ID: 11030

Mr. Douglas Helbig
Vice President
Spencer Testing Services
P.O. Box 429
Spencer, WV 25276

Dear Mr. Helbig:

It has come to my attention that Spencer Testing Services is advertising its inspection procedure as "NHTSA approved."

This representation is incorrect. NHTSA has not approved this or any other inspection procedure. Therefore, I must insist that this language be immediately removed from the advertisement and that you refrain from making such representations in any other format.

Please send me a copy of the corrected advertisement without reference to the inspection procedure being NHTSA approved. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:304 d:7/26/95

ID: nht94-7.7

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/22/93 from Jane L. Dawson to Walter Myers

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office in which you posed two questions regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Your first question related to the definition of "daylight opening" found in the final rule amending FMVSS 217, dated November 2, 1992, (57 FR 49413) (hereinafter Final Rule). Specifically, you asked "(w)hat constitutes an obstruction and how close to the door does an object have to be in order to be considered an obstruction?"

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. I have enclosed a copy of a March 24, 1994 letter to Mr. Bob Carver of Wayne Wheeled Vehicles which provides an example of how the amount of area to be credited was determined for a specific design.

You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993, (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all types of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice.

In your second question you referred to the current provisions of S5.2.3.1(b), FMVSS 217, which provides that a left-side emergency door must be located in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment. You then asked whether that requirement was changed in the Final Rule. The answer is yes.

Section S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217, as amended in the Final Rule, provides manufacturers two options for the provision of school bus emergency exits, S5.2.3.1(a) (Option A) and S5.2.3.1(b) (Option B). Option A requires a rear emergency door. If additional emergency exit area is required, the first additional emergency exit must be a left side door located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment. Option B requires a left-side emergency door and a pushout rear window, but does not designate a specific location for them. Thus, the amended standard does not specify a location for a left-side emergency door installed for Option B, the equivalent of current S5.3.3.2(b).

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Walter myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht73-5.39

DATE: 11/01/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Adaline R. Crocker

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your question about possible violations of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act by an owner who sells his vehicles without knowing for sure if the odometer reading is accurate.

The Act and implementing regulation require you to state the recorded mileage on the odometer, and tell your buyer if you know that the recorded mileage is wrong. It appears from your letter that you have some reason to suspect the validity of the present reading. If on the basis of the facts available to you, you conclude that the reading is probably wrong, you should caution your buyer by indicating on the odometer mileage statement that the true mileage is unknown.

ID: 7353

Mr. Steven Rovtar
General Manager
Blazer International Corp.
2960 Hart Drive
Franklin Park, IL 60131

Dear Mr. Rovtar:

This responds to your letter of May 28, 1992, asking for "a written ruling" that the product you described "meets current SAE/DOT guidelines."

The product is intended for the vehicle towing trailer market. Currently, lamps on towed vehicles are activated by splicing into the wiring harness of the towing vehicle. Your product eliminates the need for this type of hard wiring. This product "utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle." Photodetectors are embedded in suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. The device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into the device. When the stop lamp or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors read the light emitted, and the towed vehicle's lamps are activated via the completed circuit.

For purposes of this discussion we shall assume that the device is intended for aftermarket distribution. Further, from your description, it appears to be the type of device that is simple enough to be installed by the vehicle owner. The product itself is not directly regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, because it is not replacement equipment intended to replace original equipment. Its installation on a vehicle in use by the vehicle's owner is outside the prohibition contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That prohibition forbids "manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses" from "rendering inoperative, in whole or in part," mandated safety equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps.

Were the device installed by a person in these categories we would be concerned that the addition of the suction cups would partially obscure the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps and, thus, render them "partially inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition. That concern is not lessened by the fact that the device may be installed by a person not covered by the prohibition, such as the owner of the towing vehicle. However, as a practical matter, we realize that the safety impact may be minimal since the presence of the trailer will obscure the lamps on the towing vehicle to which the suction cups are applied.

We cannot advise you on whether the product meets SAE requirements. The legality of the use of equipment that is not regulated by NHTSA is determinable under the laws of States where the towing-towed vehicle combinations are operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:6/17/92

ID: nht92-6.4

DATE: June 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Rovtar -- General Manager, Blazer International Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/28/92 from Steven Rovtar to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7353)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 28, 1992, asking for "a written ruling" that the product you described "meets current SAE/DOT guidelines."

The product is intended for the vehicle towing trailer market. Currently, lamps on towed vehicles are activated by splicing into the wiring harness of the towing vehicle. Your product eliminates the need for this type of hard wiring. This product "utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle." Photodetectors are embedded in suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. The device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into the device. When the stop lamp or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors read the light emitted, and the towed vehicle's lamps are activated via the completed circuit.

For purposes of this discussion we shall assume that the device is intended for aftermarket distribution. Further, from your description, it appears to be the type of device that is simple enough to be installed by the vehicle owner. The product itself is not directly regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, because it is not replacement equipment intended to replace original equipment. Its installation on a vehicle in use by the vehicle's owner is outside the prohibition contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That prohibition forbids "manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses" from "rendering inoperative, in whole or in part," mandated safety equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps.

Were the device installed by a person in these categories we would be concerned that the addition of the suction cups would partially obscure the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps and, thus, render them "partially inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition. That concern is not lessened by the fact that the device may be installed by a person not covered by the prohibition, such as the owner of the towing vehicle. However, as a practical matter, we realize that the safety impact may be minimal since the presence of the trailer will obscure the lamps on the towing vehicle to which the suction cups are applied.

We cannot advise you on whether the product meets SAE requirements. The legality of the use of equipment that is not regulated by NHTSA is determinable under the laws of States where the towing-towed vehicle combinations are operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington

Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

ID: nht95-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 21, 1995

FROM: Tim L. Phillips -- International Tire Marketers

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: D.O.T. Tire Sizing Codes

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TIM PHILLIPS (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 574)

TEXT: Chief Counsel,

Can you assist me in updating my information on new tire sizing codes used within the D.O.T. identification placed on tires? Please either fax me this information or mail it to my office at the address listed below.

Thank you for your assistance.

D.O.T. Sizing Codes Needed Passenger Light Truck Heavy Truck Small Industrial Construction

International Tire Marketers 358 W. Heber Street Glendora, California 91741 USA

Attachment

NHTSA DOCUMENT EXPLAINING THE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FOR NEW TIRES. (OMITTED)

ID: nht78-2.14

DATE: 08/23/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Nippondenso Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 10, 1978, to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting confirmation of interpretations of Paragraph S4.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This confirms your interpretations.

Paragraph S2, Application states the coverage of the standard: to specified vehicle types "and to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies" i.e. those vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. The equipment items listed in Tables I and III are required motor vehicle lighting equipment, and any item manufactured as a replacement for one of these items that has been original equipment on 1972 or later model vehicles, must meet Standard No. 108's requirements and be so certified.

Paragraph S4.7 allows certification by means of a DOT symbol placed on the item itself. No specific design or size is required. The manufacturer may certify by other means as well, specifically those set forth for all equipment items covered by a standard, in Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403): "a label or tag on [the] item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered". We would view an indelible stamp on the container as "a label" within the meaning of Section 114 if Nippondenso wished to certify by this means.

I have no other suggestions regarding use of the DOT symbol, except that it should be of a size and in a location sufficient to readily identify the item as meeting Federal requirements, thereby avoiding any possible misunderstanding.

Sincerely,

August 10, 1978

Taylor Vinson Senior Staff Attorney Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of August 8, 1978 in which I requested information pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Section 4.7.

Question: Is the DOT symbol required on replacement equipment?

Answer: The DOT symbol can be used on either of the following: 1. Stamped on the equipment.

2. Label or tag attached to the equipment stating that the equipment is certified by DOT.

3. Stamped on the container in which the equipment is packaged.

Question: Is there any specific design or size required when using the DOT symbol?

Answer: There is no specific design or size required by DOT.

Question: Please define replacement equipment?

Answer: Replacement equipment is defined as any item of equipment which replaces original equipment that is required to meet compliance specifications set by DOT.

The above information you supplied was transmitted to our head office in Japan. However, they would appreciate the above information in a letter form signed by you. They have also requested any additional information which will be helpful to them in understanding the requirements regarding the DOT symbol.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

Anna Racanelli Assistant General Manager

ID: nht72-1.8

DATE: 04/11/72

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

TO: GGO Group, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 3, 1972, to Mr. Schneider asking whether your Gemini Tow Control System would come under our regulations, and whether you would be considered a brake manufacturer.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering vehicle hydraulic brake systems, Standard No. 105, applies only to passenger cars (not directly to equipment manufacturers), and does not cover the hydraulic braking relationship between towing and towed vehicles. For that reason the Gemini system would not be regulated by Standard No. 105. There are no Federal standards applicable to a tow control system per se.

We would, however, view you as a "manufacturer," and the product you have described as "motor vehicle equipment," within the remaining of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1965.

ID: TurtleTop

Janet L. Kercher-Dudley
Standards Engineer
TurtleTOP
67819 State Road 15
New Paris, Indiana 46553

Dear Ms. Kercher-Dudley:

This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 2003, which was received in this office on October 1, 2003 relating to the early warning reporting (EWR) regulation adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 49 CFR Part 579.

In your letter you reported that TurtleTOP manufactures a volume of transit buses that places it into the "larger group of manufacturers required to report under TREAD Act provisions into the category of medium-heavy vehicles and all buses." You also reported that TurtleTOP manufactures vans that fall into the light vehicle category, but that this production is substantially less than 500 units per year.

As to the vans, you stated that it was TurtleTOPs understanding that, no matter what the volume level, TurtleTOP is required to submit quarterly early warning information about all claims or notices it receives involving fatalities within the United States on those vans.You further requested that we confirm the companys understanding that, due to production levels below 500 units per year and the regulatory classification of the vans into the category of light vehicles (as opposed to medium-heavy trucks or buses), TurtleTOP is not required to report the information required under "the other EWR quarterly reporting provisions of the TREAD Act" for those vans.You referenced information relative to injuries, consumer complaints, property damage claims, warranty claims, and field reports as examples of information TurtleTOP would not be required to report as to its vans.

TurtleTOPs understanding that its vans are subject to the limited reporting requirements of 49 CFR 579.27 (including information about claims involving fatalities outside the United States), is correct assuming the information you provided as to the classification type (i.e., light vehicle) and annual production of those vans is accurate. See 49 C.F.R. 579.27 and 66 Fed. Reg. 18136, 18139 (April 15, 2003).

If you have any further questions, please refer them to Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.11/3/03

ID: nht73-2.29

DATE: 10/15/73

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DAVID J. HUMPHREYS -- RVI WASHINGTON COUNSEL RECREATIONAL VEHICLE INSTITUTE, INC.

TITLE: N40-30: SCF; STANDARD 302

TEXT: Dear Mr. Humphreys:

This is in reply to your letter of April 27, 1973, regarding the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials", to mattress covers. You ask whether "mattress covers", listed under Paragraph S4.1 of the standard, includes a cover "that is used generally to enclose a mattress for cleanliness or sanitary purposes or only the ticking which encloses the mattress filling or core or both items . . ."

We consider that mattress ticking and a cover enclosing a mattress for sanitary purposes are both "mattress covers" within the meaning of the standard, and both items must meet the requirements of the standard.

Thank you for sending us the copy of your memorandum, "Department of Commerce Standards Issued Under the Flammable Fabrics Act."

Yours truly,