ID: nht72-2.20

DATE: 10/02/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 25 to Mr. Lewis C. Owen of this Office concerning the mounting of front clearance lamps on trucks and buses over 80 inches in width.

You are correct in your interpretation that these lamps must be mounted to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and as near the top as practicable. The width and height of the body in relation to that of the cab on a van type truck governs the proper location; therefore, each application must be judged individually. However, you are correct that the proper location should be the top front corners of the body when the height of the body is significantly higher than the cab.

Since this name question has been directed to us repeatedly and some manufacturers are installing cab mounted lights and others body mounted lights on quite similar vehicles, we anticipate that this aspect will be addressed in future rulemaking actions.

ID: 19886.ztv

David H. Coburn, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-1795

Re: Request for Clarification

Dear Mr. Coburn:

This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1999, seeking a confirmation that a previous interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 remains valid.

The interpretation is one that we sent your client, Baran Advanced Technologies, Ltd., on September 7, 1993. In that letter, we informed Baran that we did not believe that a device which activates a vehicle's hazard warning system upon sensing a sudden release of the accelerator pedal would impair the effectiveness of the stop, tail, and turn signal lamps required by Standard No. 108, assuming that the device is not activated under normal stopping conditions, that it is automatically deactivated when the brake pedal is applied, that manual deactivation is not required, and that the device would be overriden by manual activation of the turn signal lamps.

Regrettably, I cannot confirm that this interpretation remains valid. Our earlier interpretation did not consider the effect of the device upon the hazard warning signal itself. Since 1993, we have come to the conclusion that use of required lighting equipment for other than its original purpose may compromise and reduce its safety effectiveness. As we said in 1996,

It is important that the integrity of the required signal lamps be maintained, and that auxiliary signal lamps not detract attention from the messages that the required signal lamps are sending. A vehicle signaling system must be as simple and as unambiguous as possible to others who share the roadway if traffic is to proceed in a safe and orderly fashion. (61 FR 65516)

See also our Statement of Policy published in the Federal Register on November 4, 1998 (63 FR 59482, copy enclosed).

We believe that a hazard warning system should not be used for the auxiliary purpose of indicating sudden accelerator release, a signal that bears no relationship to a hazard warning signal and one which could create confusion were the hazard warning signal used for an unrelated purpose. We believe that our 1993 interpretation was superseded by our subsequent policy statement, and therefore reverse it and conclude that S5.1.3 prohibits the system as described.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref.108
d.8/6/99

ID: nht72-6.15

DATE: 08/16/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Thoroughbred Homes Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your inquiry of July 26, 1972, concerning the application of defect reporting requirements to mobile home manufacturers

Although mobile homes are not specifically mentioned in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, they are considered to be motor vehicle subject to the Act. Because of their unique characteristics, mobile house have been categorized as a separate vehicle type, "mobile structure trailer," under the motor vehicle safety standards, 49 CFR Part 571. "Mobile structure trailer is defined in section 571.3 of that part.

The Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573) apply to manufacturers of all types of motor vehicles, including mobile structure trailers. They require manufacturers to report the number of vehicles manufactured during each calendar quarter. The description of the regulation's requirements in the article you enclosed is somewhat incomplete and accordingly we have enclosed a copy of the regulation for your guidance.

There are no specific forms which we require to be used in the submission of the specified informations. Copies of acceptable formats you may wish to use, however, are also enclosed.

ID: 19744.drn

Peggy A. Ford, Esq.
Vice President and General Counsel
La Petite Academy
14 Corporate Woods
8717 W. 110^th St., Suite 300
Overland Park, KS 66210

Dear Ms. Ford:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of "'preschooler,' including the age group which is considered 'preschooler.'" The term "pre-school" is used in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) February 1999 Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses.

For purposes of the Guideline, we use the term "pre-school" as it is defined in the Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, Special Second Edition, 1996: "of, pertaining to or intended for a child between infancy and school age." Thus, as defined in the Random House Dictionary, "pre-school age" or "pre-schooler" would refer to a "child below the official school starting age, usually a child up to age five."

I hope this information is helpful. I am enclosing a copy of NHTSA's Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." If you have any further questions about the Guideline, please contact Ms. Diane Wigle of NHTSA's Office of Traffic Safety Programs by telephone at (202) 366-4301.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/7/99

ID: 16441.ztv

Mr. Norbert Westerhujis
Aleidastraat 1
7555 TH Hengelo Ov
The Netherlands

Dear Mr. Westerhuis:

This is in reply to your fax to Taylor Vinson of this Office which we received on November 13, 1997. You have asked "Is it allowed to have fog lighting (front and/or rear) on your car in the United States."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment does not prescribe specifications for fog lamps, either as mandatory or optional equipment on new motor vehicles. This means that the individual states have the authority to regulate the performance of fog lamps, and even to forbid them. I am sorry that we cannot advise you on the laws of the individual states. You will have to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in each state for an answer.

Standard No. 108 prohibits supplementary original equipment such as fog lamps if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. We would regard as an impairment, for example, a fog lamp whose intensity masked the operation of a turn signal or stop lamp. Additionally, front fog lamps must be located either greater than 100 mm from a front turn signal lamp, or the turn signal must be up to 2.5 times more intense than otherwise required, depending on its distance from the fog lamp. See paragraph 5.1.5.4 and Table 2 of SAE Standard J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for use on Motor Vehicles Less than 2032 MM in Overall Width,incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

I hope that this information is helpful.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.12/8/97

ID: nht72-3.15

DATE: 06/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Silver-Top Manufacturing Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1972, inquiring whether you are required to use "laminated safety glass" in the forward-facing window of a pickup cap. You indicate that this window is below the roof line of the cab of the pickup, immediately behind its rear window.

Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glaring Materials", (49 CFR 571.205, copy enclosed) windows in campers, pickup caps, pickup canopies, and pickup covers must be manufactured of safety glazing material specified in the standard, Forward-facing windows such as the one you describe must be manufactured of either AS1, AS2, AS3, AS4, or AS5 glazing materials, as those materials are described in the American National Standards Institute Test E26.1-1966. Materials other than "laminated safety glazing" may be used to meet each of these "AS" categories, and we refer you to ANS Test 226.1 for specific requirements.

ID: nht88-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/88

FROM: DAVE TAYLOR -- REGIONAL MANAGER/FIELD ENGINEERING BRIDGESTONE

TO: JOHN FORTH -- STANISLAUS COUNTY D.A. OFFICE MODESTO, CA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DONALD N. STAHL RE MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO CF696 REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119, PART 574; UNDATED LETTER FROM JOHN T. FORTH AND DONALD N. STAHL TO ERIKA Z. JONES NHTSA RE M CCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO CF696, OCC 1749; LETTER DATED 07/13/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JACK DENIJS EXHIBIT 2; LETTER DATED 05/19/87 FROM JACK DENIJS TO ERIKA Z. JONES, SUBJECT COVERED DOT NUMBERS ON REMANUFACTURED TRUCK CASINGS; DRAWING OF TIRE DATED 01/14/88, MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS TIRE INFORMATION, EXHIBIT 3

TEXT: Dear Mr. Forth,

Attached is the N.H.T.S.A. letter which I referred to.

The 'E12R22.5 V-Steel Express' is not sold in N. America, however we have confirmed that this tire was specifically designed for rubber tired subway trains in Japan and therefor is not suitable by any means for highway use.

We appreciate the diligence of your office and those people involved in discovering them and removing them from the school bus.

We would definitely like to know the source or importer of these casings, or any other information which would assist us in taking the necessary steps to prevent these casings from being sold & used in N. America.

For your information we do not consider these used tires to be 'grey market' tires. All new truck tires imported to the U.S. must meet the requirements of FMVSS 119 and therefor have D.O.T. markings molded into one sidewall of the tire.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht70-1.22

DATE: 10/27/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to Mr. Toms of October 15, 1970, in which you asked whether General Motors could provide one consumer information document to fleet purchasers of motor vehicles, rather than putting a booklet in each car as is done in the usual case.

The answer is yes. 49 CFR 575.6(a) requires that the information be provided "to that purchaser", "at the time a motor vehicle is delivered" to him. It does not require that the information be in the vehicle, or that there be one booklet per vehicle.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht72-1.28

DATE: 01/19/72

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

TO: The Kelley-Springfield Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 18, 1971, concerning the use of the word "fits" in the secondary size stamping on the sidewall of Kelley-Springfield manufactured tires.

It is true, as you indicate in your letter, that the NHTSA prefers the use of the word "replaces," as opposed to "fits." This is because the former term is more specific in describing what both terms are intended to indicate, namely, that one tire size designation has superseded another.

However, the NHTSA is of the opinion that the term "fits" may presently be used under Standard No. 109 in labeling the primary and alternative size designations, if the tire meets the dimensional and maximum load carrying capacities for both sizes.

ID: nht73-2.32

DATE: 11/06/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; W. R. Fiste; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This replies to your letter of October 17, 1973.

We have studied the comments contained in your letter carefully, and based on your extensive experience, have no reason to believe that your use of tubing made of solid neoprene rubber for the application in question constitutes a safety hazard.

Since there is limited movement involved, the use of "tubing" rather than "hose" is appropriate. The Bureau has not, as yet, established standards other than the general requirements of paragraph 393.43(a) for brake tubing used in applications which do not flex. Use of coiled nylon brake tubing for connections between towed and towing vehicles is permitted if the tubing meets the requirements for Type 3B nylon tubing set forth in SAE Standard J844.c.

We appreciate your interest in this safety matter and trust the above is responsive to your inquiry.