ID: 3011yy

Mr. Stanley L. Dembecki
2303 N. 44th Street, #14-237
Phoenix, AZ 80058

Dear Mr. Dembecki:

This responds to your letter of April 24, 1991, commenting on my letter to you of April 8.

In response to your request to review and comment on your video tape of your device, I asked our research and development office to review it. They indicated that although the device has some intuitive appeal, there is no technical basis to show that it would reduce accidents. In fact, our agency sponsored a field test of a similar system that flashed the center highmounted stop lamp. We found no significant difference in accident rates compared to a steady-burning signal. Attached is the abstract page of this study for your information.

In closing, I note your comment that "My l99l Oldsmobile was retrofitted within l5 minutes" with the module causing the center high mounted stop lamp to flash. Since you did not say that you had performed the retrofit, we assume that it "was retrofitted" by another person. As I advised you on April 8, the center lamp must be steady-burning. Further, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (specifically Title l5, United States Code, Section 1397(a)(2)(A)) forbids a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard, i.e., that converts the steady-burning center lamp into a flashing one. However, the prohibition does not apply to individual owners of vehicles if they are not "manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses" capable of performing the modification themselves.

Sincerely

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/NCC-01:ZTVinson:amb:62992:5/2/91:OCC# 5898, WANG# 5427o NCC-20 Subj/Chron ZTV, NRD ref:l08 d:5/23/9l

ID: nht91-1.10

DATE: January 3, 1991

FROM: Gene Schlanger -- President, ROC Capital, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-26-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gene Schlanger (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We have developed a lighted sign (frame size 4 inches high x 23 inches wide) for Automobiles, with letters 2 inches high x 18 inches wide, that are illuminated by LEDs (light emitting diodes). Messages can be customized by the operator via a small, keyboard and stored in the key- board for instant recall by the driver or passenger. The sign can be designed to scroll messages from left to right along the face of the sign or if that is deemed legally inappropriate, the messages can remain stationary on the sign, with the changes in the message that just fade in and fade out. The sign is designed to be mounted inside the car, either on a rear or side window. If that is deemed legally inappropriate the sign can be designed to be placed outside on the roof of the auto, as would commonly seen lighted pizza signs on delivery cars, etc. ie: Domino's. The LEDS donot project beam, as would a headlight or directional light and donot flash, but instead allow the message to be read in day or night by passengers in other cars, or persons on the street, who are either to the rear or side, depending upon where the sign is mounted. We plan to program the sign, so that whenever it is turned on, it will automatically show an initial message saying: DRIVE SAFELY AND PLEASE DONOT TAILGATE. This sign would be sold to the general public.

We would appreciate receiving your opinion, as to whether a sign of this nature is within federal and/or state regulations, which may be applicable.

I look forward to hearing from you and to receiving any other information you feel may be helpful.

ID: 9398

Harry C. Gough, P.E.
Automotive Engineering
Professional Specialist
State of Connecticut
Department of Motor Vehicles
60 State Street
Wethersfield, CT 06161

Dear Mr. Gough:

This is in reply to your letter of December 2, 1993, with respect to the term "alternately flashing" as it applies under Safety Standard No. 108 to school bus lamps. You ask for our opinion because a manufacturer of strobe lighting has supplied documentation indicating that the system complies with Standard No. 108.

According to your letter, in this system, the lamp on one side of the school bus (front and rear) "flashes on and off four times in a 255 millisecond period and then stays off for 745 milliseconds, then the lamp on the opposite side of the bus repeats the aforementioned pattern." You inquire as to whether "alternately flashing" refers to this pattern, "or do the four distinct on/off cycles on each side of the school bus defeat the intent of the term alternating."

As you know, paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, which requires that school bus warning lamp systems "flash alternately." We believe that the light emanating from a strobe lamp that flashes four times in 0.255 second will be perceived as a single flash of varying intensity and not as four separate flashes, and that when this is followed by an identical pattern on the other side of the bus, the system is one that is alternately flashing within the meaning of Standard No. 108.

Further, under this interpretation, the flash rate meets SAE J887's specification of 60-120 flashes a minute. Unlike other SAE materials incorporated by reference relating to signal lamps (e.g., J1133 School Bus Stop Arms in Standard No. 131 School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices and J590b Automotive Turn Signal Flashers in Standard No. 108), J887 contains no "percent current 'on' time" requirements.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/29/94

ID: nht71-5.60

DATE: 09/14/71

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

TO: Cabot Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of March 10 and July 1, 1971, requesting an exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 for experimental tires that you manufacture by buffing off the tread of new tires and then recapping the tires with different compounds. You state that you use these tires for testing carbon blacks by testing the tires on the public highways and on private test tracks.

We do not consider tires manufactured by the method you describe to be retreaded tires within the scope of Standard No. 117 because they are not manufactured from used tires. However, we do consider them to be new pneumatic tires, and subject to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. We regret that an earlier letter to you of April 7, 1971, may have been misleading in that regard.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) provides that no person shall --

"manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce . . . any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard."

We consider the testing of these tires on the public roads to be an introduction of them in interstate commerce, and prohibited by section 108(a)(1) unless the tires conform to Standard No. 109. The tires need not be manufactured for sale to the general public

in order for violations of section 108(a)(1) to occur. However, if the testing of these tires is confined to the laboratory or to private roads, the prohibition of the section 108(a)(1) will not apply to them.

A copy of the Act and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 is enclosed for your information.

Enclosures

ID: nht80-2.17

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Manager, Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your letter of March 12, 1980. You asked whether, in the case of motorcycles, the appearance of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on the certification label required by 49 CFR Part 567 satisfies the requirements of S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115). The answer is yes. The Part 567 certification label meets note that, in order to satisfy Safety Standard No. 115, the VIN on the certification label must meet the style requirements of S4.3.1.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 12, 1980

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street S.W. Washington DC 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 115, Vehicle Identification Number

Dear Sir

We request confirmation, that in the case of motorcycles, it would be permissible to simultaneously comply with FMVSS 115, S 4.3, and Part 567.4 (a), (b), (e) and (g)(6), which describe the method of affixing a VIN to a motorcycle in substantially the same language that is not mutually exclusive. It is our understanding that the certification label, which must bear the VIN, if applied in the form of a permanent label that cannot be removed without destruction, to the chassis of a motorcycle as close as practicable to the intersection of the steering post with the handle bars, would fulfill the requirements of both Part 567 and FMVSS 115.

Very truly yours

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

KHZ/jps

ID: 22220.ztv

Mr. Bernard Geenen
The Trade Commissioner for Wallonia
Consulate General of Belgium
333 North Michigan Avenue
Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60601





Dear Mr. Geenen:

This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 2000, to Taylor Vinson, which was received in this office on October 11, 2000.

With reference to a vehicle "to be used on private roads (amusement parks, resort, airports)," you have asked for a copy of "the official D.O.T. text(s) stating that such 'off road or non-road' vehicles are not subject to D.O. T. requirements." The vehicle is a "mini train," i.e., a tractor equipped with a Volkswagen engine pulling a trailer that carries 20 or more passengers.

We are pleased to provide you with the information you seek. Under our basic vehicle safety statute, we regulate "motor vehicles." A "motor vehicle" is defined, in pertinent part, as a vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power and "manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways" (Title 49, United States Code, Section 30102(a)(6)). Thus, it follows that we do not regulate a vehicle if it is not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads.

The determination of whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" is initially that of its manufacturer. We accept the manufacturer's determination unless that decision is clearly erroneous. We do not regard roadways in resorts, airports, and amusement parks as public roads. Therefore, if the manufacturer of the mini train you describe manufactures and sells it primarily for use in amusement parks, resorts, or airports, we would not regard it as a "motor vehicle" subject to D.O.T.'s jurisdiction and requirements. Of course, we might have to reconsider that decision if we became aware that mini trains were in fact being operated often on the public roads.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.11/14/00

ID: nht95-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 27, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas L. Wright, -- Acting Manager, MVS Customer Services, State of New Jersey, Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/92 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO JEFFREY PUENTES; ALSO ATTACHED TO 4/28/95 LETTER FROM THOMAS L. WRIGHT TO DOROTHY NAKAMA (OCC 10890)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your request for information about responsibilities of motorcycle manufacturers. As you discussed with Dorothy Nakama, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not "regulate" how an enterprise becomes a "recognize d manufacturer."

Enclosed is NHTSA's information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, which discusses the main requirements of 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. (formerly the Vehicle Safety Act). A copy of the Act is enclosed. Under section 30112(a) of the Act, a motorcycle manufacturer may not manufacture a motorcycle for sale unless the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and is covered by a certification issued under 49 U.S.C. secti on 30115. One safety standard is Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements. (See 49 CFR 571.115.) In our regulations, at 49 CFR part 567 Certification, NHTSA has promulgated the requirement that a manufacturer certify complianc e of its motorcycle with all applicable safety standards. Under part 566, NHTSA requires manufacturers to submit certain identifying information and a description of the items they produce.

Also enclosed is a copy of a July 13, 1992 interpretation letter to Mr. Jeffrey Puentes, discussing serial numbers on motorcycle frames versus motorcycle VINs.

As you may be aware, "certificates of origin" are matters relating to vehicle titling, which the State regulates, rather than NHTSA.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10890

Thomas L. Wright, Acting Manager
MVS Customer Services
State of New Jersey
Department of Law and Public Safety
Division of Motor Vehicles
Trenton, NJ 08666

Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your request for information about responsibilities of motorcycle manufacturers. As you discussed with Dorothy Nakama, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not "regulate" how an enterprise becomes a "recognized manufacturer."

Enclosed is NHTSA's information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, which discusses the main requirements of 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. (formerly the Vehicle Safety Act). A copy of the Act is enclosed. Under section 30112(a) of the Act, a motorcycle manufacturer may not manufacture a motorcycle for sale unless the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and is covered by a certification issued under 49 U.S.C. section 30115. One safety standard is Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements. (See 49 CFR 571.115.) In our regulations, at 49 CFR part 567 Certification, NHTSA has promulgated the requirement that a manufacturer certify compliance of its motorcycle with all applicable safety standards. Under part 566, NHTSA requires manufacturers to submit certain identifying information and a description of the items they produce.

Also enclosed is a copy of a July 13, 1992 interpretation letter to Mr. Jeffrey Puentes, discussing serial numbers on motorcycle frames versus motorcycle VINs.

As you may be aware, "certificates of origin" are matters relating to vehicle titling, which the State regulates, rather than NHTSA.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:115#567 d:6/27/95

ID: 8111

Mr. Daniel K. Upham
President
Sys Tek Corporation
444 N. Zachary, Suite 111
Moorpark, CA 93021

Dear Mr. Upham:

This responds to your letter of December 9, 1992, with respect to whether a "portable lighted message display using L.E.D. technology" is permissible under Federal law. The product would be sold in the aftermarket. As you indicate, "[i]t will be either battery powered or it will be powered using the vehicle power source via cigarette lighter or directly to the car's electrical harness." It will be installed in either the side rear or rear window.

We assume that battery-powered devices, and those activated through the cigarette lighter, are so simple that the vehicle owner can install and use the device without resorting to the assistance of others. Under this circumstance, there is no restriction that applies to this device under the laws administered by this agency. Nevertheless, the device may be subject to restrictions imposed by a State in which it is operated.

However, if attaching the device to the car's electrical harness is a task that may be performed by a person other than the vehicle owner, a different consideration applies. A manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may not install the device if it renders inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Examples of equipment added pursuant to a Federal standard and that could be affected by the sign board are the stop lamps, both center highmounted and conventional, and the inside rear view mirror. I enclose a copy of an interpretation of the agency dated August 17, 1989, to Mr. Alan S. Eldahr, and call your attention to our views on impairment by message boards expressed on the second page. This letter also provides the address of an organization that you may consult on applicable State laws.

Installation of the message board in a side rear window by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would appear permissible. The only required side lighting equipment are front and rear lamps and reflectors, intended to mark the extremities of the vehicles, and we do not believe that their function would be negatively affected by installation of the message board.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d.12/28/92

ID: nht90-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: HIROSHI OZEKI -- EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT MAZDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM HIROSHI OZEKI -- MAZDA TO STEPHEN WOOD -- NHTSA DATED 04/10/90 ENTITLED REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF 49 CFR 571.108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO JAMES R. MI TZENBERG -- FLXIBLE CORP DATED 12/08/86 ON STD 108 INTERPRETATION; LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL TO CHUCK HOWARD -- SAFETY ALERT CO, DATED 06/17/83

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 10, 1990, with respect to the use of the hazard warning system concurrently with the stop lamps to provide additional warning to vehicles to the rear. You enclosed two interpretations of the agency which appear t o be conflicting, and you have asked for a clarification.

In our letter of June 16, 1983, we informed Safety Alert Company that its flashing deceleration warning system could operate through any rear lighting system that Standard No. 108 allows to be used for signalling purposes, such as the turn signal or haza rd warning system, provided that the color of light or photometrics required by the standard was not changed. However, in our letter of December 8, 1986, we informed Flxible Corporation that their flashing deceleration warning system was unacceptable un der Standard No. 108 because "simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and steady-burning lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear of the bus, and impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S4. 1.3."

We do not believe that there is a conflict. The system described in the Safety Alert letter would utilize a vehicle's original lighting equipment that is intended to flash, and that the motoring public is accustomed to seeing flash. The system described in the Flxible letter, on the other hand, would employ a series of new lamps, not required by the standard but supplemental to the required lighting equipment, and whose presence and function would be unfamiliar to motorists following. Thus, that unfam iliar system, if flashing, could have a confusing effect, as we stated in our 1986 letter.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.