ID: nht94-1.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 22, 1994

FROM: Robin L. Fennimore, Spectrum Engineering Group

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: School Bus Safety Standards Our File: 94057

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/28/94 from John Womack to Spectrum Engineering Group (A42; STD 206; FMVSS 217)

TEXT: We are currently reconstructing a motor vehicle accident involving a 16-passenger, mini school bus. As a result of this investigation, several questions have risen concerning design modifications performed on the right front entrance door of the vehicle ; specifically, whether they are controlled by and in compliance with any and all applicable FMVSS. We would appreciate your assistance in resolving these concerns.

A 1988 Ford Econoline Cargo Van was purchased as an incomplete vehicle and later fitted with a school bus body by Midbus of Lima, Ohio. A copy of the van's I.D. plate and a Mid Bus brochure is enclosed for your reference. This vehicle was outfitted wit h a remote door opening/closing apparatus and latching mechanism, although maintained the original Ford van door. The O.E.M Ford latch/hinge mechanism was disabled by removing the striker plate.

On January 13, 1989, the operator of the bus lost control of the vehicle, striking both a tree and a utility pole. The collision allegedly caused the operator to be ejected from the vehicle through the right front passenger door.

Given this information, would you please respond to the following questions:

1) Would this vehicle be classified as a "multi-purpose passenger vehicle", a "bus" or a "school bus"?

5

2) Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?

3) Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door, (particularly its loading requirements)? Can you provide copies of the versions of these documents effective in 1988?

4) Can you please provide copies of the 1988 FMVSS 206 and 217?

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (203) 272-1111.

If there are any fees associated with this request, we will be happy to reimburse your office.

ID: aiam0063

Dear Mr. Heath: Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1968, to Mr. Edwin L. Slagle requesting a clarification of the location requirements for identification lamps on reel trailers.; The brochures attached to your letter describe two types of ree trailers as manufactured by the Standard Trailer Company and designated as the 'Reelmaster' and 'Cable Winder/Stringer.' These trailers are completely open in the rear with no permanently attached crossbar for mounting rear identification lamps. On these trailers, identification lamps mounted on permanently attached swinging arms which are located near the wheels of the trailers would appear to conform to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point ou that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.; Thank you for writing. Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: 19-000881- 30122 -- Hestrin interp request_v3

Mark Hestrin

P.O. Box 261070

Encino, CA 91426

Dear Mr. Hestrin,

This responds to your March 5, 2019 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding an aerodynamic device to improve the aerodynamic efficiency of heavy vehicles.  We have interpreted your letter as asking whether such a product would be in compliance with NHTSA regulations.

Applicable Requirements

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act; 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 

NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not make determinations as to whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of agency compliance tests.  Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture.  See

49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1).  Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are also responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects.  Regardless of whether a product is subject to specific FMVSSs, if the entity that created the product or this agency finds the product to contain a safety-related defect after the product is marketed, the creating entity is responsible for conducting a notice and recall campaign as required under 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118-30120.

Additionally, entities producing and installing motor vehicle equipment are subject to the “make inoperative” provision set forth at 49 U.S.C. § 30122.  That section provides, in relevant part: “A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.”  Entities subject to the “make inoperative” provision, including those that produce so-called “aftermarket” equipment, would be prohibited from installing a product on a vehicle if doing so would take the vehicle out of compliance with any FMVSS.

Discussion

Your letter broadly inquires whether an aerodynamic device to improve the aerodynamic efficiency of heavy vehicles would be in compliance with NHTSA regulations.  As stated above, NHTSA does not make determinations as to whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of agency compliance tests.  We can, however, provide some general information about our requirements. 

NHTSA has interpreted the information provided in your letter to mean that such a device would be motor vehicle equipment as defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8)(B), “any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle.”  There is no single FMVSS that applies directly to such a device, but if it is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSSs.  To determine how installation of such a product could affect compliance with applicable FMVSSs, you should carefully review each FMVSS, available online at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/fmvss.

If such a product would be installed as aftermarket equipment, not as original equipment, and if such a product would not replace original equipment, the primary potential restriction on such a product is the Safety Act’s “make inoperative” provision.  If an entity subject to the “make inoperative” provision wishes to install aftermarket equipment, that entity is responsible for determining whether installation of that aftermarket equipment makes inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 

Examples of a way that aftermarket equipment might “make inoperative” any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment include the following: for example, if an entity were to install a trailer hitch in a new or used vehicle, it would need to ensure that its installation does not make inoperative the vehicle’s compliance with the lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment requirements of FMVSS No. 108.[1]  Or, an entity manufacturing a holographic car navigation system could not knowingly place a film on windshields that reduces the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the glazing material or reduces the ability of the glazing to meet any other applicable requirement of FMVSS   No. 205.[2]

Without further information about the device mentioned in your inquiry, NHTSA cannot provide further information about the FMVSSs of which you should be particularly aware.  But note again, as mentioned above, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects.  If a safety-related defect is found after the product is marketed, the notice and recall provisions at 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118-30120 apply.

Other Considerations

You should be aware that even if such a product does not take the vehicle out of compliance with any applicable FMVSSs, it is possible that State and local laws or restrictions may apply.  You may wish to consult the State and local transportation authorities in the areas the product is, or is intended, to be marketed to make sure it is permissible under these laws.  Additionally, if such a product is applied to commercial vehicles, e.g., heavy trucks and buses, the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) requirements may apply.  For further information about FMCSA, please contact FMCSA at 1-800-832-5660 or visit https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/.        

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Hannah Fish of my staff at (202) 366-1099.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/27/19

Ref: VSA Section 30122

[1] See Letter to Mr. Robert Listou (May 4, 2016), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/ES16-001603%20Listou%20Trailer%20Response.htm.

[2] See Letter to Mr. Philippe D. Monnier (January 19, 2017), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/15-004254%20WayRay%20Glazing_sb_3.htm.

ID: nht87-1.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Dawn B. Brown

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dawn B. Brown Currier, Zall & Shepard 207 Main Street P. O. Box L Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-2938

Dear Ms. Brown:

This responds to your January 2, 1987 letter asking a number of questions concerning certain aspects of automatic transmissions. You ask first if there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) relating to the permissibility of a transmission de sign which allows a driver to remove the key from the ignition while the transmission is in drive. You state your belief that "Standard 114, 49 CFR 571.113 is relevant," and ask whether that standard ever has been interpreted for a purpose other than to prevent unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. (We assume that the citation of 571.113 instead of 571.114 was a typographical error.) You ask further if there are any Federal safety standards that address whether a vehicle should "jump from park to drive when left in park." Finally, you ask whether there are standards other then 114 "that govern these problems."

As it is currently written, Standard 114 requires a manufacturer to install a key-locking system that prevents starting a vehicle engine and also prevents either, steering a vehicle or moving a vehicle forward under its own power whenever the key is removed. Thus, the standard does not directly require that the vehicle be in park before a driver can remove the ignition key.

In 1968, when Standard 114 was adopted, the stated purpose was to "reduce the incidence of accidents resulting from unauthorized (motor vehicle) use." 33 Federal Register 6471, April 27, 1968. The agency based this goal on evidence showing that: "Cars operated by unauthorized persons are far more likely to cause unreasonable risk of accident, personal injury and death than those which are driven by authorized individuals." (See the preceding citation). Neither the Standard nor the language in the preamble to it states any other goal.

In 1980, this agency amended Standard 114 to prevent a driver from inadvertently locking the steering wheel of a moving vehicle by removing the ignition key or shutting off the engine (45 Federal Register 85450, December 29, 1980). However, after receivi ng petitions for reconsideration and studying the question further, NHTSA decided that while this kind of inadvertent activation might be a safety problem in certain vehicles, the problem did not then warrant requiring additional steps to protect against inadvertent ,lock-up. Therefore, the agency rescind the 1980 amendment. The agency stated that it would continue to monitor complaints on the subject, and infiltrate rulemaking should new data warrant it ( 46 Federal Register 32251, 32253, June 22, 1981 ).

Currently the agency is re-evaluating whether data warrants amending Standard 114 to improve key-locking systems by reducing the prospect of a driver's inadvertently locking the steering column while a motor vehicle is moving.

As to your question about the existence of a FMVSS which directly addresses the permissibility of a design which allows a car to jump from "park" to "drive" when a driver leaves the car in "park", the answer is there is no such standard. However, NHTSA h as received a number of letters complaining of this phenomenon and, using its authority not only to issue FMVSS but also require the recall and remedy of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects, has conducted investigations based on these comp laints. A listing of the defect investigations based on these complaints. A listing of the defect investigations can be obtained from: Technical Reference Division, NHTSA, Room 5108, 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SouthWest Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Dear Ms. Jones:

Dear Ms. Jones:

I would like to obtain some information about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. First, I would like to know if there are any federal motor vehicle safety standards governing whether a vehicle with an automatic transmission must be in park before th e driver should be able to get the keys out of the ignition. In other words, are there any standards regulating whether or not a driver should be able to pull the keys out of the ignition of a vehicle when it is in drive as opposed to being in park. Seco nd, I would like to know whether there are any federal safety standards which deal with whether or not a vehicle should be able to jump from park to drive when left in park.

Please let me know whether there are any federal standards governing these questions. I am particularly interested in finding out whether Standard 114, 49 CFR 571.113 is relevent. I understand that the purpose of this particular standard is to prevent th e unauthorized use of motor vehicles, but I would like to know whether it has ever been interpreted for another purpose. I would also like to know whether there are other standards, besides Standard 114, that governs these problems. Any information you c an provide will be appreciated. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Dawn B. Brown

ID: nht95-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Seagren -- Dealer Principal, Pony Express Dodge, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/8/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Peter F. Marthy (A43; Part 580)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter sent to this office by telefax on September 12, 1995. In your letter, you ask whether it is permissible to alter an odometer that registers kilometers rather than miles by multiplying the kilometer reading by .62, when there had been a previous attempt to convert the reading to miles. Your letter states that the earlier attempt resulted in the odometer being set back to the equivalent in miles but the odometer continued to register distance in kilometers.

As you are aware from a Federal Register notice faxed to you by Eileen Leahy of this office, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal agency with responsibility for the odometer disclosure regulations promulgated pursuant t o the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 (TIMA) has stated that it is permissible to reset the odometer from kilometers to miles by multiplying the number of kilometers shown on the odometer by .62, and that it is also permissible to certify that number of mil es as "actual" when completing the odometer disclosure statement when ownership of the vehicle is transferred.

The rationale for this policy is that "mileage" is defined in the Federal regulations as distance traveled, and it is permissible to express the number either in miles or metrically if it is known that it reflects the actual distance traveled and that th e disclosure of the odometer reading specifies which system of measure (miles or kilometers) is being used. Because the conversion from kilometers to miles can be accurately made simply by multiplying the kilometers on the odometer by 0.62, the agency b elieves that there is little likelihood that permitting odometer readings that have been converted from kilometers to miles to be recorded as "actual mileage" will result in an inaccurate or misleading representation of the distance a vehicle has travele d.

The situation you describe is more complicated because a previous owner of the vehicle in question had already set back the odometer to the mileage equivalent after purchasing it with an odometer reading in kilometers, but according to your letter did no t execute properly the procedure necessary to make the odometer register miles rather than kilometers while being driven. The result of this error has been the addition of kilometers to a figure that reflected miles rather than kilometers traveled.

In order to permit recording of a conversion of the present odometer reading from kilometers to mileage as "actual mileage" in this circumstances, two criteria must be satisfied. First, it must be apparent that the calculation at the time of the first c onversion was done properly so that it reflects the actual number of miles the vehicle had traveled at that time. From the documents you submitted reflecting the events that occurred prior to your purchase of the vehicle, it appears that the previous ow ner properly converted kilometers to miles. Accordingly, the first criterion is satisfied.

It is then necessary to establish that the reading now shown on the odometer accurately represents the distance traveled by the vehicle since the first attempted conversion. There is no indication in any of the documentation you furnished that there hav e been any intervening alterations to the odometer or changes in the way it has recorded distance that would alter the accuracy of its current reading. In addition, you state that since your company has owned the vehicle, the odometer has consistently o perated in a way that shows that it was registering kilometers rather than miles. Based on these factors, it appears that it will be possible for you to ascertain with accuracy the distance the vehicle has traveled since the first conversion from kilome ters to miles was made.

The proper way to do this conversion is to subtract the number shown as the reading in miles as a result of the calculation made at the time conversion was first attempted, from the number showing on the odometer when you transfer ownership of the vehicl e. The result will be the total kilometers the vehicle has traveled since that time. To arrive at the number of miles traveled since the attempted conversion, the result of that subtraction is to be multiplied by 0.62 as described above. In turn, the number resulting from that multiplication is added to the number of miles at the time of the first conversion and the sum is the total number of miles traveled by the vehicle at the time of transfer. You may then properly certify on the odometer disclosu re statement when you transfer ownership of the vehicle that that number is its actual mileage.

Because the Kansas Motor Vehicle Department asked that you contact this office for our interpretation of the proper way to handle the sale of this vehicle under the Federal odometer disclosure regulations, it would be advisable to provide that office wit h a copy of this letter either before or at the time of your application for a new title.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about this matter, please contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney in this office, at the address shown above or at (202)366-5263.

(9/12/95 telefax from David Seagren to NHTSA is not available.)

ID: aiam3953

Dear Mr. Astle: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff asking for a interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of interior materials* (49 CFR 571.302). Specifically, you asked if the requirements of that standard apply to aftermarket seat covers. While the standard applies only to new motor vehicles, its requirements do indirectly affect some aftermarket seat covers. As explained in greater detail in the attached letter to Mr. Cederbaum regarding the same issue, rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed in a vehicle pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is prohibited if done by certain commercial enterprises, but is permitted if done by the vehicle owner. Thus, if a seat cover in a complying vehicle were replaced with a noncomplying seat cover by one of those enterprises, that act would violate the above prohibition. The same act, if done by the owner, would not be a violation.; Should you need further information or have any further questions i this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-3.2

DATE: 09/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ideal Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 11, 1975. You ask for confirmation that "variable load flashers are permitted as replacement equipment by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for any vehicle contemplated by Paragraph S2 of the Standard, where such devices shall operate in accordance with the appropriate Tables of the Standard." You noted that some suppliers were under the impression that variable load flashers, which do not provide a failure indication, were not permitted as after-market replacements for fixed-load flashers.

The confusion apparently arose when the agency amended S4.5.6 of Standard No. 108 (June 6, 1974; 39 FR 20063) to permit variable-load flashers to be used (i.e., to except from the failure indicator requirement) on trucks capable of accommodating slide-in campers (as well as vehicles of 80 inches or more overall width and those equipped to tow trailers, as provided by S4.5.6 before the amendment). To specify its intent more definitely, the amendment added the words, "where a variable-load turn signal flasher is used," to the exception to the requirement for a failure indicator. Some persons evidently thought that the new, explicit reference to variable-load flashers meant that such flashers could not be used as replacement equipment where the vehicles originally had fixed-load flashers.

That was not the agency's intent. The language was only added to make it clear that where a fixed-load flasher is installed as original equipment, a failure indicator must be included. But a variable-load flasher may be used as replacement equipment for a fixed-load flasher on any of the vehicle classes specified in S2 as covered by the standard.

Incidentally, the statement in your letter that the June 1974 amendment "concerned itself only with original equipment applications" is incorrect. S2 of the standard states in pertinent part that it applies to "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies." This means that equipment must comply with applicable requirements regardless of whether it is used as original or replacement equipment. For example, original and replacement variable load flashers must both meet the appropriate requirements of SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers," October 1965.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

August 11, 1975

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, United States Department of Transportation

Re: Confirmation of Earlier Interpretation Concerning S4.5.6, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108

Dear Mr. Berndt:

As a result of recent misinterpretations of S4.5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 by certain suppliers of turn signal flashers, Ideal Corporation requests a confirming interpretation of this regulatory provision reflecting the advice provided the company by NHTSA Chief Counsel in February 1971. A copy of the earlier letter from Chief Counsel, which was a response to a petition for rule making on the specific point at issue, is attached for your background information and reference.

As the Safety Administration is aware from submissions filed by Ideal Corporation in earlier actions involving Standard 108, the company is a manufacturer of turn signal flasher and vehicular hazard warning signal flasher units for both the original equipment and replacement markets, and is located in Brooklyn, New York.

In June of 1974, NHTSA, responding to a petition by Ford Motor Company, amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 to allow variable load turn signal flashers on trucks capable of accommodating slide-in campers. This action resulted in an amendment of paragraph S4.5.6 of the standard, and concerned itself only with original equipment applications. 39 Fed. Reg. 20063 (June 6, 1974).

In the preamble to the June 1974 amendment of Standard 108, the agency noted at one point that the standard ". . . has the effect of mandating use of fixed-load flashers, since special circuitry would be necessary to sense and indicate a failure in a variable-load system." (39 Fed. Reg. 20063.) Certain suppliers have interpreted, out of context, this quoted passage as meaning that variable load flashers can no longer be marketed in the automotive aftermarket as replacement equipment for vehicles originally equipped with fixed load flashers.

In February of 1971, the Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, communicated its view to our attorneys that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 -- and more specifically paragraph S4.5.6 of that regulation -- ". . . [does not intend] that a variable load flasher used as replacement for a fixed load flasher must provide the outage indication required by S4.5.6 for vehicles originally equipped with a fixed load flasher." Further, your office cautioned that Ideal ". . . should, in the interest of safety, either market variable load flashers only as replacement for like items or call prospective purchasers' attention to the fact that the flashers do not provide an outage indication." Ideal Corporation emphasizes at this time that its turn signal flasher products are clearly labeled in accordance with the foregoing recommendations of NHTSA.

Accordingly, the company seeks a confirming interpretation along the lines quoted above, or otherwise that "variable load flashers are permitted as replacement equipment by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 for any vehicle contemplated by Paragraph S2 of the Standard, where such devices shall operate in accordance with the appropriate Tables of the Standard." We would appreciate a written response to our request.

Sincerely,

Martin Rothfield -- General Manager, Flasher Division

Enclosure cc: Z. Taylor Vinson, Esquire (w/encl.)

ID: aiam0127

Dear Mr. Patton: Thank you for your letter of November 15, 1968, to Mr. J.R. O'Gorman o this Bureau, requesting a clarification of Standard No. 108 as it applies to the lamps and reflectors on your utility truck body and brush chipper trailer.; The lighting equipment shown on your two enclosed drawings, dated Jun 1968, appears to meet the location requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, with the exception that the headlamps are not identified as required devices. If the cab guard is not used on the lift truck, the cab mounted clearance lamps would meet the location requirements of Standard No. 108, provided that the body does not exceed the overall width of the cab.; With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point ou that this Bureau does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of this Standard.; Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: nht74-3.17

DATE: 07/30/74

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

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 3, 1974, question whether the Standard No. 106-74, Brake hoses, labeling requirements for brake hose fittings (S5.2.3) permit labeling in addition to that required in the section.

Optional labeling is not prohibited by the standard as long as the additional marking does not confuse the required marking. We have already interpreted S5.2.2 to permit optional labeling on the opposite side of the hose from the required labeling. The required labeling must appear without additions to make it clearly legible.

Your illustration appears satisfactory as long as the "1/8" and the "lot number" are sufficiently separate for clarity.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

July 3, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is to confirm our telephone conversation of June 27th with Mr. Herlihy of your office regarding the brake hose end fitting labeling requirement of FMVSS 106, S.5.2.3.

We would like to employ additional labeling in block capital letters or numerals, as shown in the attached Figure 1, which is not requested in the Standard and which will constitute "Lot Numbers" by the fitting manufacturer.

We believe that it would be acceptable to have this additional labeling when considering the fact that the FMVSS 106 does not prohibit additional labeling and that we feel the need for additional labeling in order to identify problems more easily if something should happen. We do not think that this kind of additional labeling would cause any confusion with the labeling requested by the FMVSS.

Please advise us as to whether or not our understanding in the above matter is correct.

Thank you for your attention to our request.

Tatsuo Kato

Staff, Safety

Attachment

Example:

DOT OSK H 1/8 XXXXX

Manufacturer's Designation

NHTSA Requested Labeling

"LOT NUMBERS" by fitting manufacturer in block capital letters or numerals at same height as requested in the FMVSS labeling.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht95-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1995

FROM: John C. Golden -- Product Manager, Lighting and Electrical, Federal Mogul Corp.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/16/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOHN C. GOLDEN (A43; VSA 108(a)(2)(A); STD. 125)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

We are seeking some clarification on F.M.V.S.S. 125 and how it relates to a letter you wrote Mr. John G. Klinge, Executive Vice President, Visibility Systems Company dated 12 August, 1994.

We market a wide variety of lighting and safety devices under the brand name Signal-State. Mr. Klinge provided us a copy of your written response to his inquiry before we chose to go ahead and market his product under our name.

Now, Mr. Klinge would like us to market a three-pack version of his battery operated safety strobe device (an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2" on each side) that is, in our opinion, specifically designed for use on DOT warning triangles. We think i t is a terrific idea. However, before we market this item we have one question:

The requirement for warning triangles is for 17" (minimum) leg length and 2" (minimum) leg width. The red reflector must be 1/2" (minimum) width. Does the mounting of one of these devices (as pictured, attached) take away minimum reflective area suc h that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?

Our greatest fear is the possibility of a motorist coming over a hill on a dark night . . . and over that hill is a broken down vehicle . . . with triangles properly deployed . . . but with a Lightman on top of each . . . with dead batteries.

If you think we should contact the Federal Highway Administration for clarification, please be kind enough to direct me to the proper person.

(Brochure Omitted.)