ID: 86-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/86 EST

FROM: ROGER WILLIAMS -- PRESIDENT TECHNICAL HALLMARK ENTERPRISES INC

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/18/86, TO ROGER WILLIAMS FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A29(3), STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sir:

I am writing this letter as an inquiry of what regulations if any are applicable to the new lights that are now being seen on the trunk lids, and the rear windows of new automobiles.

Are there any laws regarding size of the light, color of lens, location, if there are any restrictions on when the light is allowed to come on and if a sequencing such as two or possibly even three individual bulbs pulsating in a on/off pattern would be legal? Would it be possible to allow the light to take on a specific shape or in this case logo or design (example - an Eagle, Cat, bolt of lightning). Could the light be in the form of letters or numbers (#1, U C L A.).

Is there a specific legal name for this light?

Should your department not be able to answer these questions or maybe only part of them, it would be very much appreciated if you would forward it to the correct one. If this is not possible please inform me of the address of that department and I will contact them.

We are looking into the possibility of manufacturing similar lights for installation on automobiles that do not have them and would need the above information to be sure we are within the law.

Thank you very much for your time and help in this effort.

Sincerely,

ID: nht72-5.24

DATE: 06/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: McLaughlin Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letters to the National Transportation Safety Board and the Secretary of Commerce that have been referred to this office.In your letter to the National Transportation Safety Board you discuss the remounting of old school bus bodies on new truck chassis and ask, what are the implications of a body shop taking the responsibility of modifying the vehicle?" It is assumed that when you refer to modifying you mean remounting a used school bus body on a new chassis.

Persons (Illegible Words) new chassis are considered to be manufacturers within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and specifically a final stage manufacturer as defined in Part 565 of Title as of the Code of Federal Regulations.

We appreciate your bringing this situation to our attention and presently have the matter under investigation.

If you are aware of any one currently involved in this type of business (Illegible Word) might not be aware of their responsibilities, please furnish specific details.

I am enclosing the following pertinent publications:

1. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

2. Notice of Publications Change.

3. Part 356 of Title 69 of the Code of Federal Regulations - Manufacturer Identification.

4. Part 567 - Certification.

5. Part 565 - Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

6. Part 573 - Defect Reports.

7. Part 574 - Tire Identification.

If you have further questions, I will be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht73-1.25

DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1973

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Reservation Business Enterprise

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 16 concerning a definition of "steady burning" lamps.

Our definition of "steady" is "regular, uniform; not changed, replaced or interrupted; not fluctuating or varying widely." Stop lamps activated by the Pulsating Safety Brakelite would therefore not be "steady burning."

Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 16, 1973

E.T. Driver, Director -- Office of Operating Systems, Motor vehicle Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Driver;

Over a year ago, I wrote you concerning our "Pulsating safety brakelite". Recently we have developed a legal question concerning our product and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stanlanl no. 108. 108 states that the brakelite must be steady burning. Our device does not over turn the bulb out but only changes it's brilliance in a pulsating manner.

Our question is; does "steady burning" mean that the bulb must always be on, and therefore our product falls within that definition or does it require it to burn at a steady intensity which would make our product fall outside the definition.

We are very eager to get this clarified.

Sincerly

Mel Aanerud, Manager -- RESERVATION BUSINESS ENTERPRISE

ID: nht72-5.31

DATE: 09/28/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ingram Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I apologize for the delay in answering your letter regarding Part 585, Manufacturer Identification. You describe the vehicles you manufacture and ask whether you are a manufacturer within the meaning of the regulation and therefore required to submit information regarding your products.

Part 566 applies to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies. "Motor vehicle" is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways". Since the portable tandem rollers you describe appear to be manufactured for construction or farm use you are not considered a manufacturer of motor vehicles and are not covered by Part 566. Therefore you are not required to submit information under that regulation. For similar reasons you are not covered by the certification requirements of Part 567 and 568 which you also mentioned.

ID: nht93-8.24

DATE: November 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herman Myburgh -- Executive Vice-President, Allvan Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/8/93 from Herman Myburgh to John Womack (OCC-9292)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of November 8, 1993, asking for an interpretation of the conspicuity mounting height requirement of Standard No. 108 as it applies to your curtainsided trailer.

You state that there are no retroreflective tapes that can be affixed to the curtain material itself and ask whether the conspicuity material may be placed on the frame rail. The answer is yes. As you note, in that location the material will be located within the range of mounting heights specified in recent amendments to Standard No. 108.

For your information, submissions to the docket during the course of this rulemaking indicate that there are conspicuity materials that can be affixed to curtain materials. Some trailer manufacturers may prefer this avenue to compliance.

ID: nht73-4.13

DATE: 04/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Anderson-Alford

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 3, 1973, inquiring whether there are licenses and forms that you must obtain before you may install old truck bodies on new trucks.

Persons who install used truck bodies on new trucks are generally considered to be "final-stage manufacturers" under NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR 567, 568). These regulations require final-stage manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles to certify the conformity of such vehicles to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Certification is accomplished by affixing a label to the vehicle. The requirements for both the location and content of the label are contained in the Certification regulations, and you may obtain copies of these regulations as indicated or the enclosed. "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations".

There are no licensing requirements, nor specified forms you must complete before you undertake these manufacturing operations. However, the NHTSA does have requirements, (Part 566, "Manufacturer Identification", copy enclosed) that company within 30 days after commencing manufacture.

ID: nht90-4.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tonda Anderson

TITLE: None

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter asking for an explanation of the legal requirements that would apply to a product you would like to market. Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not p ublicly disclose the details of this product. We hereby grant this request. Your letter, which contains the details of this product will not be made available to the public. As Steve Kratzke of my staff explained to you in a telephone conversation on September 19, all of our interpretation letters are available to the public. Thus, this letter will be publicly available. However, I will not discuss any specific features of your product in this letter.

Your letter indicated that your proposed product would alter the alignment of the shoulder belt to increase comfort for the person wearing the shoulder belt. This agency has discussed the legal requirements that might apply to devices that realign the s houlder belt in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. You should also note that your proposed product would be considered "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the Nati onal Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on such manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevan t laws and regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information or have some questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 2679y

Mrs. Tonda Anderson
1134 Ross Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55106

Dear Mrs. Anderson:

Thank you for your letter asking for an explanation of the legal requirements that would apply to a product you would like to market. Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly disclose the details of this product. We hereby grant this request. Your letter, which contains the details of this product will not be made available to the public. As Steve Kratzke of my staff explained to you in a telephone conversation on September 19, all of our interpretation letters are available to the public. Thus, this letter will be publicly available. However, I will not discuss any specific features of your product in this letter.

Your letter indicated that your proposed product would alter the alignment of the shoulder belt to increase comfort for the person wearing the shoulder belt. This agency has discussed the legal requirements that might apply to devices that realign the shoulder belt in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. You should also note that your proposed product would be considered "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on such manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information or have some questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:208 d:l0/l/90

ID: 6975

Mr. R. Wendell Moore
Acting Chief Counsel for Advocacy
U.S. Small Business Administration
Washington, D.C. 20416

Dear Mr. Moore:

Thank you for your letter concerning a petition for rulemaking on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. While your letter did not identify the petitioner by name, your concerns relate to issues raised in Philatron International's petition to the agency.

Philatron requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) remove Standard No. 106's oil resistance requirement for "air brake tubing." Philatron believed that there was no safety need for the requirement and that it impeded new developments in technology. The petitioner asked that the agency conduct rulemaking to remove the requirement without first providing notice or seeking public comment.

Your letter supports Philatron's petition. Further, it endorses the idea of our issuing an interim final rule which removes the oil resistance requirement from the standard, and then asks us to study the merits of the requirement, pending issuance of a final rule.

This agency is, of course, sensitive to the concerns of small businesses and currently is carefully reviewing its regulations pursuant to the President's recent directive. As required by NHTSA's regulation for rulemaking petitions (49 CFR Part 552), we are evaluating Philatron's petition to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the requested order would be issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding. Please note that NHTSA views the issues and facts relevant to the petition as being more involved than the information available to you may suggest. In addition, please note further that, if a proceeding were commenced, it would be a normal notice and comment proceeding as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.

We appreciate your interest in this matter and will carefully consider your views as part of the petition evaluation process.

Sincerely,

Jerry Ralph Curry

ref:106 d:3/10/92

ID: nht91-7.13

DATE: 11/16/91

FROM: DAVID M. HART -- PRESIDENT, FLUSHSAVER

TO: PAUL J. RICE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-10-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DAVID M. HART (A40; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-3-87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO DAVID M. ROMANSKY (STD. 108)

TEXT: I called NHTSA this date, and after being transferred from department to department, I was advised by a Mr. Roman to write your office.

Our firm specializes in the creation and subsequent marketing of unique patentable products for the mass market.

Our latest is a product which will go by the name FLASHIT, and whose market will be the owners of late model automobiles.

Virtually all late model cars have a third taillight which is located on the package tray in the center of the rear window. The FLASHIT product is essentially a "clear decal", rectangular in shape, which contains a short message. That message for example could be the name of a college (UCLA) or a car rental company, (HERTZ). The word or words contained in the message are not solid print but are clear and become visible when the brake is activated and the red taillight comes on. The red light acts upon the special quality of the product and illuminates the message contained within the "decal". It is essentially no different than the myriad stickers that are currently seen on the rear windows of many cars other than the fact that the message is clearly seen only when the brake light comes on.

Upon investigation we have determined that there is no existing regulation which would prevent the marketing of this product. However since we intend to market the product on a nationwide basis we feel it important to receive feedback from your agency.

Our mailing address is 5440 West Century Blvd. Los Angeles, Ca 90045. Phone 310 670 9939. Your prompt response and assistance would be greatly appreciated.