ID: nht92-1.44

DATE: 12/04/92

FROM: RON MARION -- SALES ENGINEER, THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC

TO: BARRY FELRICE -- ASSOC. ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-3-93 FROM BARRY FELRICE TO RON MARION (A40; STD. 131)

TEXT: This letter is being written regarding the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard - 131 school bus pedestrian safety devices.

As a manufacturer of school bus bodies, we are getting numerous questions regarding the installation of stop arms on school buses not used on route service.

A number of schools across the U.S. purchase school buses, paint them a color other than yellow, and use them exclusively for athletic trips. These athletic use buses pick up at the school and travel to another school to unload. They do not make stops for loading or unloading along the way and in no way attempt to control traffic.

The purchasers of this type of "school bus" have a problem with paying for stop arms and in some cases warning lamps which are never used.

My question is, has there been any consideration given to an exemption for this non-route type "school bus"?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht92-1.45

DATE: 12/02/92

FROM: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, TIRE DIVISION, RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-11-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO FRANK E. TIMMONS (A40; STD. 109; STD. 119; PART 574); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER (DATE ILLEGIBLE) FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.

TEXT: Your November 13, 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Ministry of Commerce Kuwait has just been brought to my attention (see attached). There are two statements in your letter that are incorrect. If the Kuwait government does not realize this, it is possible that US tire manufacturers could be adversely affected.

In your third paragraph, starting on line 3, you state" . . .all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119)." This is not true. Only those tires designed and offered for sale for use on highway vehicles, other than passenger cars, must be certified as being in compliance with FMVSS 119.

The other misstatement in your letter is in your response to their question No. 1. "Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the 'DOT' mark?". Your answer - "Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles." is not correct. Only those tires intended for use on highway vehicles must be labeled with the DOT mark. NHTSA has stated in the past on more than one occasion that the DOT may not be labeled on tires that do not have an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

It is requested that NHTSA send a follow-up letter to Kuwait clarifying that your response applied only to motor vehicles and their tires that are designed primarily for use on the highway.

As mentioned to Walter Myers of your staff yesterday, I will ask Mr. Ed Wunder to discuss this with his contacts in Kuwait. Mr. Wunder is stationed in Saudi Arabia and is supported jointly by industry and the Department of Commerce (NIST) to help US manufacturers sell their products in the Gulf countries.

ID: nht92-1.46

DATE: 12/01/92 EST

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KIM WELSH -- EMMETT KOELSCH COACHES

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-5-92 FROM KIM WELSH TO PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT, DOT (OCC 7981)

TEXT: Your letter of November 5, 1992 addressed to the Department of Transportation Publications Department was forwarded to this office for response. In your letter you requested a copy of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards pertaining to school buses "and other Transit type vehicles."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), apply to all classes and categories of motor vehicles, including passenger cars, trucks, buses of all types including school buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and the like. Excluded from the definition of motor vehicles are such vehicles as farm tractors, earth-moving equipment, and other off-road vehicles. For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Also enclosed are copies of two fact sheets issued by this office entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

You did not elaborate on what was meant by "Transit type vehicles." If you were referring to intercity buses, you should contact the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Room 3404, this address for information on their pertinent standards and regulations. For information on intracity buses, you should contact the Federal Transit Administration, Room 9328, this address. Finally, for information regarding implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, you should contact the Office of Technical and Information Services, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.

I hope this information is helpful. If after examining this material you have more specific questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-1.47

DATE: 12/01/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHESTER I. NIELSEN, III -- VICE PRESIDENT SALES, WESBAR CORPORATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-21-92 FROM CHESTER I. NIELSEN, III TO WALTER B. MCCORMICK, JR. (OCC 7912)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 21, 1992, to Walter B. McCormick, Jr. (the General Counsel of this Department). You have written for "further explanation of S5.3.1.1.1 in FMVSS 108."

You have heard that there is an additional interpretation with respect to the location of clearance lamps on boat trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which would allow mounting of these lamps in accordance with a sketch that you enclosed, and you ask for confirmation of this interpretation.

We are unaware of any interpretation of this nature. The requirements for the provision and location of clearance lamps on wide boat trailers remain those set forth in Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, with the exceptions set forth in paragraphs S5.1.1.9, S5.3.1.1.1, and S5.3.1.4.

ID: nht92-1.48

DATE: 12/01/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T. KOUCHI -- DIRECTOR & GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT, DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-8-92 FROM T. KOUCHI TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7857)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 8, 1992, with respect to photometric test methods for a center high-mounted stop lamp using light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

Your letter presents certain procedures and asks for associated revisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. After review, we have come to the conclusion that your method of proposed testing is allowable under Standard No. 108, but more stringent than what the standard requires.

In the section of your letter called "BACKGROUND", you state that you usually follow the technical guidance of SAE J1889 as a standard practice for LED lighting devices. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 or in any of the SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 that requires you to follow the test methodology of J1889. Thus, when you say that you "must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense", you are placing a burden upon yourself that does exist under J1889, but one which is not necessary for designing for compliance with Standard No. 108.

You have proposed a solution for the problem you have created by following J1889, and you provide three specific reasons in support. The third reason is based upon your interpretation of SAE J575's warpage test, under which you test operating cycles of 5 minutes on and 5 minutes off. However, you reference a version of J575 which does not apply to center high-mounted stop lamps. Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that J575e, August 1970, applies to high-mounted stop lamps designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J186a. SAE J575, August 1970, simply specifies that the device is to be operated in the test in the same manner as it will be operated in service, far different than the cycle method you employ.

Thus, you have requested that we revise Standard No. 108 by adding a new provision that center high-mounted stop lamps shall be energized for a minimum of 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minima. We note that nothing prohibits you from testing in such a manner, but we believe that an amendment of this nature is not required because the present allowable method of testing does not call for it.

You have asked for our comments on four steps of photometric measurement, and our permission to follow them. There is no reason you may not follow them, if you wish, but they are unnecessary to design for compliance under Standard No. 108.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions.

ID: nht92-1.49

DATE: 12/01/92 EST

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WAYNE MALBON -- NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS AND RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

COPYEE: JEFF LAXAGUE -- U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 6-18-81 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO ROY LITTLEFIELD

TEXT: This responds to your November 17, 1992 telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office regarding a shipment of truck tire casings being imported into the United States but held up in customs because the casings do not have the DOT symbols molded onto the sidewalls. You asked for a letter from this office setting forth the requirements for the importation of truck tire casings which do not display the DOT symbol, saying that you would use such a letter to show the U.S. Customs Service (USCS) in order to secure the release of the casings.

You will find enclosed a letter from this agency to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA, dated June 18, 1981, in which we explained at length the requirements for importation of truck tire casings and the rationale behind those requirements. The information contained in that letter is still fully applicable, except that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety referred to on page 2 is now the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration. Also, the reference on page 3 to Mr. Harrison Feese of the USCS is no longer valid. Point of contact in USCS is now Mr. Gary Manes, same address, (202) 927-1133; or Mr. Jeff Laxague, same address, (202) 927-0402.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-1.5

DATE: 12/29/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: STAN KAPLAN -- SHIMAZAKI CORP.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-25-90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LARRY E. SNOWHITE (STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-10-92 FROM STAN KAPLAN TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 8107)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 10, 1992, with respect to the relationship of Federal motor vehicle regulations to the Red Alert device that you wish to import and sell in the United States.

The device is located on the accelerator rod. When there is a sudden release of the accelerator, the stop lamps are activated before the driver's foot has touched the service brake pedal. You state also that installation of the device is quick and simple, requiring 10 to 15 minutes and no special tools. You have asked if Red Alert "meets the standard set by your administration and the (sic) how we can get a waiver on this product or does it require one at all."

The descriptive literature that you enclosed notes (under "Authorization Requirements for Installation") that "there are many countries in which it is mandated by regulations that only the brake pedal activate the rear brake lights," and that "Red Alert, situated as it is on the accelerator rod, is illegal in these countries." The United States is one of these countries. Under Fedral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the stop lamps may only be activated by the brake pedal. This means that a vehicle that is equipped with Red Alert no longer complies with Standard No. 108.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this means that the manufacturer of the vehicle, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who installs Red Alert is liable for a civil penalty for creating the noncompliance. In addition, if the noncompliance is created by the manufacturer of the vehicle, the manufacturer is obliged to notify owners of the noncompliance, and then to remedy it. However, the Act does not restrict the owner of the vehicle from such modifications as (s) he may perform, even if the modifications result in a noncompliance, unless State laws so forbid. Thus, Federal law does not prohibit a vehicle owner from installing Red Alert but (s) he may not enlist the services of a distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business to perform the installation. In no circumstance is importation and sale of the device itself a violation of Federal law.

These matters and the agency's views on the device are set forth more fully in the enclosed agency letter of January 25, 1990, concerning the Advanced Brake Light Device (ABLD). Nothing that both the ABLD and Red Alert originate in Israel, we surmise that Red Alert is a variant of the ABLD. Although the interpretation in this letter does allow installation of the Red Alert at the hands of the vehicle owner, our conclusion is based upon Federal law and should not be construed as an endorsement of the device. The same safety concerns that we expressed in January 1990 remain valid today.

ID: nht92-1.50

DATE: December 1, 1992

FROM: Allan "Buzz" Ferver -- Product Manager, Waekon Industries, Inc.

TO: Paul Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/1/93 from John Womack to Allan Ferver (A40; Std. 301)

TEXT:

Waekon Industries would like to introduce to the Automotive Aftermarket a new product. I have contacted other members of your organization regarding any issues pertaining to compliance to any safety standards, Steve Chan-Fuel systems and Marvin Shaw-Advisor and was instructed to contact you in writing. The product is to be known as Universal Replacement Fuel Cap (sample enclosed).

The product is designed to replace lost fuel caps temporarily until the proper replacement can be obtained.

Both the gentlemen I contacted told me that NHTSA-was not concerned with component parts in this instance. Please advise me of any particulars regulated by your agency which may be relevant to our marketing this cap. Also, if you would please advise me of any other agencies or regulations. which I would have to satisfy.

I thank you very much for your considerations and look forward to your response.

ID: nht92-1.6

DATE: December 29, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Curtis J. Crist -- Product Development, US Marine

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/10/92 from Curtis J. Crist to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8136); Also attached to letter dated 10/8/76 from Frank Berndt (signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Donald I. Reed; Also attached to letter dated 12/21/77 from Joseph J. Levin, Jr. to Warren M. Heath

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 10, 1992, in which you ask for confirmation that the provisions of paragraph S4.3.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 relating to front side marker lamps for boat trailers remain unchanged from interpretations provided by this Office in 1976 and 1977.

I am pleased to confirm that these requirements remain the same. Paragraph S4.3.1.3, however, was renumbered S5.3.1.3 several years ago.

You have also asked as to what action you must take for elimination of the requirement for rear identification lamps on boat trailers 80 or more inches in overall width. You may file a petition for rulemaking requesting this change. I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, the regulation governing these petitions, which will advise you as to these procedures. Section 552.4 sets forth the information that the petition should contain, and the address to which it must be sent.

ID: nht92-1.7

DATE: December 29, 1992

FROM: David H.B. Lee -- President, Lee Family, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/93 from John Womack to David H.B. Lee (A40; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I currently have in my possession a U.S. patent on a device created in Taiwan. I have included copies of the documents and have enclosed two samples of the Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor along with a demonstration videotape.

At the present time, Japan's Department of Vehicles is considering an alteration of their laws to include a requirement of blinking third brake lights. What we hope to accomplish in the near future is to reduce the rate of collisions by grasping the United States' attention that the Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor is helpful as a safety device in vehicles.

However, in order for our business to succeed, we need your assistance. What we are requesting of you is a thorough review and testing of our device by your highly trained technicians. Also a series of tests, we would greatly appreciate any comments and advice on the sale and promotion of our product.

Please contact me about the results as soon as possible. Your time and cooperation is greatly desired and appreciated. Thank you very much.