ID: nht94-8.25

DATE: February 8, 1994

FROM: Ilmars Ozols

TO: Mr. John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/6/94 From John Womack To Ilmars Ozols (A42; VSA 5104(4)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

As a result of my telephone conversation with one of your associates on February 1, 1994, I am communicating with you and would like to request your assistance to determine if SERV-O-TRAY is in compliance with existing National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration relevant codes and regulations with regards to after market product installation in a motor vehicle.

SERV-O-TRAY is a patented folding/adjustable table for vehicles intended to provide comfort for drivers and front seat passengers whether the vehicle is stationary or movement mode.

For your information I am enclosing a photograph of SERV-O-TRAY prototype installation in a motor vehicle and SERV-O-TRAY's technical description which hopefully will assist you in your task.

If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address, or telephone (619) 327-8290.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Carl R. Walker

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Carl R. Walker Manager, Technical Sales and Service P.T. Brake Lining Company, Inc. P.O. Box 329 Lawrence, Ma 01842

Dear Mr. Walker:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Richard Radlinski, concerning a statement by International Transquip alleging that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) "agree" that the Mini-Max brake system produced by that company complies with Federal standards. You noted that International Transquip has referenced a June 6, 1984 letter from BMCS.

NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment complies with applicable safety standards. I would emphasize that NHTSA has not issued any statement that could be read as "agreement" that the Mini-Max brake complies with FMVSS No. 121.

We are enclosing a copy of a letter addressed to Navistar which discusses NHTSA's position concerning the June 6, 1984 letter from BMCS. The letter also notes that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised a number of issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and two related interpretation letters, to International Transquip and the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles. The CHP and Mini-Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2768).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 24, 1985

Mr. Richard Radlinski Manager, Brake Research NHSTA P. O. BOX 37 East Liberty, OH 43319

Subject: Mini-Max Brake

Dear Dick:

As per our discussion, please find a complete folder and cover letter from International Transquip Industries, Inc., manufacturers of the subject brake. Of particular concern to me is their reference to "compliance to the brake standards", by NHSTA and BMCS. "All agree that it complies to the standards."

In their literature, they make reference to a letter from BMCS (on US DOT stationary), dated June 6, 1984, which seemingly meets the parking requirements of NHSTA. All is attached for your information and reference. Even though this response from BMCS is related to a change notice, it is being interpreted as "full compliance" to FMVSS 121.

Your written clarification of this matter would be most helpful.

Very truly yours,

P.T. BRAKE LINING COMPANY, INC.

Carl R. Walker Manager, Technical Sales & Service

CRW/mdp

Enclosure

cc: Steven Doyle Jim Rabith

ID: 18402.wkm

Mr. Thomas W. Allison
Transportation Manager
Re-Tech Division
Enviroquip Systems, Inc.
341 King Street
Myerstown, PA 17067

Dear Mr. Allison:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff, presented at a meeting with Mr. Myers and others on July 21, 1998, and your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on September 23, 1998.

You stated that Enviroquip Systems, Inc. manufactures portable recycling equipment with 5^th wheels and pintle hooks for transporting. You enclosed with your letter brochures and other drawings depicting 6 models of trommels and 1 picking station that your company produces. You asked whether they would be excluded from the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. You stated that you believe that your equipment may be excluded from the ABS requirements of the standard by virtue of their being over-width and with 2-axle configuration. Your belief is correct.

Each of the items of equipment that you inquired about was designed to be utilized at off-road job sites and, although each is equipped with two short track axles that make them capable of being towed over the public roads from one job site to another, you stated that most of these items are towed to the job site and remain there for the life of the equipment. In addition, the smallest of the group in terms of width, the Landscaper II Portable Trommel, is 8 feet, 11 inches (107 inches) wide. Finally, all materials to be screened are removed from the trommels for transporting, so that only the items of equipment themselves are transported.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S.C. 30102(6).

Based on the depictions of your trommels and picking station and other information you provided, it appears that they are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition quoted above. The pictures and drawings that you submitted, as well as your verbal descriptions, show that the items are designed to be primarily used at off-road job sites for extended periods of time, but may occasionally be transported on-road from one job site to another. In such cases, the on-road transport of these items is merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which the products were manufactured. This contrasts with instances in which vehicles such as dump trucks frequently use the public roads going to and from off-road job sites, but stay there for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since their on-road use is more than just "incidental."

Assuming that your equipment items are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Moreover, subsection S3 of Standard No. 121 excludes from the standard's applicability:

(a) Any trailer that has a width of more than 102.36 inches with extendable equipment in the fully retracted position and is equipped with two short track axles in a line across the width of the trailer.

and

(f) Any trailer that has an unloaded vehicle weight which is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR.

It appears from your brochures and drawings that your trommels and picking station would also meet one or both these exclusions. Therefore, even if your equipment were considered motor vehicles, they would nevertheless be excluded from the ABS requirements under these provisions.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.12/1/98

ID: NCC-241023-001TSEI-TIMA Letter of Interpretation 571.108 Flashing Amber Lights 12-13-2024.signed.

December 13, 2024

Mr. Chuck Polley

Transportation Safety Equipment Institute

c/o Grote Industries LLC

2600 Lanier Drive

Madison, IN 47250

Mr. John Freiler

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

7001 Heritage Village Plaza

Suite 220

Gainesville, VA 20155-3094

Dear Messrs. Polley and Freiler:

This responds to your letter requesting clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, regarding flashing “emergency warning lights.” I apologize for the delay in responding. As used in your letter, the term “emergency warning lights” generically refers to a category of vehicle lighting equipment that consists of one or more amber-colored flashing or strobing lamps that is typically installed on certain types of slow-moving vehicles and utility vehicles (such as tow trucks, repair vehicles, or vehicles transporting oversized loads) to call the attention of other drivers to the presence of these vehicles. 

You ask that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provide clarification of its longstanding interpretations of FMVSS No. 108 and permit original equipment installation of “emergency warning lights.” Alternatively, you ask that NHTSA issue guidance regarding the circumstances under which such lighting may be installed by vehicle manufacturers or repair businesses without violating the “make inoperative” provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (49 U.S.C. §§ 30101 et seq.). 

In responding to this request, NHTSA notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

After carefully considering your letter, we reaffirm our previous interpretations that, under current law, “emergency warning lights” may not be installed as original equipment and that persons subject to the make inoperative provision of the Safety Act may not legally install the lamps as original or aftermarket equipment. We explain our reasoning below, based on our understanding of the information you present. 

Background 

FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. For auxiliary lamps, the primary restriction imposed by FMVSS No. 108 is in S6.2.1, which states that “[n]o additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment is permitted to be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.” Additionally, both original equipment and aftermarket lighting can run afoul of the “make inoperative” provision, and NHTSA considers the installation of an aftermarket lamp to violate the “make inoperative” provision if the installation of the same lamp as original equipment would violate FMVSS No. 108.1 Whether there is an impairment is determined in the first instance by the manufacturer of the vehicle (or the entity installing the aftermarket lighting) when it is certified as compliant with FMVSS No. 108. NHTSA may contest such a determination if it is clearly erroneous.2 These prohibitions bar installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business of lamps that would impair the effectiveness of required lighting, but do not apply to the owner of a vehicle. 

Typically, the impairment determination is made on a case-by-case basis and considers several characteristics of the auxiliary lamp, such as the brightness, color, location, and activation pattern of the lamp, to analyze whether it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting. This list of characteristics is not exhaustive and other considerations may be relevant to the analysis. NHTSA has long maintained that highway traffic safety is enhanced by the drivers’ familiarity with established lighting schemes, which enables them to instantly recognize the meaning the lamps convey and respond accordingly. NHTSA has long interpreted FMVSS No. 108 to require that all auxiliary lamps be “steady burning,” with the sole exception of auxiliary lamps that supplement required lamps that flash, such as turn signals.3 

Discussion 

NHTSA’s longstanding interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 is that the standard does not permit the “emergency warning lights” to be installed as original equipment because they are auxiliary lighting that is not steady burning and would impair the effectiveness of required lamps by causing confusion among other drivers about the meaning of required lighting or distracting drivers from required lighting.4 Further, because “emergency warning lights” would impair the effectiveness of required lamps, NHTSA has also determined that entities listed in § 30122 of the Safety Act that install “emergency warning lights” on new or used vehicles would violate the “make inoperative” provision of the Act. 

Notwithstanding those interpretations, you provide various reasons why you believe that “current regulations permit manufacturers to install such supplemental lighting as original equipment.” We respond to your reasons below. 

1 E.g., Letter to Timothy C. Murphy (Nov. 1, 2004), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/gf006332.
2 Letter from John Womack to Larry Grabsky (Nov. 16, 1993), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/9251.
3 See, e.g., Letter to Richard Seoane (June 27, 2024), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/ncc-231121- 001-autoliv-veoneer-spotlight-interpretation-1; and Letter to Paul Schaye (Sept. 9, 2019), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/571108-ama-schaye-front-color-changing-light.
4 Letter to J. Adam Krugh IV (May 22, 2003), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/002769drn (explaining that a flashing or strobing lamp on top of a school bus would impair the effectiveness of required signal lamps by diverting other drivers’ attention and causing confusion). 

Administrative Rewrite of FMVSS No. 108. First, you state that in an administrative rewrite of FMVSS No. 108, NHTSA removed explicit language in the standard that had contained a provision requiring that all lamps be steady burning unless otherwise indicated. You argue that the removal of this provision indicated an intention to loosen the restriction that auxiliary lamps must be steady burning when activated. 

NHTSA had no such intention. The removal of the referenced “steady burning” language in the FMVSS No. 108 administrative rewrite did not change the underlying substantive requirements that had applied to auxiliary lighting. Before it was modified in 2007, FMVSS No. 108 included an explicit requirement that, with the exception of certain types of required lamps (e.g., turn signal lamps), all lamps on a vehicle, including auxiliary lamps, must be steady burning. In 2007, NHTSA implemented an administrative reorganization of FMVSS No. 108 which, among other things, clarified the blanket “steady burning” requirement (and its exceptions) by converting it into specified individual activation requirements for each type of required lamp.5 Although the reorganized rule no longer includes a blanket “steady burning” requirement, NHTSA stated in the preamble to the reorganized rule that its “rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 is considered administrative in nature because the standard’s existing requirements and obligations are not being increased, decreased, or substantively modified.”6 Further, NHTSA continues to believe that flashing auxiliary lamps would impair the effectiveness of required lamps by distracting or confusing other road users and we have continued to restrict flashing or strobing auxiliary lamps since the rewrite except under a few limited circumstances not relevant here.7 Therefore, because the “emergency warning lights” are not steady burning, they would not comply with FMVSS No. 108 and would impair required lighting. 

Motorists are Used to “Emergency Warning Lights.” Second, you state that one of NHTSA’s reasons for disallowing flashing auxiliary lamps—their tendency to divert attention and cause confusion—is no longer valid for “emergency warning lights” because “the use of flashing-amber lighting has become widespread.” You provide no data or information to support this assertion, except to refer to past agency letters which discussed the make inoperative provision as applied to owners installing flashing or strobe lamps on their own vehicles, including a state installing the lamps on state-regulated emergency vehicles. 

We disagree with your assertion that the letters are indicative of the pervasiveness of “emergency warning lights.” The interpretation letters to which you refer do not endorse the installation of flashing or strobe lamps by individuals or declare that the lights do not impair the effectiveness of required lamps. Rather, those letters simply recognize the limits of NHTSA’s authority under the Safety Act to regulate aftermarket lighting equipment. The agency made, and continues to make, no determination as to whether the flashing amber lights are “widespread.”

5 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007).
6 Id.
7 These exceptions include auxiliary lamps that supplement required flashing lamps like turn signals. See Letter to Jerry Koh (Feb. 6, 1986), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/86-250; see also Letter to Lt. Col. Steve Flaherty (May 2, 2003), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/flaherty (deference to states applies to “the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on [undercover state police] vehicles”). 

NHTSA has long believed that flashing amber lighting can unduly divert driver attention and cause confusion among drivers, even among those who have seen them before. As we have stated, “traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly and unhesitatingly recognize the meaning lamps convey and respond to them.”8 Flashing amber lighting, except for turn signal lamps, is not “an established lighting scheme” within the context of FMVSS No. 108. The meaning of flashing lights can vary depending on the nature of the vehicle on which they are installed, the context in which they are used, and state or local laws. Motorists might not know if the flashing amber lamps are meant to signal the presence of the vehicle for general driver awareness or the need for drivers to yield the right-of-way or perform some other driving task. The use of flashing amber lights is not sufficiently established and standardized to avoid unduly diverting driver attention or causing confusion. Thus, we continue to believe these lights impair required lighting equipment.9 

Other Federal Regulations and State Laws Recognizing “Emergency Warning Lights.”
Finally, you argue that permitting flashing amber auxiliary lamps as original equipment would “harmonize” NHTSA’s requirements with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations and state laws. You state that an FMCSA regulation (49 C.F.R. § 393.25(e)) permits the use of flashing lights on several vehicle types and that a change in NHTSA’s approach would better ensure such lighting is properly wired and installed. We are also aware of exemptions granted by FMCSA permitting certain entities to use pulsating brake-activated amber lights as well as the operation of commercial motor vehicles equipped with the Intellistop device.10 

Our longstanding interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 regarding flashing auxiliary lights is not impacted by these FMCSA regulations, exemptions, or state laws. The FMCSA regulation does not require the flashing lamps to be installed as original equipment or by an entity subject to the make inoperative provision. Additionally, although you allude to safety concerns about owners improperly wiring or installing emergency warning lights on their vehicles to comply with state laws, we are not aware of any state laws requiring installation of these lights specifically as original equipment or by an entity subject to the make inoperative requirement. Nor is allowing installation by such entities necessary to address improper owner installations of these lights. 

If you have further questions, please contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel
 

Dated:12/13/24
Ref: Standard No. 108

8 Letter to J. Adam Krugh IV (May 22, 2003), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/002769drn.
9 Nothing in this letter is intended to conflict with our interpretation, stated in our May 2, 2003, Letter to Lt. Col. Steve Flaherty, that deference to states applies to “the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on [the state’s] vehicles.” Letter available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/flaherty.
10 List of FMCSA exemptions in effect available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/exemptions.

ID: Maxon9759

S.Lafferty, Manager, Engineering
Maxon
16205 Distribution Way
Cerritos, CA 90703

Dear Mr.Lafferty:

This responds to your letter in which you raised several questions regarding Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No.403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles.Your letter raised issues with the control illumination, attachment hardware, and interlock requirements of the standard.I have addressed each issue below.

By way of background, the agency established FMVSS Nos.403 in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle.FMVSS No.403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles.The agency also established the companion standard FMVSS No.404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, which specifies requirements for vehicles equipped with platform lifts.

Illumination of Lift Controls

S6.7.6.2 of FMVSS No.403 requires that platform lift controls on a public use lift must be illuminated according S5.3 of FMVSS No.101, Controls and displays.In part FMVSS No.101 requires that the illumination of controls must be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions.The low level of illumination is to minimize the impact of the illumination on a drivers night vision.

In your letter, you stated that the controls on the lifts manufactured by your company, Maxon, are not located in the driver compartment.As such, you stated that there is no need for a dual level of illumination as specified in FMVSS No.101.

The illumination requirement in FMVSS No.403 is applicable to all controls, regardless of location.An amendment to this requirement would have to be accomplished through the agencys rulemaking procedure.

Attachment Hardware

S6.3.1 of FMVSS No.403 requires that a lift manufacturer provide all of the attachment hardware necessary to install a lift on a vehicle.In your letter you stated that some installations may require longer bolts than that provided or that bolts may be lost during installation.You asked if Maxon would be permitted to specify attachment hardware by "grade, size, plating etc and allow substitute hardware" in those instances.

S6.13.1 requires a lift manufacturer to specify, either by make and model or by design elements, the vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed.The attachment hardware provided must permit the installation of a lift on these vehicles.If a vehicle is listed under S6.13.1 that requires a longer bolt, then a longer bolt must be provided.

With regard to hardware lost during the installation process, we recognize that lift installers may need to obtain replacement hardware.Nothing in the standard prohibits a lift manufacturer from providing the hardware specifications in conjunction with the actual hardware.

Interlock requirements

Your letter correctly states that under S6.10.2.2 of FMVSS No.403, an interlock must prevent operation of a platform lift from a stowed position until forward and rearward motion of a vehicle is inhibited.You then asked what is required if during lift operation there is a failure of the interlock: should lift operation cease or continue in the event of such a failure?

FMVSS No.403 does not specify how a lift must operate in the event of an interlock failure.Therefore, it is up to the individual manufacturer to determine an appropriate default status.

I hope you find this helpful.If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr.Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.2/2/05

ID: nht93-2.37

DATE: March 30, 1993

FROM: David L. Boren -- United States Senator, United States Senate

TO: Howard Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-15-93 from Howard M. Smolkin to David L. Boren (A41; Redbook (2); Std. 121)

TEXT: Enclosed are copies of correspondence I have recently received from ABAS Marketing, Inc., of Norman, Oklahoma, concerning an invention they have for a noncomputerized antilock braking system.

This company has been trying to get the NHTSA to investigate their product through some research that is currently being conducted by your agency. In an effort to be helpful to my constituents, I would appreciate your review of this correspondence and a response that I can share with them.

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to write in behalf of this Oklahoma Company. I will look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Please send your response to my Oklahoma City office to the attention of Jim Hopper. Best wishes.

February 11, 1993

Senator David Boren U.S. Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

Due to the adamant position of President Clinton, regarding the encouragement of small business enterprise as a means to stimulate our economy, we are heartened to rebel against apparent discrimination we have encountered in the Department of Transportation. I am enclosing a letter sent to Jim Britell of the Research and Development section of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration explaining the problem. In order for you to better understand the scope and implication thereof, I am providing some background information below.

We have invented and applied for patent on a noncomputerized antilock braking system applicable to trucks and trailers equipped with air, brakes, air over hydraulic brakes, vacuum hydraulic brakes and electric brakes. We have the only products in the world, so far as we know, in the last three categories. In the air brake ABS competition, currently being waged in the U.S., we are pitted against Bendix Corporation, Midland-Grau, Wabco/Rockwell and Bosch, all of whom have a computerized system. Most of the technology they rely upon is

adapted from European products and imported from Germany by Grau, Wabco and Bosch.

We have products that were created in Oklahoma by Oklahomans. They are manufactured in Oklahoma and we are respectfully asking that the leaders of our State assist us in overcoming the barriers. This can easily become a major industry for Oklahoma if we are not stomped on by the giants or forced to sell out to out of state interests.

Will you please give us the benefit of your expertise in the political arena? We have a great contribution to enhance affordable highway safety, but our government regulators are ignoring it.

Very truly yours, STRAIT-STOP MANUFACTURING CO., INC.

Thomas D. Price President

TDP/dlg Encl.

P.S. I sincerely appreciate the help you have given us in the past. There is no question but that you do stimulate the regulators to action.

Attachment: Letter dated 2-10-93 from Thomas D. Price, President, Strait-Stop Manufacturing Co., Inc., to Jim Britell, Research and Development, NHTSA.

(Text omitted.)

ID: nht92-5.37

DATE: June 30, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Bob Clement -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/11/92 from Bob Clement to Andrew Card, Jr.

TEXT:

Thank you for your June 11, 1992, letter to Secretary Card regarding the use of 11 or more passenger vans for school purposes.

You stated in your letter that concern exists among your constituents in Tennessee as to whether such vans can be used to transport students participating in after-school athletic events. You further stated that you were advised by your constituents that Federal law permits school officials to use 10-passenger vans but not vans equipped to carry 11 or more passengers. In closing, you asked whether the regulations in question provide any relief for the school districts in this situation or, if not, whether this Department or the National Transportation Safety Board have considered revising those regulations.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) appreciates the opportunity to clarify for you our school bus regulations. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. SS1381 - 1431 (hereinafter Safety Act), authorizes NHTSA to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In 1974, Congress enacted the Schoolbus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments. These amendments directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all school buses. Such standards became effective on April 1, 1977, and apply to every school bus manufactured on or after that date. The standards may be found in 49 CFR Part 571.

Under Federal law, a vehicle, including a van, designed for carrying 11 or more persons is a bus. A bus is a school bus if used or intended for use in transporting students to and from school or school-related activities.

The Safety Act requires each person selling a new school bus to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. Thus, a person may sell a new bus, including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons, to a school or school district only if the vehicle is certified as complying with our school bus safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the bus. The seller risks substantial penalties if he or she knowingly sells a vehicle for use as a school bus and the vehicle is not certified as such.

Please note that Federal law and our implementing regulations directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. School districts are not prohibited by Federal law from using their vans to transport school children, whether or not such vans meet school bus safety standards. However, states are free to impose their own standards relating to the USE of motor vehicles, including school buses. Therefore, Tennessee may impose any regulation it deems appropriate regarding the use of school buses.

We also would like to note that it is this agency's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children. In addition, use of noncomplying vehicles of any kind to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. School districts should consult their attorneys and insurance carriers for advice on this issue.

We hope that this information is helpful.

ID: nht78-2.42

DATE: 01/06/78

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

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 27, 1977, letter asking whether a tire retreader is permitted to change the designation of a tire from "tubeless" to "tubetype".

Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, requires that the information appearing on the tire sidewall be the same as that which appeared on the tire as originally manufactured. This is indicated by the language in paragraph S6.3. If a retreader changed the tire designation from "tubeless" to "tubetype", he would be altering the information that was associated with the original tire. Thus, a retreader is not permitted to change the tire designation in the manner you describe.

SINCERELY,

TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE

October 27, 1977

John Diehl Department of Transportation Tire Identification and Record Keeping

Dear John:

By this letter we seek a clarification on the subject of using tubes in tubeless tires.

It is our understanding that some new tires manufactured as tubeless are labeled as being tubetype. We understand that the word "tubeless" on the tire sidewall is removed and the word "tubetype" is substituted. Further, we understand that no safety related aspect is involved in making the substitution.

(Accordingly, we seek your concurrence that a tire labeled "tubeless" being processed as a retread, may be labeled "tubetype" at the option of the retreader). We recognize that such an option cannot be exercised if safety considerations dictate otherwise. For example, a tube cannot be used in a retread in lieu of making a needed repair. Yes.

Your early confirmation that retreaders be afforded the same option of re-labeling as is available to new tire manufacturers is sought.

Philip H. Taft Director

November 2, 1977

Philip H. Tafts Director Tire Retreading Institute

Dear Mr. Taft:

Your October 27, 1977 to Mr. John Dill has been referred to this office for reply.

The tire manufacturer is the one who determines whether a tire is a tubeless or tube type tire.

The retreader does not have the option to re-label the tire cord body inorder to retread the tire, and sell it as a tube type tire, because the original tire manufacturer has followed the labeling requirements of (Illegible words) of FMVSS std. 109.

There are no safety related aspects associated with the reclassification of a tubeless tire to tube type, because inner tubes were used in tires that had a special gum insert on the first or band ply before tubeless tire were in successful production.

The above (Illegible Word) a recent article stating that the placement of a tube in a tubeless tire will cause the assembly to run hot and possibly lead to failure.

Also to aid in the understanding of reclassified tires from tubeless to tube type is the fact that the tube type tire is (Illegible Word) completely through the side wall to allow any entrappes air to escape when the tire contains an inner tube in a tubeless tire.

We hope we have clarified your position on tubeless and tube type tires he re-classified by the retrader.

Drill no control

Legal Concurrence!

(Illegible Word)

ID: nht80-1.48

DATE: 04/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Whitley & Whitley, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William N. Whitley Vice President, Whitley & Whitley, Inc. 20600 Chagrin Boulevard, Tower East Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122

Dear Mr. Whitley:

This responds to your February 8, 1980, letter asking whether the CarVan that you manufacture would be required to comply with Federal safety standards. The CarVan is designed to be mounted over the trunk of a car and weighs approximately 80 pounds.

The CarVan is considered a piece of motor vehicle equipment for purposes of compliance with the motor vehicle safety standards. Since it does not slide into the cargo area of a truck, however, it would not be considered a slide-in camper subject to Standard No. 126, Truck-Camper Loading. However, as a piece of equipment, it would be required to comply with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I am enclosing an information sheet detailing where you can obtain a complete copy of all motor vehicle safety standards.

The agency notes that the CarVan would be installed in such a location that it would obscure the rear lights of the vehicle upon which it is mounted. The agency considers this to be very dangerous and concludes that you should adopt a tail light system for the CarVan. The Federal safety standard for lighting is Standard No. 108. Without a tail light system, the agency concludes that the installation and use of your CarVan would constitute a safety related defect, and we would exercise our authority to require any such defect to be remedied. We note also that many States prohibit any device that covers the license plates.

The agency would like to take this opportunity to correct some misinformation that was supplied to you on May 4, 1978, when we responded to your previous request for information on a camper that was designed to be loaded in a car's trunk. In that letter, the agency stated that the camper would be required to comply with Standard No. 126. That statement is incorrect. Since your camper is designed for a passenger car and not a truck, it would not be required to comply with Standard No. 126. It would be subject to the other standards mentioned above for the CarVan. We regret any inconvenience our error may have caused you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 8, 1980

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Administrator for Rulemaking

Dear Sir:

We are considering manufacturing the CarVan. The CarVan is described in the enclosed resume.

Please indicate how the CarVan will be classed and be regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Please note the CarVan will not slide into the car trunk but will be supported over the trunk.

I am enclosing a copy of your response to my request on a larger but similar type unit.

Sincerely,

WHITLEY & WHITLEY, INC.

William N. Whitley Vice President

WNW:Cj

The CarVan is a new light weight (80 pound) foldable gas saving recreational vehicle (RV). The unit can be attached to a standard or compact automobile trunk and meet the minimal living needs of two adults without increasing the gas comsumption of the automobile. The CarVan provides safe, secure, private space for sleeping, resting, cooking, eating, changing clothes and can be used for all day sports activities, fishing, hunting, skiing, overnight recreational or business travel.

The CarVan will appear and function (without wheels) as an extension of the car. The dimensions of the CarVan in the up position provide sufficient room for comfortable sitting, sleeping and standing, but extend the length of the car by only two feet. The unit folds down for easy road travel. The rear view mirror and regular side view mirrors of the car are functional while driving with the CarVan attached. No additional driving skills are required. Standard size garages and parking spaces may be used for car storage with the CarVan attached.

ID: nht73-2.24

DATE: 05/02/73

FROM: JAMES E. WILSON -- NHTSA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

TO: GALE S. MOLOVINSKY -- ATTORNEY, LEGAL DEPARTMENT NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NY0-30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/30/73 FROM GALE S. MOLOVINSKY -- NADA TO LAUREN SNYDER -- NHTSA; OBTAINED OCTOBER 17, 1973

TEXT: Dear Mr. Molovinsky:

This is in response to your letter of March 30, 1973, in which you asked whether it would be permissible for automobile dealers to modify vehicles as necessary for handicapped persons in such a manner that they might not conform to all the applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

Section 108(b) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (1), states that the prohibition against delivery of a nonconforming vehicle "shall not apply to the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle . . . after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." The question is when the "purchase" of a vehicle is completed so that a dealer or other person is free to modify it as he wishes. We have generally taken the position that the purchase is not completed until the vehicle is delivered to the purchaser. This of course raises the problem you have described in cases where the vehicle must be modified prior to delivery.

Our position, that the first purchase of a vehicle is not completed until the vehicle is actually delivered, is necessary, we believe, in the general situation to carry out the intent of Congress and maintain the effectiveness of the standards. The situation where a vehicle must be modified for the special needs of a handicapped person is distinguishable, however, from the general case in that the modification (1) is necessary for the buyer to use the vehicle, (2) takes the vehicle out of its

2 normal commercial configuration and thus identifies it to the particular buyer, and (3) is performed for purposes other than evasion of the requirements of the safety standards. In this limited case, therefore, we are willing to consider any violation a purely technical one that is justified by the public need, and will exercise our discretion not to take any enforcement action.

Sincerely,