ID: nht95-4.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward J. Googins -- Chief of Police, City of South Portland (Maine)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/29/95 letter from Edward J. Googins to John Womack (occ 11258)

TEXT: This responds to your question whether passenger seat belts must be installed on a 1982 school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 20,200 pounds. The answer is no, NHTSA's regulations do not call for the belt systems.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the subject of your letter, a 1982 International - Model # S1700 bus with a GVWR of 20,200 pounds, was manufactured as a school bus.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, establishes occupant protection requirements for school bus passenger seating and restraining barriers. Standard No. 222 did not in 1982, and does not now, specify that newly manufactured school buses with a GVWR of 20,200 pounds have passenger seat belt assemblies. Thus, under Standard No. 222, your 1982 school bus need not have seat belt assemblies for passengers.

However, please note that the States are free to require seat belts in large school buses used to transport students. Enclosed is a February 14, 1992 letter to Mr. Michael A. Martin of the Maine Bureau of Highway Safety, addressing the relationship betw een Federal school bus safety standards and state law. Note that on page two, NHTSA explains that a State may require seat belt installation for school buses procured by the State, as long as Federal compartmentalization requirements are not compromised .

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

ID: nht95-4.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Alison Vredenburgh -- Vice President Research and Development, Error Analysis, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/18/95 letter from Alison Vredenburgh to Kenneth Hardie

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1995, to Kenneth Hardie of this agency, with respect to the Motorcycle Conspicuity Enhancement System (the "System") described in your letter. You understand "that this system may only be used during dayl ight hours and may not affect the headlight", and you ask if there are any other regulations of which you should be aware.

We understand that the System is still under development, and that the intent is to offer it both as original and aftermarket equipment. Two Systems will be tested, at a flash rate of 60 to 80 per minute, one at an intensity of 35,000 candlepower, and t he other at 50,000 candlepower. One System will have three bulbs, and another, four. Each System will be activated when the headlamp is on. We note that motorcycle headlamps are wired to be activated when the ignition is on because many States require that headlamps be operating at all times.

As you know, each motorcycle must be manufactured and certified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 prescribes no requiremen ts for supplemental equipment such as the System. However, additional lighting equipment may not be installed by the manufacturer or dealer before sale if the supplemental equipment impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 (paragraph S5.1.3).

You are therefore correct when you say that the System "may not affect the headlamp." One way in which the System could impair the effectiveness of the headlamp is if it continued to operate at a time when the headlamp is required to provide sufficient i llumination of the roadway (as you recognize in your comment that "the system may only be used during daylight hours"). You have not described the method by which the System will be deactivated. We believe that this should not be a manual operation, le ft to the discretion of the motorcycle operator. In establishing the specifications that allow optional installation of modulating headlamp systems for improving the conspicuity of motorcycles, this agency requires that they be equipped with a sensor th at will deactivate the modulation when a certain low ambient light level is reached. Also, the modulation rate is regulated to prevent seizures in susceptible individuals. I enclose a copy of paragraph S5.6 of Standard No. 108 which discusses these lig ht levels.

The System must also not impair the effectiveness of the motorcycle's front turn signals. That is to say, it must not mask the signal or detract from its detectability by oncoming drivers. Whether this might occur will depend upon the color and brightn ess of the System and its proximity to the turn signal lamp.

If a motorcycle manufacturer is satisfied that the installation of the System on its product would be permissible under S5.1.3, then it may certify that the motorcycle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA will not ques tion a determination of non-impairment unless it appears to be clearly erroneous.

Satisfaction of Federal new vehicle requirements means that the System is acceptable for sale in the aftermarket under Federal regulations. However, supplementary lighting equipment, whether original or aftermarket, that is not specifically covered by S tandard No. 108 remains subject to regulation by the States. We note that many States have vehicle equipment and use regulations regarding auxiliary amber flashing lamps, Many States also prohibit blue as a color for lamps, reserving it for police, fire , and emergency vehicles. We are unable to advise you on the specifics of State laws, and urge you to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-4.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Van Sciver -- Sciver Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/3/95 letter from Ken Van Sciver to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC 11293)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 3, 1995 to this office requesting information on any safety standards applicable to the Auto Bib, a new product you are developing and marketing. From the promotional material you furnished with your letter, your Auto Bib can be described as a portable cover, of Naugahyde fabric, that clips between the window and door molding of a vehicle's door. The Auto Bib unrolls downward to cover the door, and is intended to protect the door's upholstery from damage caused by children, pets, and the sun.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing and testing moto r vehicles and equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the noncompli ance or defect at no charge to the customer. NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, or grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market.

Turning now to the Auto Bib, NHTSA would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.), @ 30102(7)(B) as any "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." Specifically, the Auto Bib is an accessory if it meets two tests:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing the product literature you enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the Auto Bib is an accessory. The Auto Bib was designed and is being marketed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in motor veh icles. Even its name indicates its intended purpose. Secondly, the promotional literature makes it clear that the Auto Bib is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, as distinguished from professional vehicle r epair businesses, since its stated purpose is to preserve motor vehicle upholstery from damage by children, pets, and the sun.

While the Auto Bib is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, you as the manufacturer are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30116 - 30121 which set fort h the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. As noted earlier, in the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchaser s of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

You asked about state or local requirements that may apply to your product. NHTSA has no information on such requirements. You may, however, be able to obtain some relevant information in that regard from:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-0145; Fax (202) 898-0148

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

ID: 8840

Mr. Ray M. Miyamoto
Apt. B-407
95-2055 Waikalani Pl.
Mililani, HI 96789

Dear Mr. Miyamoto:

This responds to your letter on June 19, 1993, requesting permission to retrofit older cars with air bags. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection, beginning with the 1995 model year. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used.) A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all new cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

After the first purchase of a vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This "render inoperative" provision would prohibit you, as a commercial repair business, from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with any applicable safety standard. This provision does not require you to ensure that the vehicle would have complied with Standard No. 208 if the air bag had been installed in the vehicle as original equipment, it only requires you to ensure that the installation does not "render inoperative" any of the devices or design elements which were installed as original equipment. You do not need to receive permission from NHTSA prior to opening your business, however, any violations of the "render inoperative" prohibition would subject you to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. In addition, you may wish to consult state law concerning liability if you retrofit vehicles with air bags.

Given the safety benefits that air bags are now providing, we understand that many persons desire that air bags be made available to be retrofitted in vehicles which were not originally equipped with this life-saving device. However, this concept poses enormous engineering challenges. New car manufacturers design air bag systems for the car in which it is installed. In designing the air bag system, air bag size, shape, venting and inflator gas generation characteristics are predicated on the specific car interior, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, gage array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes.

It is highly unlikely that a retrofit system for older cars can be devised that could provide the safety and functional characteristics of current new car systems which are integrated into car design from inception. Moreover, unless an air bag system was designed in light of the specific characteristics of the vehicle for which it was intended, it is possible that the air bag might not provide any safety benefits in a crash, or even create a safety problem (e.g., if it activated under inappropriate circumstances). I am enclosing a copy of an article from the April 29, 1993, Washington Post which also discusses the difficulties in installing air bags in used cars.

NHTSA is aware, however, that at least one major air bag manufacturer, Breed Automotive, is attempting to develop retrofit air bag systems for certain popular cars, trucks, and vans which were produced without driver air bags in the last few years. If you desire further information about this program at that company, Mr. William Textores (201) 299-6500 may be willing to provide you with such information. I must emphasize, however, that NHTSA does not endorse any commercial products.

I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208 d:7/29/93

ID: 8864

Mr. Zaher A. Obeid
President & CEO
Petrobeid of Syria
P.O. Box 3780
Damascus, Syria

Dear Mr. Obeid:

We have received your FAX of July 14, 1993, asking for comments on the "Zatalite" which you would like to sell in the United States in the near future.

The Zatalite is a message board intended to be installed in the rear window of motor vehicles. We have been asked before about this kind of device, and I enclose a copy of our letter of August 17, 1989, to Alan S. Eldahr explaining the circumstances under which installation of an electronic message board is and is not permissible under U.S. Federal law.

Your Figure 3(c) shows the Zatalite controls built into a steering wheel. We believe that you should review this method of installation to ensure that it does not affect compliance of vehicles equipped with airbags (installed in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208), or, if the vehicle has no airbag, with Standard No. 203 (requirements intended to protect the driver in an impact with the steering control system).

I hope that this information is useful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#108

ID: 8866

Mr. Charles D. Shipley
Director
Ohio Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 7167
Columbus, OH 43266-0563

Dear Mr. Shipley:

Thank you for your letter of July 6, 1993, informing us of the views of your Department with respect to the legality under Ohio law of underbody-mounted neon lighting on motor vehicles.

You have asked for information and guidance in addressing the possible hazards and confusion presented by this aftermarket equipment. I am afraid that there is little we can do to help you. The agency has not made a study of possible safety hazards from this relatively new item of motor vehicle equipment, and yours is, perhaps, only the third letter this Office has received on the subject. I enclose a copy of our letter of April 21, 1992, to Allan Schwartz who inquired about such a system.

You have also asked for information on applicable Federal regulations. There is no Federal prohibition on the manufacture and sale of underbody neon lights. This appears to be an aftermarket system which is purchased and installed on vehicles in use. We have advised that, under these circumstances and under Federal law, there is no prohibition against owner-installation of underbody neon lights, and that use of such equipment is determinable under the laws of any State where a vehicle so equipped is operated. As we do not interpret State laws, we have referred our correspondents to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for further information.

Installation of aftermarket underbody neon lighting by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is not prohibited under Federal law as long as it does not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). If it could be demonstrated that use of the neon lighting impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment installed in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 then arguably the lighting equipment has been rendered partially inoperative and a violation of the prohibition may have occurred.

Your letter is the first expression we have had of possible conflict of underbody neon lighting with State laws and of potential safety issues related to this equipment. As such, it will assist us in replying to future inquiries on this subject. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:18#108 d:7/29/93

ID: 8867

Harold R. Burke, Esq.
Duel and Holland
289 Greenwich Avenue
Greenwich, CT 06830-6595

Re: Importation of Type M-151 Military Vehicle

Dear Mr. Burke:

We have received your letter of July 8, 1993, asking several questions about the motor vehicle importation regulations as they apply to M-151 military vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your client wishes to import for resale in the U.S. approximately 8,000 such vehicles built in the U.S. between 1973-75, and which, according to you, have never been used.

Before I answer your questions, you should know that it has been the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) for at least two decades to section and scrap M-151s at the end of their useful military life rather than to sell them for civilian use or allow further use by other government agencies. This policy, which was developed with the participation and support of this agency, is based on the tendency of the M-151 to turn over during quick turning maneuvers or when driven by unskilled operators. DOD has followed this policy consistently, notwithstanding the economic benefits that would accrue to the government were the vehicles allowed to be sold to the public or to be operated by other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Park Service, in non- military applications. The unvarying applicability of this policy highlights the safety concern of two Federal Departments for civilian use of the M-151, and we believe that your client should be aware of the potential liability that sale to the public would entail.

Your client should also be aware that, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), (the Act), any person importing motor vehicles for resale is considered the "manufacturer" of these vehicles, and would have the same responsibility as the original manufacturer to notify owners and remedy safety related defects in the event they occurred in the M-151. (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)). For example, the agency has the authority to determine that a tendency to overturn is a defect in performance, a safety related defect which would require the importer for resale to notify and remedy in accordance with statutory requirements (l5 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.)

You have asked the following three questions:

"1. As U.S. origin vehicles which have been outside this country since 1975 are they now classified as 'foreign' vehicles which are subject to current D.O.T. and E.P.A. safety and emissions criteria?"

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not classify motor vehicles as "domestic" and "foreign." Any motor vehicle, whether manufactured in the U.S. or elsewhere, must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be sold in the U.S. The FMVSS that apply to a motor vehicle to be imported into the U.S. are those that were in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured, not those in effect at the time of its importation. We are unable to advise you on the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency as it is an agency independent of the Department of Transportation.

In order to be imported into the U.S., a motor vehicle must conform with (or be brought into conformity with) any applicable FMVSS. Although the M-151 is a "motor vehicle" under the Act, from the beginning the agency on its own volition has excluded motor vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications from compliance with the FMVSS (49 CFR 571.7(a)), though retaining jurisdiction over them for safety defect notification and remedy campaigns. This means that the M-151 was not designed to comply with FMVSS at the time of its manufacture.

For importers of an M-151 other than the Armed Forces of the United States, the importer would be required, as a condition of importation, to bring the M-151 into compliance with the FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. However, because of the restrictions imposed by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (PL 100-562), it is no longer simple to import nonconforming motor vehicles to which the FMVSS apply. Under this recent legislation, the agency must make a formal determination, either pursuant to a petition or on its own motion, that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS. Following this, a vehicle may be imported by its owner, only if the owner has a contract with a "registered importer" (one whom the agency has recognized as a converter) to convert the vehicles, or if the importer itself is a registered importer. However, nonconforming vehicles which are imported for resale can only be imported by a registered importer. We would require any prospective civilian importer of an M-151 manufactured in 1973-75 to demonstrate that the vehicle is capable of conversion to comply with the FMVSS that applied to multipurpose passenger vehicles during that period. A bond equal to 150% of the value of the vehicle as determined by the U.S. Customs Service must also be posted during the conversion process.

"2. If they are not considered 'foreign' vehicles what, if any, D.O.T. regulations would apply to the registration of such vehicles for use on U.S. roads?"

"3. If they are considered 'foreign' vehicles . . . ."

There are no Federal registration requirements for vehicles sold to persons other than Federal agencies. State regulations apply. We are not conversant with State registration laws, and refer inquirers for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:3/17/94

ID: 8868

Mr. Tom Delapp
Executive Coach Builders, Inc.
One Executive Boulevard
Springfield, MO 65802

Dear Mr. Delapp:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, "Door locks and door retention components," as it pertains to the locking mechanism of a so-called "5th" door installed on your limousines. I apologize for the delay in responding. We conclude that the locking mechanism on the 5th door is not prohibited by Standard 206.

Based on your letter and a conversation with David Elias of my office, I understand that you have replaced the extra panel on the right side of a 1993 Lincoln Town Car based limousine with a passenger door (i.e., the 5th door). The door consists completely of the original equipment manufacturer's materials and hinges. The 5th door is a supplementary door, and does not replace or effect in any way the two side rear doors with which your vehicles are normally equipped.

When the 5th door is closed, its locking mechanism engages automatically, and the door cannot be opened from the inside or the outside. A solenoid locking mechanism that unlocks the 5th door is located inside the vehicle in a "privacy panel" behind the driver's seat. For the driver to unlock the 5th door, the car must be stopped and the driver must then get out of the car and reach through a window into the area behind the driver's seat. The locking mechanism cannot be reached by the driver while seated in the driver's seat, and cannot be reached by the passengers in the rear seats. The 5th door cannot be accidentally opened; unless the locking mechanism has been actively disengaged, the door remains locked. Disengaging the locking mechanism for the 5th door allows the driver to open the door from the outside, although passengers could push the door open from the inside, as well.

There are two pertinent requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to your situation. First, S4.1.3 (Door Locks) states that:

Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

In two prior letters, to Mr. Charles Murphy on May 10, 1974, and to Mr. Gary Hackett on April 11, 1988, the agency interpreted S4.1.3 to mean that the locking mechanism must also be operable from within the vehicle.

The first question to be addressed is whether the 5th door meets the requirement of S4.1.3. We believe the answer is yes, the door is equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle that is operable from within the vehicle. The operating means for the locking mechanism is in the interior of the vehicle in that the locking mechanism engages automatically when the 5th door is closed. While the means to disengage the operating mechanism is not accessible to occupants in the vehicle, Standard 206 does not require the locking mechanism to be capable of being disengaged by an occupant. This is because the purpose of the standard is to minimize the chance that occupants of the vehicle will be ejected in a collision. Thus, the thrust of the standard is to ensure that occupants are retained within the vehicle, such as by requiring doors to have door locks that occupants are capable of locking.

The second pertinent requirement is S4.1.3.2 (Side Rear Door Locks), which states that:

... when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

The 5th door appears to comply with S4.1.3.2, in that it cannot be opened from the outside or inside when the locking mechanism is engaged.

In a letter to Ms. C.D. Black, dated April 10, 1987, the agency interpreted a question on child safety locks that is relevant to your situation. The child safety lock operated as a "secondary locking system" that, when activated, rendered the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. (It had no effect on the outside door handle.) As we stated in that letter, our conclusion was that Standard 206 permitted the child safety lock because the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems that interfere with the engagement, but not with the disengagement, of the primary locking system. In that letter, we wrote:

The answer to your question about the child locking systems is dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of... S4.1.3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. Since we have determined that... S4.1.3.2 do[es] not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the required locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:206 d:3/29/94

ID: 8871

Mr. James Z. Peepas
Selecto-Flash, Inc.
P.O. Box 879
Orange, NJ 07051

Dear Mr. Peepas:

We have received your letter of July 9, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office requesting interpretations of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your questions are directed towards a 48-foot container chassis, but in a telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson you have explained that a 40-foot container chassis is also involved. For simplicity's sake we shall refer to trailers of both lengths collectively as the "trailer". The gooseneck on the trailer is 8 feet long.

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108 specifies in pertinent part that the side horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered." You have asked whether the length of the gooseneck is included in the 50% computation. The answer is yes. The gooseneck is similar to a trailer tongue, and is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108. From the photos you enclosed, we see that retroreflective sheeting has been applied to the gooseneck and the frame rail with approximately the same spacing between segments. If you determine that this configuration meets S5.7.1.4.2(a) without the container load in place, there would be no need to increase the amount of retroreflective sheeting on the trailer behind the gooseneck.

The same paragraph also requires that retroreflective sheeting shall be located "as close as practicable to 1.25 m. above the road surface." You enclosed a photo of a Maersk loaded chassis and note that "because of space limitations, the striping may not be 4 foot (sic) from the road surface." You have asked whether there has been a change in height allowance to compensate for space adjustments. The agency has been petitioned for reconsideration of this specification, and to allow a mounting height as low as the 15 inches originally proposed. We have not reached a determination on this point, and the height remains at 4 feet. However, if the manufacturer of a new trailer determines that something less than 4 feet is "as close as practicable to 1.25 m. above the road surface" with respect to a particular trailer design, it may certify conformance of the trailer with the mounting height requirement on that basis.

Finally, paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) requires that the spaces between sheeting be "distributed as evenly as practicable." In a telephone call on July 16, you informed Mr. Vinson that in some instances equal spacing may not be possible because of trailer unit numbers and other identification, and structural characteristics. As we have advised in the preceding paragraph, the requirement is modified by what is practicable under the circumstances.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:7/l9/93:OCC 8871:62992 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron interps. Std. 108; Redbook (3) 8871; ztv; U:\ncc20\interp\108\8871.ztv

ID: 8874

Mr. Cary Klingner
Trison Inc.
1414 Merryview Lane
Hibbing, MN 55746

Dear Mr. Klingner:

We have received your letter of July 12, 1993, with respect to Trison's "Daytime Running Lights" module. You have heard that "federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept", and ask whether the device "complies with the regulations."

As you have described it, the product activates the lower beam headlamps whenever the engine is running, and may be overridden by the vehicle's headlamp switch. The module "can be installed by any car owner."

On January 11, 1993, we amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment to permit motor vehicles to be manufactured with front lamps (other than parking and fog lamps) wired to operate automatically during daytime. Before the amendment, paragraph S5.5.3 of Standard No. 108 required taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. However, the amendment modified this requirement to state that taillamps "need not be activated if the headlamps are activated at less than full intensity" when in use as daytime running lamps. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. We have received petitions for reconsideration of aspects of the rule other than S5.5.3, and it is possible that the standard will eventually be amended in response to them.

The amendment does not establish requirements for aftermarket equipment such as your module. There is no Federal restriction on the sale of the module, but there are restrictions on its installation on new vehicles. A manufacturer, distributor, and dealer of a new motor vehicle must deliver it in full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As we understand it, your module would activate the lower beam headlamps at their full intensity, and the taillamps would not be activated until the main headlamp switch was used. This would create a noncompliance with S5.5.3, since the taillamps must be activated when the headlamps are activated at full intensity. In addition, the module also impairs the effectiveness of the taillamps within the meaning of a prohibition imposed by S5.1.3. For these reasons, a manufacturer or dealer could not legally install the module on a new motor vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

With respect to installation of the module in a vehicle after its first sale, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may "render inoperative, in whole or in part," lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Because the taillamps apparently will not operate when the lower beam headlamps are activated at full intensity by the module, in our opinion, the taillamps have been rendered inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition.

However, the module can be installed by the vehicle owner. The statutory prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner, and modifications by the owner are subject only to State law. We are unable to advise you on State laws and recommend that you seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

We do not understand your remark that "Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated," and believe that your interpretation must be incorrect. Under the Act, if a State has a standard on lighting performance, it must be identical to the Federal standard.

I hope that you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108#VSA