ID: 2970yy

Mr. Rueben K. Brown
Product Engineer
Crane Carrier Company
P.O. Box 582891
1925 North Sheridan
Tulsa, OK 74158

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter of March 12, 1991 requesting an interpretation of the applicability of the spike stop requirement in Standard No. 105 to school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs. While school buses are required by S5.1 to be capable of meeting the requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.6, the spike stop requirement in S5.1.6 is only applicable to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less. Therefore, school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs are not required to be capable of meeting the spike stop requirement.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref: 105 d:3/29/9l

ID: 12666.ztv

Mr. Charles H. Fuller
President
Graphiclite Systems Inc.
P.O. Box 437
Tallmadge, Ohio 44278

Dear Mr. Fuller:

This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 1996, asking several questions about the relationship of your product, the Graphiclite, to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have told us that the Graphiclite, a 20 watt halogen light, "is being designed to be mounted on the sides, near the bottom, of trailers and trucks to illuminate the advertising graphics which are becoming more and more popular." You also enclosed a copy of an interpretative letter of this Office, dated August 19, 1988, on an earlier version of the product.

There are no affirmative requirements of Standard No. 108 with which additional and optional motor vehicle lighting equipment must comply. This equipment, if offered as original equipment, is subject only to the prohibition of paragraph S5.1.3 that it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires to be installed. This means that the answer to your questions 1,2,4, and 5 is no. Your question 3 is whether a demonstration of Graphiclite will be required in accordance with S5.1.3. The answer again is no. It is the responsibility of the truck or trailer manufacturer in certifying that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards to make the impairment determination. Unless that determination is clearly erroneous, the agency will not question it. In directing the light from the lamp toward the vehicle side, we would caution against placement of the lamp so that the beam falls upon any intermediate side marker lamp and reflector (required on vehicles whose overall length is 30 feet or greater).

The fact that original auxiliary lighting equipment may be acceptable under S5.1.3 does not preempt a state from prohibiting it under its own lighting regulations. We are unable to advise you on state laws, and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in those states where you anticipate marketing Graphiclite.

If you have any further questions, please telephone Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:12/11/96

ID: nht91-1.49

DATE: February 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Samuel Yk Lau -- Kenwo Industries Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-24-91 from Samuel Yk Lau to NHTSA (OCC 5657)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1991, asking the agency for an opinion with respect to an "additional brake lamp" that you manufacture and intend to export to the United States. You ask "if there are any regulations, standards, or approval for this kind of product", and, further, "does this product need to have any certificate or approval before it can be sold or installed?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, has required the additional stop lamp on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. The Standard specifies performance and minimum lens area requirements for the lamp, and these requirements must be met by any lamp that is used as original equipment on passenger cars, and by any lamp that is intended to replace a lamp originally installed on a car manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. If the lamp is intended as replacement equipment, its manufacturer must provide certification to the distributor or dealer of the lamp that the lamp meets Standard No. 108. For lighting equipment this certifica- tion may be in the form of a DOT symbol on the product, or a written statement on the packaging that the lamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or such other written certification as the lamp manufacturer may choose (e.g., an invoice). In addition, the lamp manufacturer must file an identification Statement with the agency, and a foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States upon which the agency may serve legal process should that be required. However, there is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain approval from the agency before exporting its certified product to the United States and selling it here.

However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to an additional stop lamp that is intended for use in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, and there is no requirement that it be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. Under this circumstance, we advise that the packaging for any such lamp should clearly state that it is not intended to replace an original equipment center lamp so that legal questions regarding its conformity with Federal requirements do not arise. Even though the lamp is not subject to Standard No. 108, its foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

An additional stop lamp for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, is also subject to the laws of the individual States in which the lamp is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, USA.

We enclose a copy of Standard No. 108 and of the SAE standard on supplementary stop lamps that is incorporated by reference. We are also enclosing copies of the Manufacturer Identification and Designation of Agent regulations, and of other materials that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance provides in response to inquiries of this nature. Questions on these materials should be addressed to that Office.

ID: 1984-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cepcor; Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Carl Tolf President Cepcor, Inc. P.O. Box 988 St. Charles IL 60174

Dear Mr. Tolf:

This responds to your letter of July 18, 1984, asking about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to a type of load carrier you are considering manufacturing, called "BakPak." Materials provided with your letter indicate that the device is a container which is attached to a vehicle by means of a tow bar. When attached to a vehicle, the device becomes an integral part of the vehicle in the sense that there are no road wheels, and thus it is not a trailer.

By way of background information, the agency does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter and accompanying materials.

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to a device such as "BakPak." However, the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act are applicable even in the absence of an applicable safety standard. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are responsible generally that vehicles and equipment they manufacture are free from safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or by yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under Sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify owners and provide a remedy free of charge. I would also recommend that you check whether there are any State laws applicab1e to your device.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Wednesday 18 July 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt 202-426-2832 Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Enclosed are copies of literature describing the "BakPak", a unique concept in load carriers, which is being successfully manufactured and distributed in the United Kingdom.

Ms. Gayla Barker of your Homewood, Illinois office is sending me copies of Federal Standards 108 and 109.

Mr. Bob Eppes, Motor Vehicle Specialist, of your Kansas City office has been very helpful in advising individuals and/or organizations we should contact before manufacturing the "BakPak" in the United States.

Please advise any Motor Vehicle Compliance Standards that pertain to this product and what steps we should take to insure that our product is in compliance.

Carl Tolf President Enclosures: CT/ct Copy: M. H. Weaver

ID: GF006472

Mr. Jim Haigh
Vice President
Transpec Worldwide
7205 Sterling Ponds Ct.
Sterling Heights, MI 48312




Dear Mr. Haigh:

This responds to your e-mail regarding installation of certain auxiliary lighting on school buses. Specifically, you ask whether installing a "Driver Alert Device" on school buses, which you state has been mandated by the State of Alabama, conflicts with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment.

Your e-mail and your web site (www.transpecworldwide.com/products/driver_alert.htm) explain that the "Driver Alert Device" is an LED message board mounted on the school bus emergency door that is wired to flash the word "Caution" when the school bus is backing up. The device is also wired into the eight-lamp school bus warning lamp system. When the amber lamps of the system are activated, the LED sign alternately flashes "Caution-Stopping". When the red lamps of the system are activated, the sign flashes "Stop" or "Do not Pass".

First, S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 generally requires that all lamps, including auxiliary lighting, must be steady burning, unless otherwise specifically permitted. Your message board does not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10.

Second, S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 prohibits additional lighting devices that impair the effectiveness of lamps required by FMVSS No. 108. The agency interprets the standard as generally prohibiting electronic message boards because they have the potential of impairing the effectiveness of required lighting (see August 4, 1997 letter to Mr. Alan Robinson).

However, with respect to school buses equipped with flashing electronic message boards, we do not prohibit them because we believe that under certain local conditions, an electronic message board could enhance the safety of school bus passengers. That is, we defer to the States with respect to the narrow issue of prescribing or prohibiting electronic message boards on school buses.

We caution that this interpretation is limited to electronic message boards on school buses. For example, the agency recently explained that our standards would prohibit a flashing red lamp located on the roof of a school bus, because it had the potential of impairing the effectiveness of the required lighting (see 5/22/03 letter to J. Adam Krugh IV). Further, electronic message boards must be located far enough away from the required lighting so as to minimize any potential impairment.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

NCC-112:Gfeygin:mar:11/2/05:62992:OCC 006472
Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Docket Std. 108
S:\INTERP\108\GF006472.doc

ID: 04-007232-2drn

Ms. Doris Showalter
Senior Product Manager
Eaton Corporation
Hydraulic Power Fluid Division
1660 Indian Wood Circle
Maumee, OH 43537

Dear Ms. Showalter:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106).You asked about the responsibilities of distributors of your brake hose parts that assemble the parts into an air brake hose assembly.

I note that in your requests you make several references to DOT approval of brake hose products. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

FMVSS No. 106 applies to brake hoses, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country.

The various requirements for air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose fittings are set forth in S7 of FMVSS No. 106.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you asked whether a distributor making an assembly would be included in the definition of manufacturer at S7.2.3(b) of FMVSS No. 106. The answer is yes. In the situation where a distributor of brake hose parts assembles them into an air brake hose assembly, the distributor would be the manufacturer of the assembly. I note that the term manufacturer is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A) as a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

You also state that you have heard that screw together fittings, often called 100R5 style reusable fittings, are no longer acceptable and ask if this is true.NHTSA understands that this style of fitting and air brake hose meets the requirements for Type AII of Table III of FMVSS No. 106 for air brake hoses assembled with reusable fittings.If this is true, and as long as the screw together fittings can meet all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 106, they are permissible.

In closing, we note that on December 20, 2004 (69 FR 76298), NHTSA issued in the Federal Register, a final rule updating FMVSS No. 106, including the requirements for air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings.The final rule will be effective December 20, 2006. Brake hose manufacturers may comply with the new requirements beginning on February 18, 2005, if they so choose.

I hope this information is helpful.In addition to the above, I am also enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers that should address your questions regarding certification requirements. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:106
d.1/7/05

ID: 86-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking whether it is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to equip a motorcycle with an auxiliary lighting device described in your letter. The device is mounted on an optional trunk and performs the functions of a supplementary taillamp and stop lamp, though its maximum intensities in either mode is less than the minimum required by Standard No. 108 for each such mode.

Under paragraph S4.1.3. a device such as you have described is permissible as original vehicle equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. From your diagram and information, it does not appear that these supplementary taillamp and stop lamp functions will impair the effectiveness of the primary ones, and therefore paragraph S4.1.3 would not prohibit your device.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 18, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re. : Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108

Dear Ms. Jones,

We are thinking of producing a decorative extra lighting device which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108.

As shown in the attached sheet, this decorative device will be mounted on the rear face of an optional motorcycle rear trunk. Emitted light color of this extra lighting device is red, and its size is smaller than the tail & stop lamp required in FMVSS No.108. Its function is interlocked with a tail lamp. Its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum photometric requirement of the tail lamp. When the stop lamp is lit, it increases the luminous intensity, but the maximum is lower than the minimum photometric requirement of the stop lamp.

We would like to ask you whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the above mentioned accessory lamp.

We believe that this device have a good effect on the safety by increasing the visibility from upside.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting

ID: nht89-1.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/31/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: M. J. YOON -- DIRECTOR IN-ONE DEVELOPMENT CORP. SEOUL, KOREA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/26/88 FROM M. J. YOON TO STEVE KRATZTE -- NHTSA, 0CC 2864

TEXT: Dear Mr. Yoon:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke, asking whether a vehicle you are developing for a client would be classified as a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am pleased to be able to explain our law and regulations for you. I regret the delay in responding.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason , NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, ten tatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purpose of our safety standards. It is important that you understand that these tentative statements of classification are based on entirely on our understanding of the information pres ented in your letter to us. These tentative statements about the vehicle's classification may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the vehicle referenced in your letter could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "a moto r vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." In your letter, you describe the vehicle as having 4-wheel dri ve. Additionally, the approach and departure angles and the running

clearance dimensions for this vehicle show that it has high ground clearance. The combination of 4-wheel drive and high ground clearance would be considered "special features for occasional off-road operation." Hence, it appears to us that this vehicle c ould be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicles.

You also asked for a copy of the criteria for classifying vehicles for purposes of the safety standards. All of our classification definitions are set forth in 49 CFR @ 571.3. The information sheet I have enclosed explains how to obtain a copy of this and all of our other regulations, and provides other information relevant to new motor vehicle manufacturers. I have also enclosed a copy of our proposals for a new vehicle classification system for the safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSED

ID: nht95-6.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1995

FROM: Eric D. Swanger, PE -- Engineering Manager, Specialty Manufacturing Co.

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Eric D. Swanger (A43; Std. 131)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Research is performed at Specialty Manufacturing on a continual basis to investigate different means of improving upon the safety of school bus equipment. Recently, an inquiry has been made to Specialty concerning the usage of light-emitting diodes (LED's) on stop arms. Apparently one state feels the usage of LED's to spell out the word "STOP" on the stop arm blade would increase the visibility of the sign in certain weather conditions.

After the engineering department of Specialty Manufacturing manufactured a prototype unit and tested the unit, several questions were raised which we feel need clarification from NHTSA in reference to FMVSS 131. The first being the basic viewing angles of LED's. While LED's have a quicker "on" and "off" time than incandescent bulbs, the overall viewing angle of an LED is extremely limited. Depending upon the placement of the LED's in the stop arm blade, the word "STOP" can vary from being noticeable to being a scattered pattern of lights. Exact placement of the LED's will depend upon the consistency of the manufacturing process. With incandescent lights, the light is very noticeable from all angles and manufacturing consistencies are not at all a concern.

The second issue is the legibility of the LED "STOP" at any given distance. Opinions of many casual onlookers asked to critique the LED sign when lit, seem to indicate that the letters are not large enough nor spaced far enough apart to be discernible at larger distances. Since the size of the letters is clearly defined by FMVSS 131, it appears that standard may have to be revised in order to ensure that "STOP" is legible at greater distances.

P2

The third issue is that of safety equipment consistency. Currently, all stop arms must have the word "STOP" displayed on the stop sign itself. The red lights are optional. The addition of another optional method of lighting may lead to confusion and subsequent passing violations due to visiting drivers being unfamiliar with state or county practices of school bus identification.

The development of an LED stop arm appears to our company to be quite expensive at the out set, and we are definitely concerned with the viewing angle, legibility from certain distances, and that consistences provided by FMVSS 131 could be in jeopardy.

I'm asking if you would please give us your interpretation of FMVSS 131 and the use of LED lights outlining the word "STOP." Specialty Manufacturing would be available to help in any standard research, manufacturer input, etc., as we have done in the past.

If I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 1-800-951-7867.

ID: nht95-3.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1995

FROM: Eric D. Swanger, PE -- Engineering Manager, Specialty Manufacturing Co.

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Eric D. Swanger (A43; Std. 131)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Research is performed at Specialty Manufacturing on a continual basis to investigate different means of improving upon the safety of school bus equipment. Recently, an inquiry has been made to Specialty concerning the usage of light-emitting diodes (LED 's) on stop arms. Apparently one state feels the usage of LED's to spell out the word "STOP" on the stop arm blade would increase the visibility of the sign in certain weather conditions.

After the engineering department of Specialty Manufacturing manufactured a prototype unit and tested the unit, several questions were raised which we feel need clarification from NHTSA in reference to FMVSS 131. The first being the basic viewing angles of LED's. While LED's have a quicker "on" and "off" time than incandescent bulbs, the overall viewing angle of an LED is extremely limited. Depending upon the placement of the LED's in the stop arm blade, the word "STOP" can vary from being noticeable to being a scattered pattern of lights. Exact placement of the LED's will depend upon the consistency of the manufacturing process. With incandescent lights, the light is very noticeable from all angles and manufacturing consistencies are not at all a concern.

The second issue is the legibility of the LED "STOP" at any given distance. Opinions of many casual onlookers asked to critique the LED sign when lit, seem to indicate that the letters are not large enough nor spaced far enough apart to be discernible at larger distances. Since the size of the letters is clearly defined by FMVSS 131, it appears that standard may have to be revised in order to ensure that "STOP" is legible at greater distances.

P2

The third issue is that of safety equipment consistency. Currently, all stop arms must have the word "STOP" displayed on the stop sign itself. The red lights are optional. The addition of another optional method of lighting may lead to confusion and s ubsequent passing violations due to visiting drivers being unfamiliar with state or county practices of school bus identification.

The development of an LED stop arm appears to our company to be quite expensive at the out set, and we are definitely concerned with the viewing angle, legibility from certain distances, and that consistences provided by FMVSS 131 could be in jeopardy.

I'm asking if you would please give us your interpretation of FMVSS 131 and the use of LED lights outlining the word "STOP." Specialty Manufacturing would be available to help in any standard research, manufacturer input, etc., as we have done in the pas t.

If I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 1-800-951-7867.