ID: CORRECTN.PJA

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This follows up on our March 20, 1996, interpretation letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. That letter contained an error, which was explained to you by Paul Atelsek of my staff in a telephone conversation.

In response to your first question, we stated that the voluntarily installed side exit doors would still be subject to prohibitions and requirements that apply to side exit doors generally. That is true. However, we went on to give two examples of prohibitions and requirements in section S5.2.3.2. As the enclosed letter to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses explains, that section has an introductory sentence that, contrary to the agency's intent, restricts the scope of the requirements to required exit doors.

We would also like to correct any possible implication that voluntarily installed exits are not subject to some requirements. The sentence at the top of page 2 of the March 20 letter stated "[t]o avoid confusion, the force and motion needed to open the [voluntarily installed] exit should be consistent with the other emergency exits (emphasis added)." In fact, the force and motion requirements of S5.3.3 apply to "each" exit, which includes voluntarily installed exits.

We apologize for the error. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at 202-366-5260.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:217
d:8/1/96

ID: nht78-4.19

DATE: 01/25/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of December 19, 1977, you have requested "a testing exemption" for one diesel car to be operated by your technical service department for 1 year, "to determine the marketing potential of a vehicle of this kind."

No exemption is necessary. Pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80 (b)(2)(vii) simply check Box 7 of the HS-7 Form that must be executed upon the vehicle's entry, and attach to the form a sheet explaining the purpose for which the vehicle is imported, the length of time it will be used on the public roads, and its intended disposal after that time.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

December 19, 1977

Joan Claybrook, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: Request for Testing Exemption for One 307 Van

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

We would like to request a testing exemption for:

One Mercedes-Benz 307 Van, 3.5 tons (7,716 lbs.), Wheelbase 3,350 mm (131.9 in.), equipped with OM 616 - diesel engine (4 cyl., 146 cu. in.).

This vehicle will be operated by our Technical Service Department in Montvale, N. J. We propose to determine the marketing potential of a vehicle of this kind.

We are planning to have the vehicle in service for 1 year starting in February 1978. After this time, the vehicle will be shipped back to Germany.

Please feel free to contact us if any further information is needed.

Sincerely yours, K. H. Faber

ID: nht74-5.44

DATE: 08/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lieberman; Tratras & Markowitz

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1974, forwarding to us a second sample defect notification letter regarding the failure of certain trailers manufactured by Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company to conform to Standard No. 108.

Your notification letter still fails to conform to applicable requirements (49 CFR Part 577, copy enclosed for your further reference). Particularly, Part 577 requires a specific opening statement, which you have omitted, and a specific second statement, which you have altered. We refer you to the regulation regarding the opening statement. With respect to the second, it must state, following the regulatory format, that the manufacturer, Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company, has determined that a safety related defect exists. We also prefer, in the case of a defect resulting from a noncompliance, that, in addition to describing the equipment that is missing and that will be installed (as you have done), the notification include a statement that the defect results from the failure to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This information could come at the end of the second sentence of your first paragraph, which we assume will be rewritten to conform to this letter. In other respects your letter does conform to Part 577.

For your information, any future defect reports should be sent to the Office of Defects Investigation rather than to this office.

NHTSA has discontinued its mailing list concerning new regulations. I enclose a copy of an information sheet on how to obtain our standards and other regulations.

ID: 12196.ZTV

Mr. Walter Goodman
Project Coordinator
Recreational Electric Vehicles Int. LLC
9330 Industrial Trace
Alpharetta, GA 30201

Dear Mr. Goodman:

We have received your petition of April 8, 1996, to the Administrator requesting a temporary exemption from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your petition is incomplete, as Taylor Vinson explained when you phoned on April 29. I am enclosing a copy of the temporary exemption regulation (49 CFR part 555) so that my comments will be clearer.

First, every petition must contain arguments as to why an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety. This information is required by Sec. 555.5(b)(7) and is lacking from your petition.

You have petitioned on alternative bases, which is permissible, but the requirements for each basis differ. Applications for exemptions for low-emission vehicles must contain the information specified in Sec. 555.6(b), and those for equivalent overall level of safety must follow the requirements of Sec. 555.6(d). Although you have explained in sufficient detail the exemptions you require and why you require them, the safety arguments required by subsections (b) and (d) have not been made. We suggest that you submit a revised petition that treats each basis separately. If you have any questions on the petition, you may call Taylor again at 202-366-5263.

For planning purposes, manufacturers should expect a decision three to four months after filing a petition that meets our requirements. This time is needed, in part, to prepare, publish, and evaluate comments to a Federal Register notice which is part of each temporary exemption proceeding.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:555 d:5/3/96

ID: GF002470

Ted Gaston, Director of Maintenance
Muncie Indiana Transit System
1300 E Seymour Street
Muncie, IN 47302




Dear Mr. Gaston:

This responds to your recent e-mail asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, permits a hazard warning flasher system that actuates automatically each time a transit bus stops to pick up and discharge passengers. Our answer is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 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.

In your e-mail, you describe a hazard warning flasher system which would automatically actuate each time the following criteria are met: (1) the bus is in gear, (2) brakes are applied, (3) the bus speed is below 3 mph, and (4) the front door is opened.

Table I of FMVSS No. 108 requires motor vehicles, including transit buses, to be equipped with hazard warning signal systems, as specified in SAE Recommended Practice J910, February 1966. Paragraph 1 of SAE J910 defines such system, in part, as "a driver controlled device which causes all turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously". We have previously interpreted "driver controlled" to mean that the hazard warning signal system must be activated and deactivated by the driver and not by automatic means (please see attached letters to Paul Michelotti, Eric Reed, and Mark Steele). Accordingly, the system being contemplated by Muncie Indiana Transit System would be prohibited by FMVSS No. 108.

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

ref:108
d.4/25/05

ID: nht88-2.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/20/88

FROM: LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- NHTSA DRIVER CONTROL PROGRAMS BRANCH OFFICE OF ALCOHOL & STATE PROGRAMS TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS

TO: LARRY P. EGLEY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/ 07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Egley:

This is in reply to your letter to me regarding your Sudden Stop Flasher.

I do not work in the section of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which could appropriately respond to your question. Therefore, I have forwarded your letter to Mr. Ralph Hitchcock, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards with a re quest that his office respond to you. I am certain you will be hearing from someone about your inquiry in the near future.

Thank you for your interest in preventing motor vehicle crashes.

Sincerely,

ID: nht91-1.46

DATE: February 20, 1991

FROM: Louis F. Wilson -- Instant Traffic Lights

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-90 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 9-1-89 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Louis F. Wilson (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are writing this letter in reference to our letters dated September 1, 1989 and February 20, 1990. As of today's date, we have not received any reply from your department.

Along with this letter we will attach the letters dated September 1, 1989 and February 20, 1990 as well as a prototype sample of our product. In light of that what we would like to know is: Would our product meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #108?

Thank you for your time and consideration and we eagerly await your reply.

ID: 15215.wkm

Mr. Carlos Fracaroli
Pirelli
Av. Alexandre de Gusmâo
487-09110-900
Santo André, SP Brasil

Dear Mr. Fracaroli:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter in which you inquired about tolerances in the ambient temperature requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119), and 49 CFR 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. You stated that you found no such tolerances in the standards and asked how you should calibrate your laboratory if none exist, since ambient temperatures can oscillate 5 degrees Fahrenheit (F).

You are correct that the above standards do not provide for tolerances with respect to the testing temperatures of tires. All of our FMVSSs specify minimum performance requirements. Thus, manufacturers must design and build the products to meet or exceed the specified performance. Since increased temperature is generally detrimental to tire performance, manufacturers must ensure that each tire meets the required performance at the temperature specified in the standard, in this case, 95 degrees F. Given the variability in laboratory equipment as you correctly noted, however, the agency allows an ambient temperature tolerance in our compliance testing of +0F-10F. The +0F ensures that the actual temperature will never oscillate above 95F. That upper limit ensures that we do not exceed the requirements of the standard, which would invalidate the test. For your information, please find enclosed extracts from this agency's Laboratory Procedures for Tire Testing and Data Reporting, DOT publication No. TP-119-04, May, 1988, applicable to FMVSS No. 119, and Laboratory Procedures for Tire Temperature Resistance Testing, DOT publication No. TP-UTQG-H-01, May 25, 1979, applicable to the UTQGS. Both publications are available from this agency, ATTN: NAD-40.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact this office at this address or by Fax at 011-202- 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:119#575
d.10/8/97

ID: 7636

Mr. S. Watanabe
Manager
Automotive Equipment Legal
& Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13 Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This responds to your letter of August 7, 1992, with respect to the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of two configurations of rear stop/taillamps and center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) on passenger cars.

In your Figure 1, the stop/taillamps are mounted at 72 inches height above the road surface, while the CHMSL is mounted 3 inches below the rear window. In your Figure 2, the stop/taillamps are again mounted at 72 inches while the CHMSL is mounted above the rear window and between the stop/taillamps. You believe that both Figures depict a conforming rear lighting scheme under Standard No. 108.

You are correct. Standard No. 108 does not specify any spatial relationship between the CHMSL and stop lamps or taillamps. It permits the CHMSL to be mounted anywhere on the vertical centerline of the passenger car, but not lower than 3 inches below the rear window. Standard No. 108 also permits stop and taillamps to be mounted not higher than 72 inches above the road surface. Your two Figures do not exceed these regulatory parameters, and thus, each is permitted by Standard No. 108.

However, the research that proved the efficacy of the CHMSL in addressing the problem of rear end collisions was based upon a triangular configuration of stop lamps in which the CHMSL was the apex. We note that the CHMSL in Figure 1 is at the apex of an inverted triangle, while in Figure 2 the CHMSL is simply a lamp in a horizontal array. It is possible that the benefits of the CHMSL would not be realized through use of the configurations depicted in Figures 1 and 2, even if they are permitted by Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:8/21/92

ID: nht92-4.27

DATE: August 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Watanabe -- Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal and Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/92 from S. Watanabe (signature by P.P. F. Nakayama) to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 7, 1992, with respect to the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of two configurations of rear stop/taillamps and center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) on passenger cars.

In your Figure 1, the stop/taillamps are mounted at 72 inches height above the road surface, while the CHMSL is mounted 3 inches below the rear window. In your Figure 2, the stop/taillamps are again mounted at 72 inches while the CHMSL is mounted above the rear window and between the stop/taillamps. You believe that both Figures depict a conforming rear lighting scheme under Standard No. 108.

You are correct. Standard NO. 108 does not specify any spatial relationship between the CHMSL and stop lamps or taillamps. It permits the CHMSL to be mounted anywhere on the vertical centerline of the passenger car, but not lower than 3 inches below the rear window. Standard No. 108 also permits stop and taillamps to be mounted not higher than 72 inches above the road surface. Your two Figures do not exceed these regulatory parameters, and thus, each is permitted by Standard No. 108.

However, the research that proved the efficacy of the CHMSL in addressing the problem of rear end collisions was based upon a triangular configuration of stop lamps in which the CHMSL was the apex. We note that the CHMSL in Figure 1 is at the apex of an inverted triangle, while in Figure 2 the CHMSL is simply a lamp in a horizontal array. It is possible that the benefits of the CHMSL would not be realized through use of the configurations depicted in Figures 1 and 2, even if they are permitted by Standard No. 108.