ID: nht93-8.31

DATE: November 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Amantha L. Barbee -- Sales Coordinator, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/14/93 from Amantha L. Barbee to John Womack (OCC-9220), letter dated 1/26/93 from John Womack to Paul David Wellstone, letter dated 8/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Chuck Anderson, and letter dated 9/27/85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Charles Pekow

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to me of October 14, 1993, and your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on October 22, 1993.

You stated in your letter that you are the Head Start Sales Coordinator for Thomas Built Buses, Inc., and in that capacity you have found that many Head Start agencies are using conventional vans to transport Head Start students to and from their programs. You stated that when you asked the directors of the agencies why they did not use vehicles that comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for school buses, their usual answer was "because we have not been told otherwise." You then asked whether this practice is illegal and if so, what your organization can do to rectify the situation.

As Mr. Myers explained in your telephone conversation, this agency has repeatedly stated that Head Start facilities are preprimary schools. Therefore, new buses sold to Head Start centers for use in transporting Head Start participants to and from school must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. However, Federal law does not require Head Start facilities to use complying school buses or any other particular vehicles. The individual states, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

As promised by Mr. Myers, please find enclosed interpretation letters previously issued by us on this issue, as follows: to Hon. Paul David Wellstone, U.S. Senate, dated Jan. 26, 1993; to Mr. Chuck Anderson, dated Aug. 21, 1992; and to Mr. Charles Pekow, dated Sept. 27, 1985.

I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steve Brooks -- General Manager, IAD West Coast, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/1/94 LETTER FROM STEVE BROOKS TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10473)

TEXT: This replies to your letter of November 1, 1994, to John Womack, former Acting Chief Counsel. IAD West Coast ("IAD") is converting a Subaru panel van from internal combustion to electric drive. The vehicle is currently a prototype but "will be modified in the state of California, to OEM build standards." You have asked for help "with the definition of crash testing for front and side impact for the vehicle for current and future production, also with the requirement for dual air bags if necessary."

Because we did not understand what you meant by "definition", Taylor Vinson of this office spoke with you on January 24, 1995. He learned that IAD is engineering the prototype for production by another company, and that your question related to the exte nt of crash testing that is required before production. He then explained to you that there is no legal requirement that prototype vehicles be crashed, but that production vehicles must conform with the performance requirements of standards with crash d emonstration procedures, and that the manufacturer's certification of compliance may be based upon good faith surrogates to crash testing such as computer simulation, engineering studies, and mathematical calculations. The Department of Transportation, however, tests in the manner specified in a standard, and if there is a test failure, will ask the manufacturer to supply the data upon which it based its certification.

Your letter also asks about "the requirement for dual air bags if necessary in the future." Manufacturers of light trucks will be required to install dual air bags in not less than 80% of vehicles produced between September 1, 1997, and September 1, 1998 , and in 100% of production from September 1, 1998, on.

Finally, you have asked whether we have information on approach and departure angles. These are not part of the FMVSS, and are established by the manufacturer in designing a vehicle.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: 16926.drn

Mr. Esko Lammervo
Marketing Manager
OY Talmu AB
FIN-24100 Salo
Finland

Dear Mr. Lammervo:

This responds to your letter asking whether your company's (Talmu's) warning triangles are excluded from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You state that some of your customers, European car manufacturers, are interested in using Talmu triangles in cars that will be exported to the United States. As explained below, because your warning triangles are designed to be carried in motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds (lb.) or less, they are excluded from the standard. However, since your product is "motor vehicle equipment," your company Talmu, as the manufacturer, may be subject to NHTSA's laws as described below.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Effective October 31, 1994, NHTSA amended Standard No. 125 so that the standard applies only to warning devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb. (See 59 FR 49586; September 29, 1994, copy enclosed.) If sold for use with buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb., your company's warning triangles must meet Standard No. 125's detailed specifications for a warning device. However, if the warning triangle is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb. or less, Standard No. 125 would not apply.

Bear in mind, however, that even if excluded from Standard No. 125, your warning triangle, as an item of "motor vehicle equipment," is regulated by NHTSA. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA should determine that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your devices are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:125#VSA
d.2/26/98

ID: 1982-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/07/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Performance Vehicles Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1982, to Mr. Fairchild of this office, asking how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration classifies the "Trihawk" three-wheeled motor vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) defines a motor vehicle, in pertinent part, as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways . . . ." (1391(3)). From the brochure you enclosed, the Trihawk appears to be manufactured for use on the public roads and, hence, is subject to the Federal safety standards, and to other regulations such as those requiring notification and remedy in the event the vehicle fails to comply with any applicable safety standard or incorporates a safety-related defect (1411 et seq.).

Agency regulations (49 CFR Part 571.3(b)) define a "motorcycle" as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." The standards applicable to "motorcycles," therefore, are those that the three-wheeled Trihawk must meet.

SINCERELY,

ATTACH.

PERFORMANCE VEHICLES INC.

November 15, 1982

Roger Fairchild -- Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Fairchild,

Please recall our telephone conversation of 11/16/82. In that exchange we discussed the state of Illinois' view on the classification of our Trihawk motor cycle.

Enclosed you will find Trihawk sales brochures for your inspection.

This letter is written in request of you, on behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to state the classification of our vehicle with respect to existing F.M.V.S.S. and other applicable statutes.

Our hearing date is 12/13/82 in Springfield, I1. Please attend to our request at your soonest possible convenience, as our attorney needs preparation time with your document and others.

Please telephone me if there are any questions or problems with this request.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Richard M. Kleber -- Engineering Manager

ID: GF003174

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This responds to your facsimile dated April 9, 2004, seeking further clarification of our interpretation letter sent to you on April 2, 2004. You believe we mistakenly assumed that your hazard warning signal flasher is a closed type instead of an open type flasher.

In the April 2, 2004, letter, we indicated that the newly reprogrammed flash rate of your hazard warning signal flasher would comply with the current requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (FMVSS No. 108). However, we also stated that the flash pattern in your device is very different from what the agency contemplated in incorporating SAE Recommended Practice J945 by reference in the standard, and noted that existing hazard warning signal flashers operate at an essentially constant rate. Because we believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals and because very different flash patterns have the potential to cause confusion, we indicated that we plan in the near future to modify Standard No. 108 in a way that would preclude your design.

In your latest facsimile, you state that your hazard warning signal flasher is a closed type flasher, as opposed to an open type flasher. You also ask that we explain how your flasher can comply with the requirements set forth in J945, and fail to comply with the requirements of Figure 1.

First, J945 and its accompanying Figure 1 specify requirements for "Flash Rate and Percent Current On Time." The flash rate must be 60 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally open" (i.e., variable load) flashers, and 90 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally closed" (i.e., fixed load) flashers. In the present case, the distinction between "normally open" or "normally closed" flashers is irrelevant because your hazard warning signal flasher would satisfy either requirement of flashes per minute.

Second, our previous letter did not indicate that your hazard warning signal flasher failed to comply with the requirements of Figure 1. Instead, we indicated our concern with the fact that while your flasher met the flashes-per-minute average identified in Figure 1, each individual flash cycle in your flash pattern is outside the parameters established in Figure 1.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.6/14/04

ID: Alliance.1

Robert Strassburger, Vice President
Vehicle Safety & Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC20005-6562




Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This acknowledges receipt of your October 24, 2005, letter regarding our September 7, 2005, final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS)(70 FR 53079). Specifically, your letter raised an issue with paragraph S4.4(c)(2) of the standard, which sets requirements for flashing a combined low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale for a period of 60-90 seconds to indicate to the driver when one or more malfunctions in the TPMS have occurred. The Alliance believes that this provision of the standard, as explained in the final rule, is design restrictive to the extent that the flashing sequence for a combined TPMS telltale is permitted only once per ignition cycle, regardless of the number of TPMS malfunctions encountered. Your letter also, argued that there is not a safety need to restrict the combined TPMS telltale to a single flashing sequence in the rare event of multiple TPMS malfunctions.

According to the Alliance, many current TPMSs have design architectures that automatically send a TPMS malfunction alert each time a new malfunction is detected, and you suggested that for manufacturers using such systems, a redesign would not be practicable before the September 1, 2007, compliance date for the TPMS malfunction indicator requirement. Consequently, your letter requested that the agency permit, but not require, vehicle manufacturers to install TPMSs with combined telltales that reinitiate the prescribed flashing sequence upon detection of subsequent TPMS malfunctions. Your letter sought this result either through a letter of interpretation of S4.4(c)(2), or alternatively, you asked that your letter be treated as a petition for reconsideration of the September 7, 2005, final rule.

Given the language of the standard and the preambles generally clear explanation of the agencys expectations regarding the requirements of S4.4(c)(2), we do not believe that the issue you have raised is amenable to a response via a letter of interpretation. Accordingly, we have decided to treat your letter as a petition for reconsideration of the final rule, and after careful consideration of the issue you have raised, we will respond accordingly.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22251
ref:138
d.12/21/05

ID: nht89-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1989

FROM: GARY R. BALANZA

TO: OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO GARY R. BALANZA FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108; VSA 108 (a)(2)(A) TEXT:

Aloha! My name is Gary Balanza and I reside in Honolulu, in the state of Hawaii.

I am in the process of submitting an application to the U.S. patent office.

The required lighting on motor vehicles is regulated through FMVSS-108.

Since my invention, PINLIGHTS, is a non-required lighting system, I need the N.H.T.S.A.s legal opinion whether this such lighting system will or will not interfere with the standard equipment.

Thank you.

P.S. Please respond immediately, your reply is urgently needed to proceed with the necessary paperwork, thanks again.)

Attachment

PURPOSE AND DISCUSSION OF SAFETY

Accidents and deaths on public roads and highways pose a very serious human and economical problem with major deleterious effects on public welfare.

There is a vital need for the development and promotion of automotive safety equipment and education.

Therefore, I feel that night driving will be demonstrably and scientifically much safer with additional auxiliary lighting systems.

My reason is this, I am in the process of applying for a patent that incorporates a streamlined lighting system that when illuminated, will light up the entire length of a vehicle.

With PINLIGHTS, it is much more visible to see a line of light than the standard auxiliary lamps currently available on motor vehicles.

Given these reasons, please grant me written permission for research and development purposes. I also request that your administration to set standards or guidelines I am able to follow.

DESCRIPTION OF INVENTION

I. SUBJECT: Pinlights (Tradename in process of being applied for)

II. DESCRIPTION: Pinlights is an auxiliary lamp system custom/ mass produced to fit an automobile's side contours. It involves:

A. Creating a cavity on the sides of a vehicle. B. Connecting and wiring of the lighting. C. Covering the sides with one of the many plastics available.

III. VARIATIONS: Please specify, I leave the answers up to the board or committee. 1. Number of stripes allowed on a car. 2. Colors allowed on a car. 3. Maximum brightness allowable.

ID: nht95-6.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs and Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM MILFORD BENNETT (SIGNED BY F. LAUX) TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 1995 letter asking whether a sunshade device is permitted under the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You describe the device as a screen-like device that is stowed in the back panel shelf area below the rear window and that can be electrically raised and lowered by a driver operated switch. The light transmissibility through the combination of the rear window and the raised sunshade is less than 70 percent. The short answer to your question is that the device is permitted.

Although you note earlier agency interpretations stating that windows with sunshades must still comply with Standard No. 205, you believe that the standard does not apply to your device. You state that those interpretations were distinguishable because the other shading devices were attached to the window, while your device is not.

You are correct in your assertion that installation of your sunshade would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can see 70 percent of the incident light through the windows that are requisite for driving visibility, under all conditions of lighting. However, the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only the glazing itself. Your mesh screen sunshade need not comply with the standard (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the rear window (because it is not attached).

Although our standards do not prohibit this device, we have some safety-related concerns with its use in inappropriate situations. NHTSA hopes that GM plans to take steps to minimize the likelihood that the sunshade will be raised in such situations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs and Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM MILFORD BENNETT (SIGNED BY F. LAUX) TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 1995 letter asking whether a sunshade device is permitted under the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You describe the device as a screen-like device that is stowed in the back panel shelf area below the rear window and that can be electrically raised and lowered by a driver operated switch. The light transmissibility through the combination of the rear window and t he raised sunshade is less than 70 percent. The short answer to your question is that the device is permitted.

Although you note earlier agency interpretations stating that windows with sunshades must still comply with Standard No. 205, you believe that the standard does not apply to your device. You state that those interpretations were distinguishable because the other shading devices were attached to the window, while your device is not.

You are correct in your assertion that installation of your sunshade would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can see 70 per cent of the incident light through the windows that are requisite for driving visibility, under all conditions of lighting. However, the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only the glazing itself. Your mesh screen sunshade need not comply with the standard (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the rear window (because it is not attached).

Although our standards do not prohibit this device, we have some safety-related concerns with its use in inappropriate situations. NHTSA hopes that GM plans to take steps to minimize the likelihood that the sunshade will be raised in such situations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 09-002608 403&404