ID: nht87-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: DECEMBER 30, 1987

FROM: HERBERT E. STOEL

TO: KEN SIKKEMA -- STATE REPRESENTATIVE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-8-90 TO HERBERT E. STOEL FROM

STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-1-90 TO JOHN WOMACK FROM HERBERT E. STOEL; (OCC-4406) TEXT:

SUBJECT Greater safety on our highways is needed. There are too many accidents on our highways today and now with the new 65 M.P.H. speed limit that number could increase, so it is high time that we do something about it. CONFUSION Our present method of Red Taillights and Red Stoplights on our cars is not a good system; for example, our traffic

lights at street intersections do not have two red lights for go and then add one or more to make three red lights for stop. No we have green lights for go, and red lights for stop. But on our cars, taillights and stoplights are all Red. SOLUTION RED should only mean ONE thing, that is STOP.

EXAMPLE When driving down a busy highway (especially at night) and there is a line of cars, all you can see is RED - RED - RED from all the rear lights on cars, and so when an emergency arises and the cars up front apply the brakes and one or two more red brake lights come on there is very little noticeable change for all you see is RED - RED - RED. So there is need for a better system to alert the oncoming drivers of the danger up front. In that way they have more time to brake and avoid collisions, injuries and often death. SOLUTION RED should only mean ONE thing, that is STOP.

SUGGESTION Have the taillights on cars Green and the stoplights, Red - STOP. FINALLY Inasmuch as Michigan is an Auto Industry State, why should we not be the state to introduce a better system to the

car manufacturers of the nation. With the thousands of injuries and deaths each year, why should we wait any longer to make a much needed improvement.

ID: 86-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION -NHTSA

DATE: 04/01/86

FROM: WILLA BLACK KENNEDY, -- STAFF JOINT INTERIM COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ARKANSAS BUREAU OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH

TO: ERICA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/25/86, TO WILLA BLACK KENNEDY, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29, HSPS 17

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The Joint Interim Committee on Public Transportation of the Arkansas General Assembly has established a special subcommittee to conduct a study of the need for laws regulating maintenance and licensing drivers of used buses being purchased by nonprofit organizations and churches for transportation of their members. For the purpose of this study, the term "old buses" or "used buses" shall mean buses of the type used by public and private schools for the transportation of children, and buses owned and used by bus companies and municipal and interurban transit authorities for the transportation of persons for hire, which have been acquired by private individuals, firms or group and which are operated for the transportation of persons, other than the members of their own families, upon the public highways and streets of this State.

Section one of this study is stated as follows:

"Whereas, it is unclear whether current regulations of the Department of Transportation apply to buses being utilized for non-commercial purposes to transport the members of nonprofit organizations and churches; and ..."

Would you please provide a written interpretation regarding this section so that it may be presented to the committee. Specifically, do current Department of Transportation regulations dealing with school buses or transit buses apply to the used buses in these modes (school/transit) that are sold and are being utilized for non-commercial purposes to transport the members of nonprofit organizations and churches?

I would appreciate your expeditious response to this request so that I may proceed with the committee study. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

ID: 1983-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bertman; Johnson and Sahli

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

John Bertman, Esq. Bertman, Johnson and Sahli 401 Twelfth Street (Route #54) P.O. BoX 440 Hammonton, New Jersey 08037-0440

Dear Mr. Bertman:

This responds to your recent letter to this office, seeking information on retreaded passenger car tires. You asked for the name of the retreader of a tire with the code letters "BJE" marked on the sidewall. That retreader is Trio Tire Service, Inc. of Clementon, New Jersey. You also asked if there were any regulations applicable to the retread of radial tires. All retreaded passenger car tires (whether bias or radial) must be certified by the retreader as complying with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S 571.117). I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information.

Should you have any further questions or need further information in this area, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address and at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

October 10, 1983

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Retread Radial Tire Bearing Markings: DOT R BJE R33 481 Our file no. 9479-1B

Gentlemen:

Will you please advise me of the manufacturer or the retread manufacturer of the tire bearing the above markings.

Please also advise me whether or not there are rules, regulations or standards regarding the retread of radial tires and forward a copy to me. If there is any charge, please advise.

Very truly yours,

John Bertman

ID: nht87-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David V. Brewer -- Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Brewer and Schons

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/24/80 letter from F. Berndt to Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz and Brewer

TEXT:

David V. Brewer Esq Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Brewer & Schons Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 10332 Eugene, OR 97440

This responds to your September 26, 1986, letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No, 106, Brake Hoses to your client's coupling device. You asked us to reconfirm the statements made in a March 24, 1980 interpretation issued by former Chief Counsel Prank Berndt to Mr. Ronald Irvine that the one-piece unit coupling device in question, used to simultaneously interconnect two air lines and the electrical lines between a tractor and trailer, is not subject to Standard No . 106. We confirm that the agency's 1980 interpretation has not been superseded or revised by subsequent interpretations of the standard.

The 1980 letter to Mr. Irvine explained that we assumed from the drawings The enclosed that completed brake hose assemblies with their own end fittings attach to the coupling device. Under that assumption, NHTSA concluded that the coupling device would n ot be considered a "brake hose assembly" or a "brake hose end fitting" because the coupling device in question was not included in the standard's definitions of those terms. As a result, certification by the manufacturer to Standard No, 106 was inappropr iate.

We have not modified our interpretation of Standard No. 106 as it applies to the coupling device described by Mr. Irvine in his 1980 inquiry. If the "Ideal Coupling" not owned by your client is the sane device, it is not subject to the requirements of St andard No. 106. Of course, as discussed by the agency in its 1980 letter, your client is nevertheless responsible for any safety related defects in the coupling device under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, since it is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 26, 1986

CERTIFIED MAlL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Ideal Coupling -- Ruling Request Under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 and Related Sections

Dear Sirs:

On March 24, 1980, Ronald Irvine of our office received a letter from Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (reference #NOA-30), in regard to a one piece coupling unit device for the connection of electrical and air brake lines on tractor-trailers. A true copy of Mr. Berndt's letter dated March 24 is attached to this letter as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein.

Mr. Berndt's letter was based upon a request by our client Ideal Welding and Machine Company. The coupler product is now the property of our client Nipac, Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon, having its principal office at 120 Monroe Street, Eugene, Oregon. The undersigned respectfully requests that the rulings requested herein, which are simply an updating of the request for rulings made in 1980, be issued on behalf of the above-mentioned party regarding the applicabilit y of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 or any related standards dealing with air brake systems.

Nipac, Ltd., which commenced business in 1980, is currently engaged in the business of marketing products for industrial use. The company owns the rights to the coupling device to be attached to the electrical and air brake hoses of a truck and trailer w hich provide a simplified one piece unit for the connection of the electrical and air brake lines. Clarion Shoji Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, has already manufactured several thousand units of this device, on the strength of the March, 1980 ruling from your office.

Because the device involves the connection of air brake hoses, clarification as to the certification, labeling and testing requirements under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 and any related sections is desired prior to the further sale of the d evice in the United States. Since your certification has not been updated in six years, the purpose of this letter is simply to update that certification.

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the following ruling be issued:

1. The Ideal Coupling (now owned by Nipac, Ltd.) does not constitute an air brake hose, end fitting or assembly that requires labeling or certification under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 or any related standard.

If your agency should find that some sort of certification, labeling or testing is required for the coupling device, please advise as to the following:

1. What form, of label, certification, or testing is required;

2. Who is required to perform the above, i.e., the manufacturer, or may our client provide the label, certification, or testing in the United States?

If any further information is necessary, please contact the undersigned. Your prompt consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

LOMBARD, GARDNER, HONSOWETZ, BREWER & SCHONS

DAVID V. BREWER Ideal Coupling - Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 Under penalties of perjury, we have examined this ruling request, and to the best of our knowledge and belief, the information presented in support of the requested ruling herein is true, correct and complete.

NIPAC, LTD.

By JACK DEAN, President

By LLOYD WETZIG

DB/lav Enclosures: U.S. Patent #4,183,599 issued January 15, 1980 Letter; Reference #NOA-30 cc: Jack Dean

(See 2/24/80 letter from F. Berndt to Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz and Brewer)

ID: nht95-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 7, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Douglas Helbig -- Vice President, Spencer Testing Services

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/17/95 LETTER FROM DOUGLAS C. HELBIG TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Helbig:

This responds to your letter asking me to confirm your belief that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) lacks the authority to require the periodic reinspection of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers used as fuel tanks on altern ative fuel motor vehicles. You are correct. NHTSA has no authority to require the reinspection of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container inte grity (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on and after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 a nd be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection of motor vehicles or such equipment.

I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous mater ials. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the reinspection of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor veh icle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10923

Mr. Douglas Helbig
Vice President
Spencer Testing Services
P.O. Box 429
Spencer, WV 25276

Dear Mr. Helbig:

This responds to your letter asking me to confirm your belief that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) lacks the authority to require the periodic reinspection of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers used as fuel tanks on alternative fuel motor vehicles. You are correct. NHTSA has no authority to require the reinspection of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on and after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection of motor vehicles or such equipment.

I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the reinspection of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:303 d:6/7/95

ID: nht93-8.12

DATE: November 15, 1993

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Ben Newberry; Jim Swift

TITLE: Request for Interpretation; REF: 49 CFR Part 571 - Docket No. 90-05; Notice 4, FMVSS 222, Final Rule on Wheelchair Securement Devices and Occupant Restraint Systems

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/25/94 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A42; Std. 222)

TEXT:

Section S5.4.3.2 of the referenced final rule requires that each wheelchair location have at least one anchorage for the upper torso restraint and at least two floor anchorages for pelvic and upper torso restraint.

Section S5.4.3.2 of the rule states:

"Each wheelchair occupant restraint floor anchorage shall be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons applied as specified in paragraphs (a) through (d). When more than one wheelchair occupant restraint share a common anchorage, the anchorage shall be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons multiplied by the number of occupant restraints sharing that anchorage."

It is our understanding that the phrase, "When more than one wheelchair occupant restraint share a common anchorage, . . . ." is intended to address the possible situation where restraints from two different wheelchair occupant restraint systems share a common anchorage. It is not intended to address the common situation where the lower end of an upper torso restraint joins the pelvic restraint and goes to one of the rear floor anchorages of a single occupant's restraint system.

If the phrase was intended to apply to the latter, common situation, then rear floor anchorage could be required to be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 newtons for the upper torso restraint plus 13,344 for the pelvic restraint for a total of 26,688 Newtons (6000 lbs). If the floor anchorage was also as one of the wheelchair securement anchorages, as is typically the case, Section S5.4.3.2(e) would require that the anchorage be capable of withstanding 3 x 13,344 Newtons (9000 lbs) total.

Blue Bird believes that the phrase referenced above was not intended to require double loading of an anchorage if the anchorage is intended to secure only one occupant. Referring to the attached drawings of two typical systems, we believe the following force capability requirements apply to the floor anchorages:

Left front floor anchorage - 13,344 Newtons (3000 lbs) because only one wheelchair securement device is attached.

Right front floor anchorage - 13,344 Newtons (3000 lbs) because only one wheelchair securement device is attached.

Left rear floor anchorage - 2 x 13,344 Newtons (6000 lbs) because both the left side of the pelvic restraint and the left rear wheelchair securement device are attached:

a. For Figure 1 through separate belts.

b. For Figure 2 through a common belt.

Right rear floor anchorage - 2 x 13,344 Newtons (6000 lbs) because the right side of the pelvic restraint and the lower end of the upper torso restraint are for only one occupant and along with the right rear wheelchair securement device are attached:

a. For Figure 1 through separate belts.

b. For Figure 2 through a common belt.

It is our understanding that the intent of Sections S5.4.3.2 and S5.4.3.2(e) of the standard, for single occupant systems as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, is for the rear anchorages to be capable of withstanding 2 x 13,344 Newtons (6000 lbs) rather than 3 x 13,344 newtons (9000 lbs).

Blue Bird is in the final stages of certification testing of several systems and must complete our work immediately in order to meet the January 17, 1994 effective date. We, therefore, request urgent attention be given to this matter and that confirmation of our understanding, as stated above, be provided by FAX or telephone in the next few days. A formal written interpretation can be provided at a later date, but we need the answer immediately.

Thank you for your consideration of this urgent request.

ATTACHMENTS

Figure 1 - Typical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system (separate belts to floor anchorage)

Figure 2 - Typical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system (single belts to floor anchorage)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht72-2.43

DATE: 10/11/72

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

TO: Monroe Standard, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 25, 1972, regarding the warning signal required under S5.1.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Your reading of the second sentence of S5.1.5 is partially in error. If the visible low pressure warning signal is provided with a companion audible signal, the visible signal does not have to be within the driver's forward field of view. Under S5.1.5 a manufacturer may choose to install a visible signal within the driver's forward field of view, in which case he may omit the audible signal, or to install the signal outside the driver's forward field of view, in which case he must provide an audible signal. If a manufacturer provides a signal within the forward field of view, he may choose to provide an audible signal as well, but the section does not require him to do so.

ID: 574- TIN spacing - Kumho - 16-004483

ID: GF007547

Mr. Scott Comisar
General Manager
Doran MFG, LLC
2851Massachusetts Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45225

Dear Mr. Comisar:

This responds to your e-mail dated October 17, 2003, asking whether LED red and amber strobing warning lights "are safe to use on school buses."

By way of background, 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. I note that this interpretation does not offer an opinion as to whether your particular lighting system is "safe." However, I will identify the federal regulation applicable to school bus signal lamps.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to school bus signal lamps is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 requires each school bus to be equipped with a system of four red signal (or four red and four amber) lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, July 1964 (a copy is enclosed for your information).

Previously, we were twice asked whether a school bus warning system consisting of LED strobe lights met the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. I enclose copies of our letters in response to those inquiries. You may use these previous interpretations as a guideline for determining whether your LED system could comply with FMVSS No. 108.

We assume that you wish to offer your product as original equipment on school buses. Please note, however, that FMVSS No. 108 also applies to replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. [1] Thus, a manufacturer of both original equipment and replacement LED red and amber strobing warning lights is required to certify that the equipment meets the standards requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.12/4/03





---

[1] See S3(c) of FMVSS No. 108.