ID: 11326

Ms. Alison Vredenburgh
Vice President
Research and Development
Error Analysis, Inc.
Suite 205
5811 Amaya Drive
La Mesa, CA 91942-4156

Dear Ms. Vredenburgh:

This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1995, to Kenneth Hardie of this agency, with respect to the Motorcycle Conspicuity Enhancement System (the "System") described in your letter. You understand "that this system may only be used during daylight hours and may not affect the headlight", and you ask if there are any other regulations of which you should be aware.

We understand that the System is still under development, and that the intent is to offer it both as original and aftermarket equipment. Two Systems will be tested, at a flash rate of 60 to 80 per minute, one at an intensity of 35,000 candlepower, and the other at 50,000 candlepower. One System will have three bulbs, and another, four. Each System will be activated when the headlamp is on. We note that motorcycle headlamps are wired to be activated when the ignition is on because many States require that headlamps be operating at all times.

As you know, each motorcycle must be manufactured and certified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 prescribes no requirements for supplemental equipment such as the System. However, additional lighting equipment may not be installed by the manufacturer or dealer before sale if the supplemental equipment impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 (paragraph S5.1.3).

You are therefore correct when you say that the System "may not affect the headlamp." One way in which the System could impair the effectiveness of the headlamp is if it continued to operate at a time when the headlamp is required to provide sufficient illumination of the roadway (as you recognize in your comment that "the system may only be used during daylight hours"). You have not described the method by which the

System will be deactivated. We believe that this should not be a manual operation, left to the discretion of the motorcycle operator. In establishing the specifications that allow optional installation of modulating headlamp systems for improving the conspicuity of motorcycles, this agency requires that they be equipped with a sensor that will deactivate the modulation when a certain low ambient light level is reached. Also, the modulation rate is regulated to prevent seizures in susceptible individuals. I enclose a copy of paragraph S5.6 of Standard No. 108 which discusses these light levels.

The System must also not impair the effectiveness of the motorcycle's front turn signals. That is to say, it must not mask the signal or detract from its detectability by oncoming drivers. Whether this might occur will depend upon the color and brightness of the System and its proximity to the turn signal lamp.

If a motorcycle manufacturer is satisfied that the installation of the System on its product would be permissible under S5.1.3, then it may certify that the motorcycle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA will not question a determination of non-impairment unless it appears to be clearly erroneous.

Satisfaction of Federal new vehicle requirements means that the System is acceptable for sale in the aftermarket under Federal regulations. However, supplementary lighting equipment, whether original or aftermarket, that is not specifically covered by Standard No. 108 remains subject to regulation by the States. We note that many States have vehicle equipment and use regulations regarding auxiliary amber flashing lamps, Many States also prohibit blue as a color for lamps, reserving it for police, fire, and emergency vehicles. We are unable to advise you on the specifics of State laws, and urge you to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:12/8/95

ID: nht94-1.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Maurice Hannigan -- Commissioner, Dept. of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from P. J. Harrington to Potter Valley Community Unified School Dist. Superintendent and letter dated 3/31/93 from John Womack to W. C. Burke

TEXT:

It has come to our attention that a misunderstanding has arisen about a letter we issued on March 31, 1993 to W.C. Burke of your Department. That letter explained the marking responsibilities of a person who installs replacement glass (referred to as gl azing in the Federal standard) under section S6.4 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205, copy enclosed.) On January 12, 1994, Mr. Clarke Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Ma rvin Shaw of my staff contacted Mr. Walter Burke and Mr. Kyle Larson of CHP to discuss this matter. This letter is a follow up to that discussion.

Based on its understanding of the March 1993 letter, CHP is requiring installers to mark replacement glazing with a number (which the agency refers to as a manufacturer's code mark) and has directed school districts to tell installers of glass to contact NHTSA "(t)o obtain a number as required by (Standard No. 205)." Standard No. 205 does not require the typical aftermarket installer to obtain such a number from the agency.

We explained in the March 1993 letter that a person who cuts glazing (i.e., a typical installer of aftermarket glazing) must mark the piece with the following information required by section 6 of American National Standard (ANS) Z26: (1) the words "Amer ican National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designa tion or trademark.

Mr. Larson stated that he was under the impression that "(3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer" was a number assigned by NHTSA. As we explained to him, this is not the case. The installer devises his own model number. The only number assigne d by NHTSA under Standard No. 205 is the code mark assigned to a manufacturer who "fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material" (known as a "prime glazing material manufacturer").

We hope that this clarifies our earlier letter on this subject. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Shaw at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-8.22

DATE: February 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Maurice Hannigan -- Commissioner, Dept. of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from P. J. Harrington to Potter Valley Community Unified School Dist. Superintendent and letter dated 3/31/93 from John Womack to W. C. Burke

TEXT:

It has come to our attention that a misunderstanding has arisen about a letter we issued on March 31, 1993 to W.C. Burke of your Department. That letter explained the marking responsibilities of a person who installs replacement glass (referred to as glazing in the Federal standard) under section S6.4 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205, copy enclosed.) On January 12, 1994, Mr. Clarke Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff contacted Mr. Walter Burke and Mr. Kyle Larson of CHP to discuss this matter. This letter is a follow up to that discussion.

Based on its understanding of the March 1993 letter, CHP is requiring installers to mark replacement glazing with a number (which the agency refers to as a manufacturer's code mark) and has directed school districts to tell installers of glass to contact NHTSA "(t)o obtain a number as required by (Standard No. 205)." Standard No. 205 does not require the typical aftermarket installer to obtain such a number from the agency.

We explained in the March 1993 letter that a person who cuts glazing (i.e., a typical installer of aftermarket glazing) must mark the piece with the following information required by section 6 of American National Standard (ANS) Z26: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark.

Mr. Larson stated that he was under the impression that "(3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer" was a number assigned by NHTSA. As we explained to him, this is not the case. The installer devises his own model number. The only number assigned by NHTSA under Standard No. 205 is the code mark assigned to a manufacturer who "fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material" (known as a "prime glazing material manufacturer").

We hope that this clarifies our earlier letter on this subject. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Shaw at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht87-1.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Leon Steenbock -- Administrative Manager, Engineering, FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/13/80 letter from F. Berndt to FWD Corporation (Std. 206)

TEXT: Mr. Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation Clintonville, WI 54929-1590

This responds to you; April 10, 1981, letter to my office asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, to door locks on fire trucks. You enclosed a copy of an August 13, 1980, letter to you from former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt and asked whether Mr. Berndt's opinion concerning fire truck door locks is current. The answer is yes.

In 1985, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amended Standard No. 206 to exempt doors equipped with wheelchair lifts from the requirements of the standard. However, since that amendment has no bearing on door locks for fire trucks and beca use we have made no changes to the standard that would affect fire trucks, we confirm that the agency's 1980 interpretation his not been superseded or revised by subsequent interpretations of or amendments to the standard.

For your information, I have enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206 and information on how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety Standards and other regulations.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

April 10, 1987

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

Attn: Erika Jones - Chief Counsel

Subject: FMVSS 206 Door Lock; and Door Retention Components

Reference my phone conversation with Deirdie Hom on April 9, 1987 regarding door locks on fire trucks. Find attached a copy of the letter from NHTSA of August 13,1980 which addressed this subject. I asked if opinion given in this letter would still be cu rrent or had there been modifications to the standard that would change this opinion exempting fire trucks from this standards requirements.

As, we plan to discuss this subject at a Dealers Sales meeting the week of April 27, 1987 I would appreciate your earliest consideration of this request.

Sincerely, FWD CORPORATION Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering enc: LS/llm PxHONE: 715-823-2141 TELEX:26-3424

(See 8/13/80 letter from F. Berndt to FWD Corporation

ID: nht74-1.11

DATE: JANUARY 23, 1974

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Correct Manufacturing Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 14, 1974, asking about the category into which a Divco truck would fall and the applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 121 (Air Brake Systems) and 105a (Hydraulic Brake Systems) to them.

The vehicles you have described are "trucks" for purposes of the safety standards. The applicability of the braking standards is simple: trucks equipped with air brakes must conform to Standard 121 and those equipped with hydraulic brakes must conform to Standard 105c.

I enclose a sheet telling you how to obtain copies of the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

Enclosure

ID: nht74-2.18

DATE: 06/07/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Certain-Teed Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 5, 1974, question whether S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, requires parking brakes on all axles other than front steerable axles.

S5.6.1 requires "parking brakes on an axle other than a steerable front axle" to have certain static retardation force values. "An axle" refers to any axle other than steerable front axles and therefore S5.6.1 requires parking brakes on all axles other than steerable front axles. A tandem axle consists of two separate axles for purposes of this requirement.

S5.6.2 has no specific axle-by-axle requirements. Its performance standard may be met by any means which hold the vehicle stationary and conform to S5.6.3 and S5.6.4. It should be emphasized that this requirement cannot be met simply be equipping the vehicle with parking brakes which hold to the limit of tractive ability but permit vehicle movement.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CERTAIN-TEED PRODUCTS CORPORATION

April 5, 1974

Chief Council -- National Highway Traffic Safety Adm., U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: Federal Vehicle Motor Safety Standards No. 121-Air Brake System Docket No. 74-10; Notice 1

Dear Sir:

We are requesting clearification of Paragraph S. 5.6.1 and S. 5.6.2.

Is the intent of Paragraph S. 5.6.1 to require parking brakes on all axles other than a steerable front axle, and is a tandum axle from the viewpoint of this regulation considered to be made up of two (2) separate axles?

In Paragraph S. 5.6.2, is it necessary to have parking brakes on each axle of the vehicle, or would a vehicle be acceptable if parking brakes mounted on only a portion of the axle were adequate to meet the grade holding requirements.

There appears to be questions in the minds of vehicle manufacturers, who are our customers, as to whether a trailer or a truck and bus with a modulated emergency system would require parking brakes on all non-steerable axles or whether only a portion of the axle requires parking brakes. We would appreciate an early reply to this inquiry.

Yours very truly,

B. D. Sibley -- Chief Product Engineer, Brake Products

ID: 04-006330drn

Mr. Robert L. Douglas
Director of Product Integrity
IC Corporation
751 South Harkrider
Conway, AR 72032

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of a provision in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You wish to know whether the provision at S5.2.3.2(a)(4), “No two side emergency exit doors shall be located, in whole or in part, within the same post and roof bow panel space” applies only to side emergency exit doors located on the same side of the bus. The answer is that this restriction applies to all side emergency exit doors located “within the same post and roof bow panel space,” including those on the left and right sides of the bus.

You believe that the restriction should not apply to emergency exit doors located on opposite sides of the bus from each other. You do not believe that the structural integrity is compromised when the doors are mounted on opposite sides of the bus and in the same section.

We have considered your suggestion but conclude that S5.2.3.2(a)(4) also applies to side emergency exit doors located on the opposite sides of the bus. The issue was discussed and decided in a rulemaking proceeding. A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on S5.2.3.2(4)(under Option B)(March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11153, at 11163)) did not propose to restrict side emergency exit doors from being located, in whole or in part, within the same post and roof bow panel space. In commenting on the NPRM, Thomas Built Buses stated that the left and right side emergency exit doors should not be within the same post and roof bow panel space. In the final rule, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adopted Thomas Built’s recommended language at S5.2.3.2(a)(4). Thus, S5.2.3.2(a)(4) was specifically adopted with the intent to exclude left and right side emergency exit doors from being “within the same post and roof bow panel space.”

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

ref:217

ref:217

d.11/12/04

ID: nht89-2.93

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 1, 1989

FROM: Louis F. Wilson -- Instant Traffic Lights

TO: NHTSA, Department of Transportation

TITLE: Re Vehicle Signalling System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Louis F. Wilson (A37; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 2-20-91 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA (OCC 5747); Also attached to letter dated 2-20-90 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA

TEXT:

As you know, an automobile is a necessity for most Americans. The automobiles on the road today comes equipped with indicator lights installed for safety, yet the number of accidents still seem quite numerous. We feel that our product, Instant Traffic Lights, will most likely make the road safer for all motorists.

How can we make that claim? If our product is installed on all auto- mobiles on the road, it will let the motorist behind know the intentions of the driver ahead. Whether the driver ahead is applying his accelerator or brake pedals or just coasting, th e motorist behind would know the exact intentions of the driver ahead. Benefits of knowing the intentions of the driver ahead are quite numerous. Some of the benefits are: it will probably reduce tail gating, sudden stops, skidding, and rear end collis ions.

Since every second counts on the road, we feel that our product will increase the safety factor for all motorists and perhaps for pedestrians as well. Like we said before, our product will let the motorist behind know the exact intentions of the driver ahead, perhaps a half a second or more sooner than the conventional lighting system on the automobiles on the road today. At 60 MPH, an automobile travels 88 feet per second. That half a second or more, which would be gained by having our product instal led, will give the motorist behind an excess of 44 feet more than the conventional lighting system to stop or to avoid the hazard.

On top of all that, our product would probably save wear and tear in the brakes and tires and most importantly, will save fuel in the long run, if, all motorists have our product installed onto their cars. All these claims that we are making have not be en tested on the road as of yet, but anyone with common sense can see that our claims are quite valid.

Our product would be used mainly for safety purposes only, but it also serves as an economical one as well.

So far, we have sent letters to all fifty states and to the Secretary of Transportation inquiring, "whether our product is legal in their state as of now." Sixteen states have answered our letter, of which, six states said, "yes", six states said, "no", and four states said that they will follow the Federal requirements.

What we would like to know is: 1) Would our product meet the standard of your office? 2) Would our product be "legal" in the United States and her territories? 3) Is it possible to replace (or provide an option to) the existing high-mounted stop light required on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 (Per Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard #108)? Please review the attached copy of our U.S. patent application and make necessary recommendations and/or comments. We would apprec iated if you would take a little bit of your time to reply these questions and send them back to us as soon as possible. Thank You.

ID: nht90-4.80

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe W. Humphrey

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-9-90 to P.J. Rice from J.W. Humphrey

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of November 9, 1990, with respect to the center high-mounted stop lamp.

You have asked if it is acceptable to add amber turn signal lamps to each side of the center stop lamp. The answer is yes, if the turn signal lamps are separate from the stop lamp. Under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, the center stop lamp cannot be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht89-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/27/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KAREN E. FINKEL -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NATIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/14/89 FROM KAREN E. FINKEL TO JOHN TILGHMAN -- NHTSA, OCC 3163

TEXT: Dear Ms. Finkel:

This responds to your recent letter to my office asking whether school buses used by school bus contractors regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must have push-out windows, even when those buses are used for purposes other than school t ransportation.

The answer to your question depends on the effect of our and FWHA regulations on the vehicles in question. We will only address the effect of NHTSA's requirements in this letter, and will ask FHWA to reply to you directly on FHWA requirements for push-o ut windows.

Under NHTSA's requirements, the answer is no. As you know, the buses you describe would have to comply with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for school buses if they are sold as "school buses," i.e., for purposes that include carryin g students to and from school or related events. (49 CFR S571.3) The determination of the intended use of the vehicle would be made at the time the new vehicle is first sold to the "school bus contractors." Any person selling the new buses to the contrac tors who knows that the vehicles would be used as school buses would be required to sell complying school buses. Since vehicles need only meet the FMVSS's applicable to their vehicle type (e.g., "school buses"), the school buses need not meet FMVSS's for non-school buses, even though the school buses might also be used for purposes other than school transportation. Conversely, any person selling a bus to a contractor knowing that the bus would not be so used, would not be required to sell a complying s chool bus.

FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, does not generally require push-out windows for school buses, except a push-out rear window is required if a manufacturer decides to satisfy FMVSS No. 217's school bus emergency exit requirements by select ing the option (S5.2.3.1(b)) that calls for such a window.

Further, FMVSS No. 217 does not require push-out windows for non-school buses. The agency proposed to require push-out windows for non-school buses early in the rulemaking history of Standard No. 217 (35 FR 13025; August 15, 1970), but decided against su ch a requirement because devices other than push-out windows appeared to be effective for emergency egress. 37 FR 9394; May 10, 1972. Thus, new buses sold to bus operators for non-school bus purposes need not have push-out windows under Standard No. 21 7.

For your information, NHTSA has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (53 FR 44623; November 4, 1988) to review Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements for school buses. Among the issues under consideration by the agency is the desirabi lity of a requirement for push-out windows. NHTSA is presently reviewing the comments received on the notice. A copy of the notice is enclosed.

In summary, a new bus sold for purposes that include carrying school children must meet our FMVSS's for school buses. This is so even if the bus is also used for non-school purposes. Our FMVSS's for school and non-school buses do not now generally requ ire push-out windows.

We expect the FHWA will provide you with an interpretation of their requirements for push-out windows shortly.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE