ID: 1983-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/24/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Koito Mfg. Co.; Shizuoka Works -- M. Iwase, Manager, Technical Administration Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Mfg. Co., Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of January 27, 1983, to Mr. Elliott of this agency asking whether your "lighting device with 1 bulb and 2 functions" is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The front combination lamp design (parking lamp and side marker lamp functions) is permissible provided that, as you note, all color and photometeric requirements for the respective functions are met.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: MAMORU ARISAKA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING HOMOLOGATION SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/07/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM MAMORU ARISAKA, OCC - 2268

TEXT: Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1988, with respect to a motorcycle lighting device called the "rolling headlamp." The headlamp is designed to have its vertical plane always perpendicular to the ground regardless of the inclination of the motor cycle. You have asked whether such a device is legally permissible.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not prohibit alteration of the mounting angle of a headlamp. Although paragraph S4.3.1 requires each lamp to "be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle," your lamp appears to be "securely mounted" even if it is able to rotate.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: nht91-3.34

DATE: April 30, 1991

FROM: Bill Lewandowski -- Account Manager, Kelsey Products Division, Kelsey Hayes

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: E. Kowalski; M. McGrath

TITLE: Stop Lamp Activation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to William J. Lewandoski (A38; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 7-9-91 from William J. Lewandowski to Robert Helluth (OCC 6245); Also attached to letter dated 5-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Bill Lewandoski

TEXT:

Please provide information relative to NHTSA regulations/guidelines on vehicle/trailer stop light activation.

Can activation of the trailer BRAKES and non-activation of the tow vehicle/trailer stop lights comply with D.O.T., F.V.M.S.S. 108 and/or N.H.T.S.A?

Thanks in advance for information available on this subject.

ATTACHMENT

Literature on the Tekonsha Voyager electronic brake control. (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: 15928.drn

Mr. Robert W. Hawkinson
General Sales Manager
Hawkinson Ford
6100 West 95th Street
Oak Lawn, IL 60453

Dear Mr. Hawkinson:

This responds to your August 28, 1997, request for an interpretation of organizations that are "schools" to which you must not sell buses that are not certified as school buses. As explained below, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider the YMCA or Salvation Army to be "schools," the buses you sell to these organizations need not meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to school buses.

In your letter, you explain that the YMCA and Salvation Army are interested in purchasing 15-passenger Ford Econoline Club Wagons. You are unsure whether NHTSA would consider either organization to be a school. You note that the YMCA may offer classes in basket weaving or wood working to school age children. The Salvation Army uses 15-passenger vehicles to transport school age children to summer camp, which offers classes in archery and swimming.

NHTSA's statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30125 defines "schoolbus" as "a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than 10 passengers, that the Secretary of Transportation decides is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school."

By regulation (49 CFR Part 571.3), NHTSA has defined "bus" and "school bus." A bus is "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." A school bus is "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation."

In interpreting "school," NHTSA has always looked at the nature of the particular institution purchasing the vehicles. If the central purpose is the education of primary, preprimary, or secondary students, NHTSA has determined that the buses sold must meet the FMVSSs applicable to school buses. If the institution serves a function that is custodial rather than educational, NHTSA has said that the buses need not meet the school bus standards.

In an interpretation letter of November 20, 1978 to DeKalb Rental/Leasing, Inc. (copy enclosed), NHTSA determined that YMCAs are not schools. Similarly, because we consider the Salvation Army's function to be custodial rather than educational, we would not consider the Salvation Army summer camp to be a school. Since neither organization is a school, under Federal law the buses you sell to the YMCA or the Salvation Army summer camp need not be school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Dealers' Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures (2)
ref:VSA#571.3
d.9/30/97

ID: nht89-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/89

FROM: MARGRET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH

TO: R. VAN IDERSTINE -- NHTSA

TITLE: HIGH MOUNTED STOP LAMP

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/06/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FRAU MARGRET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Van Iderstine,

Could you please answer to the following questions:

1. Is it allowed to use 6 wedge-base-bulbs (3cp) on one high mounted stop lamp?

2. SAE J186 Nov. 82 says that the effective projected luminous area shall not be less than 29 cm<2>.

How would you measure the projected luminous area of a lamp with 6 bulbs?

3. Must each bulb reach the required photometric values?

4. What will happen, if one bulb is defect?

Thank you very much in advance and all the best wishes,

ID: nht93-6.48

DATE: September 28, 1993

FROM: Thomas G. Cehelnik -- Ph.D., Accutron T.C.S., Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to Thomas G. Cehelnik (A41; Std. 108) and letter dated 1/25/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Larry S. Snowhite (Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am inquiring for information and assistance with the interpretation of Section 571.108 of the Federal Traffic Code. I was informed by the Office of State of Inspection of Pennsylvania that lights that indicate braking must be "steady burning". Our company and others have developed a light system to indicate the deceleration of the vehicle. Pennsylvania has informed us that the NHAT Administration is investigating the safety of such a device. A question of concern: is it and will it become legal to turn on a warning or stop light that indicates the particular dynamic state of the vehicle? Must such a system necessarily be considered as a brake light? I would appreciate a copy of the regulations and any information on the status of the safety investigation. Assistance with interpreting the code is also appreciated. Thank you for your time!

ID: 3233yy

Carl Miller, O.E. Sales Manager
DICO Tire, Inc.
520 J.D. Yarnell Industrial Parkway
Clinton, TN 37716

Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your letter asking about the application of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Information and Recordkeeping, to new tires sold in the replacement market. You indicated that, as a manufacturer of boat trailer tires, you believed that Part 574 required you to provide recall information cards for every new tire, whether that tire was to be installed as original equipment or sold in the replacement market. You added, however, that you heard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had recently restricted the application of this requirement to tires sold as original equipment. Accordingly, you requested the agency to confirm that information. NHTSA has made no amendments to Part 574 that would restrict the requirement that tire manufacturers provide recall information cards only for those tires sold as original equipment. Hence, tire manufacturers remain subject to the requirement that they provide such cards to every distributor and dealer that sells the manufacturer's new tires, regardless of whether those new tires are sold as original equipment on a vehicle or as an individual replacement item.

Part 574 sets forth tire information and recordkeeping requirements to facilitate notification of purchasers in the event that a manufacturer must recall a tire to remedy a safety-related defect, or a noncompliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Among Part 574's requirements, 574.7 specifies requirements for tire registration forms. I believe these forms are what your letter refers to as "recall information cards." 574.7 requires each new tire manufacturer and each new tire brand name owner (or its designee) to provide tire registration forms to every distributor and dealer of its tires which offers "new tires for sale or lease to tire purchasers." [49 CFR 574.7(a)(1)] Part 574 defines "tire purchaser" as "a person who buys or leases a new tire, or who buys or leases for 60 days or more a motor vehicle containing a new tire for purposes other than resale." [49 CFR 574.3(5)]

Thus, 574.7(a)(1) explicitly requires that tire registration forms be provided to every distributor or dealer that offers a manufacturer's new tires for sale to the public. 574.7 makes no distinction between tires to be sold as original equipment and tires sold as replacement products. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 574 and have highlighted the provisions that relate to your question. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref: Part 574 d:ll/l5/9l

ID: 2499y

Mr. Douglas Mayes
President
Creative Products, Inc.
Number One Carissa
Littleton, CO 80127

Dear Mr. Mayes:

This responds to your letter asking questions in relation to your product called "gyroscopic wheel covers." We apologize for the delay in our response.

According to your letter and accompanying information, you claim that use of "gyroscopic wheel covers" can reduce stopping distance. You stated that Dr. Carl Clark of this agency suggested that you request this office to provide a letter specifically outlining the requirements of the agency's braking test, and a list of the various testing facilities used by the agency when testing a product for this purpose. You then asked for a letter stating the "stopping distance test guidelines" of Safety Standard No. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems," and a list of laboratories acceptable to DOT that could be used to test your product. You also asked whether an SAE standard is a proper example of a stopping distance test. You stated that it is your intention to use these testing standards and one of the acceptable laboratories so as to properly document your product's test results in compliance with the DOT testing standards.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its products meet applicable standards.

Safety Standard No. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems, applies to passenger cars and other motor vehicles. The standard specifies, among other things, a number of stopping distance tests that each motor vehicle must meet. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information.

I note that Standard No. l05 was not designed for the purpose of evaluating whether a product such as yours can improve stopping distance. We are unable to offer an opinion as to the appropriateness of using Standard No. l05's stopping distance tests for that purpose, or how such a test program would best be carried out.

This agency does not provide recommendations or endorsements for particular testing laboratories. I have, however, enclosed a list of the independent laboratories conducting compliance tests for NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance during the current fiscal year.

I have also enclosed a copy of an information sheet we have prepared which provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l05 d:6/l8/90

ID: nht76-2.27

DATE: 03/12/76

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

TO: CaL Light Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your latestletter, dated February 17, 1976, you asked "Does the Federal motor vehicle safety standards allow the use of one half of an automobile headlight system on a motorcycle?"

There is no Federal prohibition against an owner modifying his motorcycle to use any lighting configuration, though there may be State or municipal restrictions. The answer where a manufacturer is involved, however, depends upon the type of automobile headlamp system used. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires a motorcycle to be equipped with a headlamp system conforming to SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964. Two options allowed are use of a single 7 inch sealed beam unit, or of one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam unit, provided these headlamps meet the requirements of SAE J579a, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, August 1965. Thus, "one half" of a two-headlamp, or of a four-lamp circular lens passenger car headlighting system could be used on a motorcycle. But use of a system comprised of one Type 1A plus Type 2A (rectangular lens), is not currently permitted under Standard No. 108.

Since there is an equivalence of performance between rectangular and circular lens headlamps systems, if you wish to merchandise a two-lamp (Type 1A plus Type 2A) rectangular system for use on motorcycles, you may wish to submit an additional petition for an amendment of Standard No. 108.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CAL LIGHT CO.

February 17, 1976

RICHARD B. DYSON -- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Dyson,

In reply to your letter of February 12, 1976, first of all, we did not at that time, December 10, 1975, petition the NHTSA for an ammendment. The petition for ammendment was filed on January 27, 1976 by our letter of January 14, 1976.

I have recieved much stationary from your office, however, little of it pertains to the basic context of my letters. I shall request basically the same as I have in my previous letters, although I shall use a different format. I would like your office to give me a yes or no answer on the following question, Does the Federal motor vehicle saftey standards allow the use of one half of an automobile headlight system on a motorcycle?.

I shall be awaiting your prompt reply.

Truly,

Lawrence MacEachern

ID: nht76-5.67

DATE: 02/13/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Charles E. Wiggins; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On January 21, 1976, Mr. Elwood Driver, Director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Office of Crash Avoidance, presented a briefing at your office on the subject of the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, Regulation Part 574. During this presentation, you asked two questions that needed further investigation. These questions and our responses are elaborated below:

1. What is the budget for the NHTSA? How is the budget broken down to the men actually working on the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping and how much does it cost NHTSA to administer?

Response:

In your office an organization chart of the NHTSA down to the Tire Division was presented. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of this chart. We offer the following budget information, based on FY 1976.

Dollars Unit (000) Total NHTSA $ 184,720 Total Motor Vehicle Programs 10,345 Total Office of Crash Avoidance 1,100 Total Tire Division 250 Total Cost to NHTSA to administer Tire Identification and Recordkeeping 33.5

2. There is some question as to the effectiveness of the recall campaigns. Therefore, what percent of the tires are being registered by the tire manufacturers? Once a tire manufacturer sends out a recall notification, how many consumers respond to the notification?

Response:

The NHTSA contacted several major and minor tire manufacturers for this information. They indicated that at the company-owned stores, they have approximately 90 percent registration. From the tire dealerships, they have approximately 40 to 50 percent. Once the recall notification has been sent out by the respective tire manufacturers, approximately 30 percent of the consumers respond for action.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. E. Driver at 426-1741.

SINCERELY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Memorandum

SUBJECT: Meeting

FROM: Attorney Advisor

TO: Docket Red book Part 574.8

On August 16, 1976, in RM 5219 at 10:30 am, I met with Andy Pazahanick, Commission on Federal Paperwork. Those present were Mr. Pazahanick and I

Discussion Mr. Pazahanick asked if NHTSA considered Sec's authority under S158(b) of the Vehicle Safety Act as (Illegible Words) regard to Rops for tire dealer recordkeeping. I said yes.

He asked for the name of a person, in OSE who enforces Part 574 - I gave him Gene Taskinis' name & Rt.

He asked if a truck retread sts existed - I said no

Thomas W. Herlihy