ID: nht95-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 6, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C. Rufus Pennington, III -- Margol & Pennington, P.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/5/95 LETTER FROM C. RUFUS PENNINGTON, III TO MARY VERSAILLES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Pennington:

This responds to your letter concerning the rear seats of a 1979 Porsche 911 SC, which were not equipped with any type of seat belt. You asked two questions relating to whether these seats should have been equipped with seat belts. Your questions are a ddressed below.

1. Did the manufacturer's designation of "two front" passenger seats eliminate any obligation on the part of the manufacturer to provide seat belts in the rear seats under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208?

As explained below, a manufacturer's designation that a vehicle has two front seats does not eliminate the obligation to provide seat belts at rear seats, if those positions are "designated seating positions."

By way of background information, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 req uired passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1973 and before September 1, 1986, to have either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each rear "designated seating position."

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1980, the term "designated seating position" was defined as:

any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding j ump seats. n1

n1 The definition was amended effective September 1, 1980. Copies of the September 28, 1978 notice of proposed rulemaking and April 19, 1979 final rule are enclosed.

In a May 22, 1978, notification to vehicle manufacturers, the agency stated that manufacturers are responsible for determining the number of seating positions that are in the vehicle. The agency also stated:

This does not mean, however, that the manufacturer's designation will be accepted by the agency if there are additional, obvious seating positions that are likely to be used by occupants while the vehicle is in motion. The agency unquestionably intends to require protection for all vehicle occupants. n2

Thus, a manufacturer's specification that a vehicle has two front seats did not eliminate Standard No. 208's requirement for a seat belt assembly at each rear seat, if those locations met the above definition.

2. Did the Porsche 911 SC comply with, or did it violate, the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208?

NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a vehicle complied with applicable safety standards outside a compliance proceeding. However, I can advise you of the factors the agency would look at to determine if the rear locations are designated seat ing positions. If those locations are designated seating positions, they should have been equipped with a seat belt assembly when originally manufactured.

n2 43 FR 21893. A copy of this notice is enclosed.

The May 22, 1978, notice provides a good summary of the agency's position. n3 That notice states:

the agency will consider any position . . . capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female to be a "designated seating position", if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the manufacturer knows the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion.

I note that the hip breadth of a sitting fifth percentile female is approximately 13 inches, and the sitting height is approximately 31 inches. These are the measurements NHTSA would consider in determining whether a position is capable of accommodating a fifth percentile female.

n3 While that notice was focused on front seats, the rationale would apply to any seat.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 12, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Andrew Grubb -- Steve's Moped & Bicycle World

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO UNDATED LETTER FROM ANDREW GRUBB TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Grubb:

This responds to your letter asking whether this agency's requirements apply to several products you are selling. One is called the "California Go-Ped," a small push scooter with non-pneumatic tires, a 2-cycle motor mounted above the rear wheel, and a t op speed of 20 mph. Another is called the "Tsi Power Scooter," and resembles a scooter in frame style, but has larger pneumatic tires and can be outfitted with a seat. The Power Scooter has a top speed of 15 mph. You cited a previous interpretation sta ting that a scooter (similar to the Go-Ped) is not a motor vehicle, and thus not subject to our requirements, so I assume that you are asking whether the products you sell are motor vehicles. You also asked about motorized "skateboards" and motors for mo unting on a conventional bicycle.

The short answer to your question is that the Go-Ped is not a motor vehicle but the Power Scooter may be, depending on whether it is sold with a seat. Motorized "skateboards" are not motor vehicles, but motors for mounting on bicycles are "motor vehicle equipment".

You indicated that you have a copy of a letter dated April 1, 1991, in which we discussed whether a small push scooter called a "Walk Machine" is considered a motor vehicle for purposes of our standards. In that letter, we discussed the general principl es for determining whether a product is a motor vehicle.

As discussed in that letter, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground m ining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that are or can be operated off-road, but are also used on the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they a re equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, even though its greatest use will be off-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is re adily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

In discussing whether the Walk Machine is considered a motor vehicle, we noted that NHTSA has stated in previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum att ainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. We concluded that the Walk Machine is not a motor vehicle since it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that re adily distinguishes it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles.

I will now apply these principles to the products you ask about in your letter. First, the California Go-Ped has an almost identical configuration to that of the Walk Machine and a maximum speed of 20 mph. Therefore, we do not consider it to be a motor vehicle, for the same reasons that apply to the Walk Machine.

Second, the Power Scooter has a maximum speed of 15 mph and, when sold without a seat, has a configuration similar to that of the Walk Machine. In that configuration, we do not consider it to be a motor vehicle.

When equipped with a seat, however, the Power Scooter is considered to be a motor vehicle. Although the advertising literature states that the Power Scooter is "not for in-street use," NHTSA believes that it is indistinguishable from a moped, which is a n on-street vehicle that we have long interpreted as a motor vehicle. Although most mopeds have chain drives, pedal starters, and lower-mounted engines, we do not think that these distinctions are important. The seated rider on the power scooter appears to other traffic to be riding a moped. We also note that the low ground clearance of the central platform appears poorly suited to off-road use.

Further, we consider the Power Scooter, when equipped with a seat, to be a type of motorcycle. A motorcycle is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three w heels in contact with the ground" (Title 49, section 571.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)). Motorcycles are subject to our regulations in 49 CFR Part 571, including Standards for lights (No. 108), rear view mirrors (111), brakes (122), and con trols and displays (123). The materials you sent do not disclose the horsepower of the 21 cc engine, but we assume that it is less than 5 brake horsepower. If that assumption is correct, the vehicle would be a "motor-driven cycle," a type of motorcycle that is subject to less stringent requirements under our regulations. However, the Power Scooter does not appear to meet even the less stringent requirements. For example, the Scooter lacks lights, dual braking systems, and rear view mirrors.

The motors for mounting on a conventional bicycle are designed specifically to convert the bicycle into a motorcycle. Therefore, they are motor vehicle equipment. Despite the notation "not for in-street use" in the advertising brochure, bicycles are pr edominantly used in the streets. Merely adding a motor does not change this fact.

The motorized "skateboard" is not a motor vehicle because it was not manufactured for in-street use and is also not used on the public roads.

You stated in your letter that you want to clarify the application of our motor vehicle requirements to your products so that you can advise your customers exactly where they can and cannot operate them. We strongly encourage you to read the enclosed in formation sheet on your responsibilities under Federal law as a retailer of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In addition, while the location of use of particular vehicles can affect our determination of whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle, t he actual regulation of the operation of vehicles and motor vehicles is a matter of State law. For information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22203.

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

ID: nht95-3.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: Joseph J. Smith -- Assistant Chief Maintenance Officer, Technical Services & Maintenance Support, Department of Buses, New York Transit Authority

TO: John Womack -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/29/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOSEPH J. SMITH (A43; STD. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I am requesting interpretation of NHTSA Standard No. 302; Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR Ch. V, 10-1-94 Edition, para. 571.302).

The Department of Buses, MTA New York City Transit, has been notified by a supplier of air conditioning (A/C) return air filters that their filters do not meet Standard No. 302.

The A/C filters that the DOB utilizes on RTS 04 and 06 model buses are located on the top of A/C evaporator coil. Although the A/C filters are not mentioned in para. S4.1 of the Standard No. 302, they may, in our opinion, be affected by requirements of para. S4.2, being separated from the bus interior only by a louvered panel. This area (which the filters occupy) cannot be clearly defined whether it falls into the category of occupant compartment air space.

The copies of some selected pages from the bus service and parts manuals are attached for your reference.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could clarify whether the A/C return air filters must conform to the Standard No. 302. If you need any additional information, please contact Sol. Zhodzishsky of my staff at tel. 718 927-7634 (fax 718 927-8079)

I would like also to thank Mr. Marvin Shaw for his expedient response to our verbal inquiries.

(MANUALS OMITTED.)

ID: nht95-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 13, 1995

FROM: K. Howard Sharp -- Attorney at Law, Arnason Law Office

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO K. HOWARD SHARPE (A43; STD. 108; VSA 30102)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Safety Bright (R) product manufactured by NYTAF Industries, Inc. Your remarks provided a great deal of insight and assistance to NYTAF in the development of their product.

We are a bit confused on whether NYTAF qualifies as a manufacturer and whether standard 108 would apply in this instance. NYTAF manufactures Safety Bright (R) for use as an accessory to be installed on vehicles which are already in use on the roadway s. Presently NYTAF has no plans for the installation of Safety Bright (R) equipment on new vehicles. We understand that if that were the case the new vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for certification of compliance with the motor vehicle safet y standards. We are not certain, however, whether NYTAF must certify compliance with those standards since it is simply a manufacturer of an accessory. We would appreciate your clarification on this issue.

Again, thank you for your prompt response and helpful guidance.

ID: nht95-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis T. Snyder, Esquire

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/11/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS T. SNYDER TO DAVID COLEMAN (OCC 10926)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1995, asking whether a client of yours is a "final stage manufacturer" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and implementing regulations on manufacturer identification and v ehicle certification found in 49 CFR Parts 566, 567, and 568. You have described this client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from used chassis-cabs.

The term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(5) (formerly section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) as "a person- (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . " (emphasis added). Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the assembly of completed motor vehicles, it would appear to meet this definition. Because the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566 apply to "all manufacturers of moto r vehicles," as stated in section 566.3 of that Part, your client would be required to submit to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the identifying information specified in 49 CFR 566.5.

The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in that section as "an assemblage con sisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle." The term "completed vehicle" is in turn defined in section 568.3 as "a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function . . ." Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and r oad tractors from chassis-cabs, it would qualify as a final stage manufacturer, as that term is defined in section 568.3.

Requirements for final stage manufacturers are specified at 49 CFR 568.6. This section provides that a final stage manufacturer shall complete each vehicle "in such a manner that it conforms to the [Federal motor vehicle safety] standards in effect on t he date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates," and shall affix a label to the vehicle attesting to that conformance in accordance with 49 CFR 567.5, which specifies certification requir ements for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. These certification requirements are in implementation of 49 U.S.C. @ 30115, which requires the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle to certify to the dealer or distributor at delivery that the vehi cle complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA has long taken the position, however, that a vehicle is used if it is assembled by adding a new body to the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads. As a consequence, your client would not be required to certify the vehicles that it manufactures in this fashion.

Your client would nevertheless be subject to 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), which provides that "[a] manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or i n a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . ." NHTSA has interpreted this provision as requiring any of the specified entities that remove an old body from a vehicle in order to install a new one to ensure t hat the newly completed vehicle meets the standards that the vehicle was originally required to meet. For example, a vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1995 mounted on a used 1989 chassis must meet all standards that applied to 1989 vehicles. Your client would be liable for any violation of this requirement on vehicles that it manufactures, regardless of whether it removed the body from the old vehicle itself, or directed another entity to do so.

Additionally, as a vehicle manufacturer, your client would be required under 49 U.S.C. @ 30118 to furnish owners with notification of, and a remedy for, any safety-related defect or any noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standa rd that is found to exist in a vehicle that it assembles.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A. P. Corrado -- Director, Market Development, GenCorp Aerojet Electronic Systems Division

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/25/95 LETTER FROM A. P. CORRADO TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Corrado:

This responds to your letter requesting clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, with respect to automatic cut-off devices for air bags. You requested confirmation that the standard "does not preclude the use of inflatable restraint systems that by design inhibit deployment of a passenger air bag in those identifiable cases where the likelihood and severity of passenger injury would be greater with air bag deployment than without." You specifically cited the cas e of out-of-position passengers. As discussed below, Standard No. 208 does not preclude the use of automatic cutoff devices for passenger air bags, so long as the devices ensure that the air bag automatically deploys under the specific dynamic crash con ditions specified in the standard.

NHTSA addressed the legality of both automatic and manual air bag cutoff devices in the context of a recent rulemaking to permit manual cutoff devices under special circumstances. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in October 1994, the agency explained that automatic cutoff devices for passenger side air bags are already permitted by Standard No. 208. However, the devices must be designed to automatically ensure that the air bag is activated under the dynamic crash test conditions spe cified in the standard, i.e., in a 30 mph barrier crash test, with a 50th percentile male dummy properly positioned in the seat. See discussion at 59 FR 51160, October 7, 1994. I have enclosed a copy of that notice for your information, as well as a co py of the recently issued final rule.

I would like to note a safety issue that is relevant to the design of automatic cutoff devices for air bags. Standard No. 208's requirements for air bags are intended to provide safety benefits for a much broader set of real world conditions than the na rrow conditions specified in the standard's dynamic crash test, i.e., at a greater number of speeds and frontal impact angles, for many different sizes of occupants, etc. The agency recognizes the safety benefits that can be provided by well-designed au tomatic cutoff devices that can sense rear facing infant restraints and other possible special situations where deactivation is appropriate. At the same time, NHTSA believes it is important for manufacturers developing automatic cutoff devices to ensure that the devices do not deactivate air bags under circumstances where the air bags would provide important safety benefits.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: K. Olsen

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/4/92 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO BOB BULLARD; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/12/95 LETTER FROM K. OLSEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Olsen:

This responds to your letter of March 12, 1995, requesting an opinion as to the liability of the manufacturer, dealer, or customer in an accident involving a trailer originally sold with used tires. I apologize for the delay in our response.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30112 of Title 49 pro vides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, or import a new motor vehicle or a new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification of such compliance. Genera lly speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first retail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state regulation.

This office cannot give you an opinion as to who may be liable in the accident you described. The question of liability would be a matter of state law. You may wish to consult with a local attorney on the question of liability.

I can advise you that FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, generally requires tires installed on new trailers to be new, but includes certain specified exceptions which do not appear to be relevant here. I n that connection, please find enclosed a copy of a letter we wrote to a gentleman in Odessa, Texas, dated September 4, 1992, which discusses in some detail our requirements for tires installed on new trailers.

This agency does not have any standards for trailer brakes other than air brakes. Also, as indicated above, matters relating to the use of a vehicle, such as connection of the electric brake control to the towing vehicle and loading of the trailer, are not under the jurisdiction of this agency.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Based on your March 12, 1995 letter and your telephone and facsimile communications with the staff of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, that office has initiated an inquiry to the trailer manuf acturer to determine if a noncompliance exists with FMVSS No. 120. If you have further information or data to offer in this regard, please contact Mr. Luke Loy at this address or at (202) 366-5288 or by FAX at (202) 366-3081.

ID: nht95-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1995

FROM: M. Judson Brown, PE -- Central New York Regional Transportation Authority, CNG Bus Project Manager

TO: Mr. John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transport, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/18/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOHN RENOCK (REDBOOK 2; PART 304)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

The Central New York Regional Transport Authority (CNYRTA) of Syracuse, New York has eight natural gas buses which have Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) cylinders which are used for fueling the buses. It was our original understanding that the tanks, which are certified by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) with an exemption (Exemption Number 8814) are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years. I am enclosing a copy of the USDOT Exemption which the tank manufacturer, Stuctural Composite Industries, received from USDOT Hazardous Materials Branch. Please note page 5, item g of the Exemption. I am also enclosing a copy of the regulations, DOT FRP-1, governing manufacturing and test requirements for the tanks.

I recently received a copy of a letter which was sent to Spencer Testing Services by yourself as Acting Chief Counsel for the U.S. Department of Transportation (copy of letter enclosed). The letter states that the Research and Special Programs Administr ation, (RSPA) is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers including the CNG containers used to transport hazardous materials. However, RSPA does not have statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicl e. In other words, as I read the letter, RSPA is not authorized to require reinspection and hydraulic retesting of CNG containers which are used to fuel a motor bus.

Would you please confirm by letter to Central New York Regional Transport Authority that fueling containers on their 8 buses are not required to be re-inspected and hydraulically re-tested every three years under USDOT requirements. Please address the l etter to:

Mr. John Renock Director of Operations Central New York Regional Transport Authority 200 Cortland Avenue Syracuse, NY 13205-0820

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht95-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1995

FROM: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co. Ltd.

TO: Minister, DOT.

TITLE: Re our product: Brake Condition Warning Sensor

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/10/95 LETTER FROM RICARDO MARTINEZ TO SHIH - CHIANG CHEN (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT:

Dear Sirs,

I invented the "Brake Condition Warning Sensor" and applied for the patent right of 17 countries, including my country and your country. (For instance, the patent registration number in your country is 5059947)

The special properties of this patented product distinguishes itself from the similar products available on the market. It helps the third brake lamp to generate flashes of various levels due to the different speeds of stepping the brake when drivers me et various situations happened during the automobile travel in order to warn the drivers behind. Thus the drivers behind could make proper preparations and responses to prevent accident.

It has to been emphasized that the period of flashing from the third brake lamp by using this product is very short. Besides, it will act only when the driver must step down the brake. When the automobile completely stops, the light will automatically stops flashing, but still remain lit. This feature provides drivers with great convenience and safety. Therefore, this product is very popular with automobile industries since it became available on the market.

Although many people from your country take great interests in this product, they question about the "Flashing from the Third brake lamp". They think this product is not applicable and is arguable to the relevant communication codes in your countries.

The questions presented by people in your country are not unreasonable when they are first heard. However, after strict analysis, it is a total misunderstanding to the application range of flashing action. This product only generates the flashing actio n only on the third brake lamp, not relevant to the two tail lamps.

In other words, only the third brake lamp will flash by this device when drivers step the brake to respond to the road situation. The two tail lamps remain their normal function, lit but not flashing. It will not cause confusion to drivers' judgment. Instead, it warn the drivers behind to take proper approaches.

With regard to this point, the automobile industries in my country also questioned about the legal applicability at the very beginning. I requested the ministry of Communications for a proper explanation. The result showed that it is not in contraventi on of the regulation that "The Brake Lamp is Forbidden to Flash After Automobile Stops Completely." (See the attachment for a copy of letter from the Ministry of Communications.) The argument is ceased accordingly. Therefore, this product is legally appr oved and has gained a lot of good reputations.

Because I do not completely understand the relevant communication codes in your country, I will need your assistance to have a better understanding. Your reply will be highly appreciated.

Best regards!

P.S. An instruction is enclosed.

THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

LETTER

[Illegible Words] Received By: Mr. CHEN, SHIH-CHIANG [Illegible Word] To: Mr. CHEN, SHIH-CHIANG

Insurance Date: November 10, 1993 File No.: Lu-Tai-(1983)-Chien-Tzu No. 10182

1. Thanks for your letter dated November 14, 1993.

2. Regarding you pointed out our improper regulation: "The third brake light cannot shine when the car stays still." We have checked the regulation of inspecting the third brake light. The regulation requests new small cars should have the third light device and other items necessary for inspecting when the current highway registration & inspection offices proceed all light inspection.

3. Please bring your attention.

Department of Land Administration Ministry of Communication

(Affixed with the official seal)

(Brochure and patent information omitted.)

ID: nht95-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1995

FROM: Bryan G. Nelson -- Director, Health And Transporation Services, (Parents In Community Action Inc.)

TO: Walt Myers -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/14/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO BRYAN G. NELSON (RED BOOK 2; A43; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers:

We spoke briefly about standards for School Buses and I wanted to get your written response.

You stated that the school bus color was only a recommendation and not a federal requirement. That color requirements for school buses was up to individual states.

I'd appreciate your written response.

Thank-you for your assistance.