ID: 2987yy

Mr. Keith Salsman
1296 Carman Court
Conyers, Ga. 30208

Dear Mr. Salsman:

This responds to your letter of April 16, l99l, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to the "Braking Intensity Array" that you have invented.

The device is an array of nine rear lamps which include a high mounted stop lamp. The center lamp responds to pressure on the brake pedal. If "actual braking" occurs, then the lamps adjacent to the center lamp "will respond appropriately with the adjacent lights lighting under mild braking force", and the remaining pairs of lamps lighting as the braking force increases. You have assured us that the center lamp meets all requirements of Standard No. l08, and that the remaining lamps in the array are controlled by a separate device and will not operate independently.

As we see it, the acceptability of your invention under Standard No. l08 is not dependent upon any of the five sections of the standard that you quote. The four pairs of lamps that flank the designed-to-conform center stop lamp are "additional lamps" within the meaning of S5.1.3, which prohibits the installation of any additional lamp as original equipment if it "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. l08. Whether impairment exists is a determination to be made by the person installing the lamp as original equipment, either the manufacturer or the dealer prior to the vehicle's first sale. In this instance, it does not appear to us from your description of the array that it would impair the effectiveness of the center lamp or other stop lamps on a vehicle. We would be concerned if the size of the array is such that the interior rear view mirror could not meet the field of view requirements of Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors; however, if the field of view is not met, the standard allows, as an alternative, the installation of an exterior rear view mirror on the passenger side.

Although your array may be permissible under Federal law, it remains subject to regulation by the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:5/8/9l

ID: nht91-3.40

DATE: May 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Keith Salsman

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-16-91 from Keith Salsman to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5972)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 16, 1991, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to the "Braking Intensity Array" that you have invented.

The device is an array of nine rear lamps which include a high mounted stop lamp. The center lamp responds to pressure on the brake pedal. If "actual braking" occurs, then the lamps adjacent to the center lamp "will respond appropriately with the adjacent lights lighting under mild braking force", and the remaining pairs of lamps lighting as the braking force increases. You have assured us that the center lamp meets all requirements of Standard No. 108, and that the remaining lamps in the array are controlled by a separate device and will not operate independently.

As we see it, the acceptability of your invention under Standard No. 108 is not dependent upon any of the five sections of the standard that you quote. The four pairs of lamps that flank the designed-to-conform center stop lamp are "additional lamps" within the meaning of S5.1.3, which prohibits the installation of any additional lamp as original equipment if it "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. Whether impairment exists is a determination to be made by the person installing the lamp as original equipment, either the manufacturer or the dealer prior to the vehicle's first sale. In this instance, it does not appear to us from your description of the array that it would impair the effectiveness of the center lamp or other stop lamps on a vehicle. We would be concerned if the size of the array is such that the interior rear view mirror could not meet the field of view requirements of Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors; however, if the field of view is not met, the standard allows, as an alternative, the installation of an exterior rear view mirror on the passenger side.

Although your array may be permissible under Federal law, it remains subject to regulation by the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht89-2.70

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1989

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William G. Kinstler, American Flatlight Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 2-20-89 to NHTSA Chief Counsel from William G. Kinstler; (OCC-3199) TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to a portable illuminated device, called the "Flatlight." You have asked for our review of the advertising brochure that you enclosed, and for copies of any regulations regarding this product. I regret the d elay in responding.

Your brochure indicates that Flatlight is intended for mounting on the door of a motor vehicle, and connects to the battery by a wire. As shown, it contains a corporate logo, which "emits a pleasant glow." The purpose is to readily identify the presenc e of "Real Estate Companies and other Sales Agents who need to meet clients at night."

This agency establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. It also establishes regulations pertaining to safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. As Flat light is advertised almost exclusively for motor vehicle applications (we note a single remark that it can be used for store and window fronts), it is "motor vehicle equipment" subject to the jurisdiction of this agency.

The only Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to portable lighting equipment applies only to warning triangles without self-contained energy sources, and thus does not cover the rectangular Flatlight. The Federal lighting standard on lamps , reflective devices, and associated equipment, permits Flatlight to be installed as original equipment (e.g., installed by the dealer on a new vehicle before its delivery to its first purchaser), if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equip ment required by the standard. It seems unlikely that the "glow" of a door mounted Flatlight would impair the effectiveness of the required side marker lamps and reflectors; indeed the device might serve more readily to identify the vehicle at night.

We surmise, however, that Flatlight is intended for the aftermarket and for installation on vehicles in use. It appears easily transferable from one vehicle to another. Installation of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment is generally permissible under Federal law. However, the installation is prohibited if it is installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business and if such installation renders inoperative, either wholly or partially, equipment installed in accordance w ith a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Installation of Flatlight does not appear to present this possibility.

Even though Flatlight is not prohibited under Federal law, you must still determine whether it is permissible under the laws of any State in which it

may be installed. We are unable to advise you on State law, but recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Finally, because Flatlight is "motor vehicle equipment" you, as its manufacturer, must notify purchasers and provide a remedy upon any determination by you or this agency that it contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

ID: title.ztv

Mr. Philip Trupiano
President
Auto Enterprises
28801 Universal Drive
Warren, MI 48092
FAX:

Dear Mr. Trupiano:

This is in reply to your letter of November 11, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking for an interpretation of 49 U.S.C. 30146 as implemented by 49 CFR 592.8.

You have informed us that

Auto Enterprises, Inc., and some of the customers on behalf of whom Auto Enterprises is performing importing services, wish to obtain United States titles for re-sale purposes only for vehicles imported into the United States during the period that the vehicles are still within the custody and control of Auto Enterprises.

Specifically, you want "to obtain such titles for re-sale purposes prior to the time that the performance bond . . . is released." You asked:

May a Registered Importer, or the customer on whose behalf the vehicle is imported, obtain a title for re-sale purposes for a vehicle which it has imported, prior to the time that the applicable performance bond has been released by the Administrator?

As you know, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1), a Registered Importer (RI) "may license or register an imported motor vehicle for use on the public streets, roads, or highways, or release custody of a motor vehicle . . . to a person for license or registration for use on the public streets, roads, or highways, only after 30 days after" the RI has certified to NHTSA that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We are unsure of precisely what you are referring to by "a title for re-sale purposes." However, we do not construe the statutory provisions as prohibiting a RI from obtaining a title in its own name to a vehicle it has imported for resale, while the vehicle is still bound by its performance bond, in order to expedite the subsequent licensing or registration of that vehicle for on-road use after the bond has been released.

You have also asked if "the customer on whose behalf the vehicle is imported" may obtain a title for re-sale purposes before the bond is released. The answer is no; the title may not be in the name of the customer. One of the conditions of the bond is that the vehicle it covers be exported or abandoned to the United States in the event that an insufficient showing of conformity is made and the bond and the vehicle are not released (49 U.S.C. 30141(d)(1), as implemented by 49 CFR 591.8(e), and Appendices A and B, and 49 CFR 592,6(a)). If the RI has transferred or reassigned title to the vehicle to "the customer on whose behalf the vehicle is imported" before the bond has been released, the RI could not fulfill its duty to export or abandon the nonconforming vehicle because it would no longer own the vehicle. In that instance, NHTSA's sole remedy would be to foreclose on the bond. This is insufficient to fulfill the safety purpose of the statute and the bond which is to ensure that imported noncomplying vehicles be brought into compliance before being licensed for use, and used, on the public roads.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.4/17/00

ID: 2855yy

William J. Bethurum, Esq.
Patent Attorney
Jefferson Place - Suite 302
350 North Ninth Street
Boise, Idaho 83702

Dear Mr. Bethurum:

Your letter of December 14, 1990, to the "U.S. National Highway Safety Commission" for reply. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is the Federal agency responsible for establishing and enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your client, Mr. E.D. Farnsworth, has asked about "when and how side lights adjacent to the main head lights came to be first used with head lights on automobiles." You have, in turn, asked to be apprised of the regulations which govern new headlamp designs for automobiles and other motor vehicles.

The Federal regulations that apply to motor vehicle headlamps are found in 49 C.F.R. 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The current version of the CFR volume (Parts 400 to 999) containing that standard is updated to October 1, l990.

We are uncertain as to what you mean by "side lights adjacent to the main head lights". Standard No. l08 requires amber or white parking lamps on the front of passenger cars and other types of motor vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, amber turn signal lamps, and amber front side marker lamps. Other types of lamps that are sometimes found on the front, and on the side at the front, are fog lamps and cornering lamps. They are not required by Standard No. l08, and are permissible as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard.

Standard No. l08, which has been in effect for passenger cars since January l, l969 (the mandatory requirement for a side marker lamp replaced the earlier provision giving manufacturers a choice of lamp or reflector effective January 1, l970), has always prescribed lamp location in general terms. Thus, parking lamps and headlamps are to be installed "at the front" and "as far apart as practicable" (Table IV of Standard No. l08). Similarly, turn signals are to be located "at or near the front" and "as far apart as practicable." Amber side marker lamps are to be on the side but placed "as far to the front as practicable." Because Standard No. l08 does not otherwise specify lamp location, we surmise that the head lamp and adjacent side lamp relationship to which you refer resulted from the choice of the vehicle manufacturer within the overall general parameters of the Federal specifications.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:2/26/9l

ID: nht91-2.2

DATE: February 26, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William J. Bethurum -- Patent Attorney

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-14-90 from William J. Bethurum to Legal Counsel, U.S. National Highway Safety Commission

TEXT:

Your letter of December 14, 1990, to the "U.S. National Highway Safety Commission" for reply. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is the Federal agency responsible for establishing and enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your client, Mr. E.D. Farnsworth, has asked about "when and how side lights adjacent to the main head lights came to be first used with head lights on automobiles." You have, in turn, asked to be apprised of the regulations which govern new headlamp designs for automobiles and other motor vehicles.

The Federal regulations that apply to motor vehicle headlamps are found in 49 C.F.R. 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The current version of the CFR volume (Parts 400 to 999) containing that standard is updated to October 1, 1990.

We are uncertain as to what you mean by "side lights adjacent to the main head lights". Standard No. 108 requires amber or white parking lamps on the front of passenger cars and other types of motor vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, amber turn signal lamps, and amber front side marker lamps. Other types of lamps that are sometimes found on the front, and on the side at the front, are fog lamps and cornering lamps. They are not required by Standard No. 108, and are permissible as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard.

Standard No. 108, which has been in effect for passenger cars since January 1, 1969 (the mandatory requirement for a side marker lamp replaced the earlier provision giving manufacturers a choice of lamp or reflector effective January 1, 1970), has always prescribed lamp location in general terms. Thus, parking lamps and headlamps are to be installed "at the front" and "as far apart as practicable" (Table IV of Standard No. 108). Similarly, turn signals are to be located "at or near the front and "as far apart as practicable." Amber side marker lamps are to be on the side but placed "as far to the front as practicable." Because Standard No. 108 does not otherwise specify lamp location, we surmise that the head lamp and adjacent side lamp relationship to which you refer resulted from the choice of the vehicle manufacturer within the overall general parameters of the Federal specifications. If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ID: 23443.drn

Mr. Jim Elliott

Vice President Sales & Marketing
Collins Bus Corporation
P.O. Box 2946
Hutchinson, KS 67504-2946





Dear Mr. Elliott:


This responds to your July 19, 2001, letter asking that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) create a "special purpose bus" vehicle type specifically for the child care industry. Essentially, this would be a bus that meets NHTSA's crash worthiness school bus safety standards, and not stop arm or school bus lighting requirements. Please be advised that NHTSA is currently considering a rulemaking to propose this new vehicle type. We anticipate publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that would specify the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that a "special purpose bus" would have to meet.

I am enclosing a copy of our interpretation letter of December 5, 2000, to Southern Illinois Bus. In this letter, we explain that although school bus manufacturers or dealers cannot "make inoperative" the compliance of a school bus with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices, or any other safety standard by removing such equipment, the Federal "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to the owner of a school bus (i.e., to the school or school district). Thus, a child transportation provider may purchase a school bus and remove the stop arms and school bus lamps without violating any NHTSA requirements.

If you have any further questions, please contact me at this address or at (202) 366-9511.




Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3#108#131
d.9/13/01

ID: 1983-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: LJM Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 22 1983

Mr. Lee Jay Mandell President, LJH Associates. Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91034

Dear Mr. Mandell:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1983, discussing a lighting product that you have developed and asking for "the approval of the DOT or at least to insure that no active disapproval would be forthcoming.

Your device utilizes the body panel between the left and right rear lights to emphasize braking, right and left turns, hazard flashing, and backing up. Roughly, your devise operates by lights spreading from the center of the panel outward, in either or both directions.

We think that there is a great potential for confusion that this devise could create since it is so unlike anything seen before on a motor vehicle. In the stopping mode the driver following will see the steady light of the stop lamp at the edge of the vehicle, but also the dynamic lights of your devise spreading out from the center. The same dynamic light spread is seen but is meant to indicate something entirely different when both turn signal lamps are operating simultaneously in the hazard warning mode. Thus, the potential for impairment of the required lighting equipment exists.

Generally, we do not favor any lights on the rear of a vehicle that are not required by the Federal lighting standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 19, 1983

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

Attn: Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

I am president of a small consulting firm in Los Angeles that has developed a product that at worst I believe to be a decorative device and at best I believe to enhance the safety of an automobile. I hope to be raising venture capital in the near future to allow me to go into production of this device but before I do so I would Like to obtain approval of the DOT or at least to insure that no active disapproval would be forthcoming.

This device is a display integrated into the standard rear grill many production automobiles. The intention of this device is to enchance the normal rear lights on an automobile and to exist in addition to and to not impair the effectiveness but to enchance the normal operating characteristics of the existing rear lights (Motor VehicLe Safety Standard No. 108 - S4.1.3).

The major functions of this device work in conjunction with normal light functions without any additional operator intervention. Some of these functions are:

BRAKE < -> < ---> < -----> BRAKE

RIGHT TURN

LEFT TURN

EMERGENCY FLASHERS

CAUTION

REVERSE BACKING UP

Some sample photographs are enclosed to illustrate these displays. Please feel free to contact me if necessary to insure a positive disposition of this inquiry.

Sincerely,

Lee Jay Mandell President, LJM Associates, Inc.

INSERT GRAPH HERE

INSERT GRAPH HERE

ID: nht89-2.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/24/89

FROM: WILLIAM E. ALKIRE -- BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER INC

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/28/89 FROM STEPHEN P WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM E. ALKIRE -- BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 108; SENATE BILL NO 684, CHAPTER 410; APPROVED 07/27/83; SENATE BILL NO 1317, AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 8, 1982; INT RODUCED BY SENATOR JOHNSON ON 01/07/1982

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson,

Thank you for returning my call this morning.

The BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER (patent #4403210) is a safety device intended to flash the brake lights of a motor vehicle three (3) times within the first two (2) seconds of actuation, then remain continuously illuminated.

The BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER is 3" x 3" x 1/2" in size and is constructed using Underwriter Laboratory approved switching components. The purpose of this safety device is to provide a more eye catching braking or deceleration signal for following drivers. The circuit may be connected between the rear signal lamps brake light switch and flasher, in a conventional vehicle lighting system. When the turn signal switch is activated, BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER circuits are disabled so that only conventional brake lig hting occurs, thereby preventing confusion of following drivers.

The BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER is designed to allow a capacity of 300 watts. All units are built with the following "fail safe" modes.

1. Should the main power handling semiconductor device open, the BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER operation is as follows:

When the brake pedal is applied, the brake lights remain on continuously as long as the brake pedal is applied.

2. Should the main power handling semiconductor device short, the BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER operation is as follows:

When the brake pedal is applied, the lights remain on continuously as long as the brake pedal is applied.

3. Should the relay contacts not complete the electrical circuit, the BRAKE LIGHT operation is as follows:

When the brake pedal is applied, the brake lights remain on continuously as long as the brake pedal is applied.

4. Should the relay coil not open the contacts, the BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER operation is as follows:

When the brake is applied, the lights remain on continuously as long as the brake pedal is applied.

Our research indicates an overwhelming acceptance of the increased brake light effectiveness, created by use of the BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER.

We look forward to your comments.

ENCL: AMENDEMENT

ID: 14834.mls

Mr. Scott Slaughter
Pitts Enterprises, Inc.
5734 Highway 431
P.O. Box 155
Pittsview, AL 36871

Dear Mr. Slaughter:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a logging trailer known as the "knuckle boom loader trailer" needs to comply with new regulations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that require trailers manufactured after January 26, 1998, to be equipped with rear underride protection and that require medium and heavy-duty trucks and trailers manufactured after March 1, 1998 to be equipped with antilock brakes.

In a February 2, 1994 interpretation from me to you, I stated that it "appear[ed] that your trailer is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act." This opinion was based on the fact that your equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. I have no new information to warrant changing this initial interpretation. Accordingly, since your trailer continues not to be a motor vehicle, it would not be subject to any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including standards requiring rear impact underride protection and antilock brakes.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d:5/14/97