ID: 8407

Mr. Samuel Kimmelman
955 S. Springfield Ave., C-207
Springfield, NJ 07081

Dear Mr. Kimmelman:

In reply to your letter of March 11, 1993, I confirm that Mr. Wood's letter to you of November 1, 1989, remains in force as an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. When the hazard warning lamp system is activated, the front lamps in the system must continue to operate when the stop lamps are activated and override the rear lamps in the system.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/31/93

ID: nht93-2.40

DATE: March 31, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Samuel Kimmelman

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-11-93 from Samuel Kimmelman to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8407); Also attached to letter dated 11-1-89 from Stephen P. Wood to Samuel Kimmelman

TEXT: In reply to your letter of March 11, 1993, I confirm that Mr. Wood's letter to you of November 1, 1989, remains in force as an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. When the hazard warning lamp system is activated, the front lamps in the system must continue to operate when the stop lamps are activated and override the rear lamps in the system.

ID: nht73-6.22

DATE: October 26, 1973

FROM: Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brian Gill -- Assistant Manager, Safety & Environmental Activities, American Honda Motor Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 to Stanley S. Zinner from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 123); Also attached to letter dated 12-4-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from Stanley S. Zinner (OCC 5479); Also attached to letter dated 2-16-82 to Brian Gill from Frank Berndt (Std. 123)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of 0ctober 9, 1973, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking whether S5.2.5 of Standard No. 123 requires footrests to fold automatically when not in use.

The standard does not require automatic folding. S5.2.5 states only the direction in which footrests shall retract, so that if they are inadvertently left down when not in use they will fold rearward and upward should they hit an obstacle while the motorcycle is travelling forward.

ID: nht78-2.38

DATE: 09/21/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILALE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: The B. F. Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to B. F. Goodrich's August 2, 1978, question whether the specified temperature for brake burnish in S6.1.8.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, should be maintained by reducing maximum vehicle speed during snubs even if the reduced maximum speed does not appear among the snub conditions listed in Table IV of S6.1.8.1.

The answer to your question is yes. The snub conditions listed in Table IV represented the agency's best estimate of appropriate speeds for obtaining the specified burnish temperature, given the state-of-the-art of brake technology when the standard was issued. If you have under development a brake design that achieves the specified burnish temperature at a lower speed, it would be correct to reduce vehicle speed below the 40-mph level specified in Table IV to achieve and maintain that temperature.

ID: 0186

M. Guy Dorleans
Legal Compliance Department
Valeo Vision 34, rue St-AndrJ
93012 Bobigny Cedex
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

We have received your letter of July 15, 1994, asking whether certain front lamp designs would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In the basic front lamp design, the upper beam photometrics of Figure 17A would be provided by Lamps A and B. You have asked whether it is possible to add Lamp D, "an auxiliary driving beam." In this variation "all three A, B and D filaments would be permanently energized together in high beam mode and table 17a (sic) of FMVSS 108 is then fulfilled." Lamp D meets the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J581 JUN89 Auxiliary Driving Lamps.

The photometrics of Figure 17A apply to two-lamp integral beam or two-lamp combination headlighting systems, and the design in your drawing is that of a four-lamp system, subject to the photometrics of Figure 15A. This configuration is not permissible under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:8/31/94

ID: nht88-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/01/88

FROM: EARL W. DAHL -- THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY

TO: ERIKA Z JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER 08/26/88 TO EARL DAHL FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, PART 574

TEXT: Dear Ms Jones

This letter concerns the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 574, Section 574.5 (Figure 1). Note 1 in Figure 1 requires that the characters used in the Tire Identification Number must be Futura Bold, Modified, Condensed or Gothic. However, Note 4 of Figure 1 states that other print type will be permitted if approved by the administration.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company wishes to use the style of characters shown in the attached drawing ED1087409 to fulfill the requirements of 49CFR574. These characters are engraved in the mold rather than stamped. We request a letter of approval if N HTSA finds that these characters meet the objective of being "easily readable." (35 FR 17258, November 10, 1970).

We will appreciate your prompt consideration of this request.

ATTACHMENT

Sincerely

ID: nht71-2.1

DATE: 02/02/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Department of Public Utilities and Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of December 14, 1970, concerning taxicab driver security.

It is our opinion that the facts presented do not warrant rule making action in the form of safety performance standards applicable to new vehicle manufacture.

There are available, however, manufacturing options that may be procured to satisfy operational requirements. Bullet resistant glass between the cab driver and holdup men is one that quickly comes to mind. Further, we have issued a notice of proposed rule making (on December 31, 1970, which proposes amendment to the glazing Standard No. 205, (36 PR 326), a copy of which is enclosed. This(Illegible Word), if carried to a rule, would allow high strength plastics such as cellulose acetate butyrate and polycarbonate in areas not necessary for driving visibility. Cellulose acetate butyrate and polycarbonate do not meet requirements of the glazing standard as presently written.

(Illegible Word) share your concern for the security of cab drivers who seem to be under constant threat of robbery. However, we feel that the matter is one of satisfying operational needs rather than safety performance requirements as dictated in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Enclosure

ID: 15108.drn

Dennis L. Pool, Administrator
School Finance and Organization Services
Nebraska Department of Education
301 Centennial Mall South
P. O. Box 94987
Lincoln, NE 68509-4987

Dear Dr. Pool:

This responds to your April 14, 1997, letter requesting an opinion concerning the use of "coach type commercial mass transit buses (Greyhound, etc.)." You state that Nebraska is considering amending its regulations to permit the use of these vehicles on activity trips of long distances.

You first ask "May a coach type mass transit bus be used by a school for trips outside of the regular school route use in light of the definition of school bus found at 49 U.S.C. 30124(a) and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?"

NHTSA's regulations apply to persons manufacturing and selling or leasing new school buses, and not to the schools or school districts operating the buses. Issues regarding the use of vehicles by school districts are governed by State or local law. As to whether a dealer or leasing company may lease a coach bus for extracurricular trips, the answer depends on whether the bus is new or used, and on the extent of use as a school vehicle.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Under 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., a "school bus" is any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. A new coach bus that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If a new coach bus is sold or leased for use as a school bus (e.g., leased on a regular or long-term basis to a school), the vehicle is a "school bus" and must meet the school bus standards. New Greyhound-type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing so, and therefore, cannot be sold or leased as school buses. Conversely, if the new coach bus were leased only on a one-time or very occasional basis, such use would not constitute "significant use" as a school vehicle. In the latter situation, the vehicle would not be a "school bus" and thus may be leased to the school for the special event.

The requirement to sell or lease complying school buses applies only to new vehicles. If the school district wishes to buy or lease a used coach bus on a long-term basis, the seller or lessor is not required to sell or lease a school bus. However, NHTSA believes that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and therefore strongly recommends that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting the school bus safety standards.

Your second question asks "If a coach type bus may be used in the above case, would a school be required to contract or charter it, or may a school own such a vehicle for this purpose?"

As stated above, a dealer or leasing company may lease (charter) a new coach bus on a one-time or very occasional basis, or may sell or lease a used bus for long-term use. A new coach bus cannot be leased for significant use as a school bus or sold for pupil transportation purposes.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Frequently Asked 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
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/16/97

ID: aiam4307

Dear Mr. Rogers: This responds to the letter (USG 2496) from Mr. David Martin concernin how the penetration resistance requirements of Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, would apply to a piece of glazing that has two plys. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following discussion answers the questions raised by General Motors.; The letter explained that the glass manufacturing industry i continuing to develop new types of windshields to reduce facial lacerations. It further explained that a new type of glazing, referred to in the letter as '2-ply' glazing, has been developed which 'differs from the traditional High Penetration Resistant (HPR) windshield and the first generation antilacerative windshields in that it consists of one 'outer' glass ply and an 'inner' plastic laminate.'; The letter stated that there is a question about certifying an item o 2-ply glazing to the requirements of the penetration resistance test (Test No. 26 in ANS Z26.1) that is incorporated in Standard No. 205. In that test, a flat glass sample is supported in a wooden frame and must not allow a 5-pound steel ball to pass through it when the ball is dropped onto the supported sample from a height of 12 feet.; The letter further explains that, >>>When an HPR sample is laid on the wooden frame and the ball i dropped onto it, it cracks and bends somewhat but it is sufficiently rigid so as to remain on the text fixture frame and allow the test to measure its ability to resist penetration of the ball. However, when a 2-ply sample is tested in the traditional manner to Test No. 26, it cracks and bends sufficiently so that the glass test sample falls through the test frame. Thus, the test does not evaluate the ability of the sample to resist penetration of the ball, as is the stated intent of the test. On the other hand, if the traditional test method is appropriately adapted (such as clamping) to retain the 2-ply sample in the test frame, the test does, in fact, serve its intended purpose.'<<<; The letter requests the agency to adopt, by interpretation, modification of the test procedure to permit the retention of a piece of 2-ply glazing in the test frame.; Based on the information you have provided the agency, it appears tha the test procedure used in the penetration resistance test is not appropriate for the newly developed 2-ply windshield. As correctly noted in General Motor's letter, the purpose of the test is to determine whether an item of glazing has satisfactory penetration resistance. Because of (sic) 2-ply glazing material has more flexibility than conventional HPR glazing, the 2-ply material merely flexs (sic) and drops through the wooden test frame when it is struck by the steel ball. Thus, it is not possible to evaluate the penetration resistance of the 2-ply material in the same manner as conventional HPR glazing.; I do not, however, believe that the agency can adopt, b interpretation, a change in the test procedure you have requested. At present, the test procedure provides that the test sample is to be supported in a square wooden frame. The frame, as depicted in Figure 1 of ANS Z26.1, is made so that there is a 7/16 inch lip around the inside edge of the frame. The glass sample is placed inside the frame and supported by the lip during the drop test. The test procedure does not provide for clamping or otherwise holding the sample in place during the drop test.; To address the problem you have raised and to ensure objectivity in th drop test procedure, the agency believes it is necessary to amend the standard to establish uniform requirements for providing additional support to 2-ply glazing materials during the drop test. We will treat the General Motors letter as a petition for rulemaking to amend the standard to set a new test procedure for the impact resistance test. In considering possible amendments, we will carefully examine the work we understand is being done by the International Standards Organization on the clamping of test samples for the drop test.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3679

Dear Mr. Inoue: This responds to your February 16, 1983, letter to Joseph Innes of thi agency regarding permissible methods for displaying Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) information on the sidewall of tires. Your first proposed alternative would delete the treadwear grade number, but not the word 'TREADWEAR' itself, from the format established in Option 3 of Figure 1, 49 CFR 575.104. The second proposed alternative would delete both the word 'TREADWEAR' and the numerical grade from the format specified in Option 3, Figure 1. Your proposed alternatives would be used only on tires produced in molds manufactured before August 8, 1983.; In the agency's February 7, 1983, notice suspending the treadwea portion of the UTQGS, tires produced in molds manufactured prior to August 8 were required to display UTQG information on tire sidewalls in one of the formats specified in Figure 1 or in Figure 6 of 49 CFR 575.104. Your first proposed alternative is clearly different from each of the permitted formats. The permitted formats require either that the word 'TREADWEAR' must appear next to the treadwear grade on the tire, or neither the word nor the numerical grade must appear. Your first alternative could confuse tire purchasers, since the display format could be interpreted as attributing the grade which appears after the work (sic) 'TRACTION' to both the treadwear and traction performance of the tire. Therefore, your first proposed alternative would not be permitted under 49 CFR 575.104.; Your second proposed alternative is quite similar to one permitte format, Option 3 in Figure 6. The only difference between your second alternative and Option 3 is that the traction information is centered in the format in Option 3, while it is slightly off-center in your alternative. Your second alternative should in no way be misleading to tire purchasers, however. Further, nothing in our regulations specifies precise centering of the traction information.; Any inconsistency between your proposed format and the permitted one i so small that the agency would, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, make no attempt to enforce the UTQGS format requirement when your second alternative is used.; If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel