that the first prototype production vehicles to be produced by Sun Cycle Company would substantially comply with all the safety standards for motor vehicles as required by NHTSA.

The basis for this petition for temporary exemption is the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle. Sun Cycle Company will manufacture electric vehicles which it believes will comply with all emission standards of the Clean Air Act and thus would be considered a low-emission vehicle. (The Sun Cycle electric vehicles would be classified as zero-emission vehicles as defined by the California Air Resources Board.)

It is the intent of Sun Cycle Company to subject the electric vehicles to testing that would lead to substantiation for certification to the safety standards of NHTSA.

It is the intent of Sun Cycle Company to produce a limited number of electric vehicles for purchase by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) if a mutually agreed upon purchase contract is signed between Sun Cycle Company and LADWP. Documentation of a Request for Proposals for Acquisition of Electric Vehicles (RFP) from qualified and successful bidders (dated May 5, 1993) is attached to this letter as Attachment A. 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. LADWP states on page 4 of their RFP that it intends among other uses to use the purchased electric vehicles (Evs) to assess and promote ongoing advancements in EV technology.

At the end of the exemption period it is the intent of Sun Cycle to produce electric vehicles which conform to all safety standards of the NHTSA. Sun Cycle Company will not sell more than 2,500 exempted vehicles in the United States in any 12 month period if granted a temporary exemption by NHTSA.

If you should have further questions regarding this petition for temporary

exemption, please direct them to me at the address and telephone indicated on this letter.

ID: nht70-1.33

DATE: 01/19/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of December 16, 1969, concerning the relationship between performance requirements of Standard No. 108 and the referenced and subreferenced SAE standards in Standard No. 108.

Public Law 89-563 requires that the motor vehicle safety standards be stated in terms of what is to be accomplished rather than in terms of specific designs, and that they be objective, reasonable, practicable, and meet the need for motor vehicle safety. In addition, the law required that the initial safety standards be based on existing standards.

Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 was based on the existing SAE standards as specified in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108. In some instances, these specified SAE standards in turn subreference other SAE standards that are design oriented, particularly the subreferenced standards on bulbs, bulb sockets and sealed beam headlamp units.

As provided by an interpretation (copy enclosed) issued on August 12, 1968, entitled, "Bulbs and Bulb Sockets," bulbs conforming to Table I of subreferenced SAE J573 and bulb sockets conforming to subreferenced SAE J567 need not be used in lamp assemblies meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108. Therefore, as an example, tail lamps need meet only the requirements of SAE J585c (including color test in accordance with SAE J578a) when tested in accordance with the specified Sections of subreferenced SAE J575c.

The above interpretation does not apply to sealed beam headlamps. Paragraph S3.1.1 and Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 specify that headlamps shall be designed to conform to SAE J579a and J580a. These specified standards in turn subreference SAE J573b and J571b. The dimensional requirements of SAE J571b serve a need for safety in that replacement sealed beam units are readily available, and standardization of inspection equipment and procedures is possible.

In summary, the referenced and subreferenced SAE standards are applicable except as specifically provided by the enclosed interpretation.

With reference to the last paragraph in your letter, it is recognized that a manufacturer of motor vehicles may, as part of his contractual relationship with a supplier, require that the supplier certify conformance of the items provided by the supplier. Currently Public Law 89-563 does not require Ichikoh to certify conformance to Standard No. 108 of the lighting equipment it provides. However, an amendment to the standard has been proposed which would make the standard directly applicable to certain items of lighting equipment. This proposal would require Ichikoh to certify conformance, but only if Ichokoh were shipping such items directly to distributors and dealers in the United States. I enclose a copy of this proposal for your information.

ID: nht73-6.2

DATE: 03/01/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Michigan Law Review

COPYEE: MR. VINSON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your undated letter to the National Highway Safety Bureau (since December 31, 1970, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) concerning Federal motor vehicle safety standards intended to protect the pedestrian and cyclist.

You ask when Standard No. 211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hub caps was proposed and enacted. This standard was one of the Initial Federal standards proposed late in 1966 and issued in late January 1967 effective January 1, 1968, as to original and replacement equipment. This date is almost four months earlier than the date of the accident in Passwaters v. General Motors Corp., 454 F. 2d 1270 (1972) and thus there is no connection between the two. Standard No. 211 derives from a Swedish standard on vehicle exterior protrusions. Eventually we hope to have a definitive standard on exterior protrusions (incorporating Standard No. 211) intended to prevent serious injury to a pedestrian during the initial impact with the vehicle and to control his trajectory to reduce the severity of secondary impacts. The rule would specify impact force distribution and response requirements for exterior vehicle surfaces.

Our initial rulemaking effort in this area was the issuance of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking establishing Docket No. 2-5, published October 14, 1967, (32 F.R. 14278) asking for general comments on size, shape, location, and sharpness of vehicle corners and edges. At the present time, proposals for research to establish threshold-of-injury data and to investigate techniques for reducing injury are being developed. On the basis of this data we will propose a standard on pedestrian protection. Under our current plans, the final standard would be issued late in 1975 with an effective date of September 1, 1990. We also plan to issue a standard on motorcycle rider protection systems around February 1, 1974, with an effective date of January 1, 1975. The agency's standard on motorcycle headgear, under current plans, will be issued around June 1, 1973, with an effective date of September 1, 1974.

ID: GF002714