ID: 21915.drn

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica
General Manager, Environmental Engineering
BMW of North America, Inc.
BMW Plaza
Montvale, NJ 07645





Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your letter dated December 3, 1999, concerning the use by BMW of North America, Inc. (BMWNA) of a particular world manufacturer identifier (WMI) in the Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) for BMW motor vehicles manufactured at your "Manufacturing Plant Number 10 in Greer, South Carolina ('Greer')." I apologize for the delay in responding. This letter addresses only WMI and VIN requirements for BMW motor vehicles manufactured in this country for sale in the U.S.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has established vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements for motor vehicle manufacturers at 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. Part 565 specifies the format, content and physical requirements for a vehicle identification number system and its installation, to simplify the retrieval of vehicle identification information and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns. The first three characters of the seventeen-digit VIN comprise a grouping known as the "manufacturer identifier" or "world manufacturer identifier," which uniquely identifies each large manufacturer, and the make and type of each motor vehicle. Section 565.6(a) states that the characters "are assigned in accordance with 565.7(a)."

Section 565.7(a) states that NHTSA has entered into a contract with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to coordinate the assignment of manufacturer identifiers. That paragraph also specifies: "Manufacturers may request a specific identifier or may request only assignment of an identifier(s). SAE will review requests for specific identifiers to determine that they do not conflict with an identifier already assigned or block of identifiers already reserved. SAE will confirm the assignments in writing to the requester. . . ."

BMW is using identifiers "WBA" and "WBS" for its vehicles manufactured in Greer, South Carolina, which have not been assigned by SAE under 565.7(a) nor confirmed by it as being assigned to your company. ⁽¹⁾ You state that the identifiers were assigned by the "Kraftfahrt Bundesamt, the national organization responsible for WMI assignment in Germany." Apparently WBA and WBS identify "BMW Germany" as the manufacturer. You state that BMW Germany assigns the VIN of each of vehicle manufactured at each of its manufacturing sites, including Greer.

We appreciate that Kraftfahrt Bundesamt has a role similar to ours in the assignment of WMIs. However, we cannot agree that a VIN using a WMI assigned by that organization complies with 565.7(a). The VINs of the vehicles produced at Greer have to bear WMIs that have been assigned or approved by NHTSA (i.e., by our contractor, SAE), as specified in 565.7(a). Our regulations do not permit Kraftfahrt Bundesamt to assign WMIs for the motor vehicles at issue. See 49 CFR 565.2.

There is good reason for this. The assignment of WMIs has to be well coordinated in order to establish an effective vehicle identification program. NHTSA must have an accurate record of the WMIs that have been assigned to each manufacturer in order, among other things, to identify vehicles for our safety recall and theft prevention programs. VINs are also compiled in a database that is used by local and state police forces to identify stolen vehicles. Coordination of assignment of WMIs by NHTSA ensures that WMIs uniquely identify manufacturers and that they do not engender confusion as to the identity of a manufacturer. The effectiveness of recall, theft- and other crime-prevention programs would be reduced if we permitted manufacturers to identify themselves with an identification that did not conform to our requirements.

You believe that the WMIs comply with part 565 because paragraph (a) of 565.5, Motor vehicles imported into the United States, states "Importers shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the motor vehicle." This section does not apply to the situation at hand. Because the vehicles manufactured at Greer are manufactured in the U.S. and sold in the U.S., the vehicles are not considered imported for purposes of 565.5. You state that because the Greer assembly plant is in a foreign trade zone, BMWNA is required to enter the motor vehicles manufactured at that facility into the United States in accordance with 49 CFR 591.5, Declarations required for importation. This statement is incorrect. Section 591.5 specifies the contents of the declaration that a motor vehicle importer must file at the time that a motor vehicle is imported into the United States. NHTSA has previously stated that because foreign trade zones are established solely for the administration of the customs laws of the United States, they have no applicability to NHTSA's importation regulations at 49 CFR Part 591, which are not customs laws because they are administered solely by NHTSA. This was addressed in our interpretive letter to Richard A. Kulics, Esquire, dated February 22, 1990 (copy enclosed), which has been readily available on the NHTSA Website. Moreover, because a vehicle manufactured in a foreign trade zone within the boundaries of the United States is manufactured in the United States, there is no need for an importation declaration to be filed when the vehicle leaves the foreign trade zone.

Please take immediate action to coordinate with SAE as to the WMI you will use on vehicles manufactured at the Greer plant. For information from the SAE on the WMIs, you may contact Ms. Douds at (724) 772-8511. If you have questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Coleman Sachs of my office at (202) 366-5263. We would appreciate hearing from you within 15 days about your plans to conform your practices to 565.7(a).





Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Ms. Cathy Douds

WMI Coordinator
Society of Automotive Engineers
400 Commonwealth Avenue
Warrendale, PA 15096

ref:565
d.11/3/00

---

1. WBS and WBA do not meet the Society of Automotive Engineers' WMI format for US-manufactured vehicles (which is indicated by a first digit of 1, 4, or 5). SAE's WMI coordinator, Ms. Cathy Douds, has informed us that pursuant to BMWNA's request, SAE assigned the WMI "4US" in 1993 and"4UR" in 1995. Both WMIs identify the BMWNA plant location as Spartanburg, South Carolina.

ID: 21937.drn

Jiri Misik, Chief
Type Approval Tests and Technical Regulations
SKODA, automobilov a.s.
Vslava Klementa 869

293 60 Mlad Boleslav
Cesk Republika (Czech Republic)

Dear Mr. Misik:

This responds to your request for information about "US field of vision" requirements for motor vehicle windshields for passenger cars and light duty vehicles. As explained below, the United States has no forward field of view standard for these vehicles.

In your letter, you noted that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems, describes Areas "A," "B" and "C" to be cleared in motor vehicle windshields. In contrast you noted that in Europe:

In our case the edge of area "A" and "B" ... is not placed on the windshield but on the steel structure or even on the side window. This case is not mentioned in any US legislation which is related directly to wipe, wash and forward vision, anyway. Forward field of vision is only clearly defined in European Directive 77/649 and Australian ADR 8, clause 8.3.

With this background, you ask whether "there is a mandatory US provision to place the edge of 'A' area on the windscreen with regard to forward field of vision."

In response to your question, no provision in the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards specifies forward field of view requirements for vehicles other than school buses. As you note, we have Standard No. 104, which establishes requirements for motor vehicle windshield wiping and washing systems. Since Standard No. 104 regulates windshield wiper performance, it defines each of Areas "A," "B" and "C" so that only the part of each Area that is within the glazing 25 millimeters inboard of the daylight opening is counted for the computation of the minimum cleared percentage. Please note that these are requirements for areas of the motor vehicle windshield to be cleared of water or other liquids. We have no standard analogous to EU Directive 77/649 which would use Areas "A," "B" and "C" to specify areas of mandatory forward fields of view.

Another indication that Standard No. 104 does not specify forward fields of vision is seen in the fact that there is no requirement that Area "A," as bounded by the angles specified in Tables I, II, III or IV, must be completely included on the windshield glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.10/5/00

ID: 21938

Mr. Jimmy Biondi
W.J. Casey Trucking and Rigging Co., Inc.
1200 Springfield Rd.
Union, NJ 07083





Dear Mr. Biondi:

This is in response to your recent correspondence and telephone inquiries relating to the classification of certain specialized vehicles owned by your company.

You ask whether the individual units are motor vehicles and therefore subject to safety standards administered by this agency.

As discussed below, the answer to your question appears to be yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." Section 30101(a)(6) of Chapter 301 of Volume 49 of the United States Code defines "motor vehicle" as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

You describe the vehicles as hydraulic suspension trailers that consist of a series of axles linked through a common hydraulic system in either a two, three, or four axle configuration. The individual units can be used alone or may be joined together depending on the load to be carried. The units have a minimum of 2 axles per unit with 8 tires per axle and have a maximum load of 34 metric tonnes (33.46 tons) per axle. The axle units are 10 feet wide and support a flat deck. Each axle is steerable and the hydraulic suspension may be adjusted while the vehicle is in motion in order to ensure that the deck remains level even when the unit is traveling over an uneven surface.

You further indicate that these vehicles are to be used for the short distance transport of unusually large cargo to and from rail sidings, utility substations and shipping ports. Your letter indicates that when empty, the modules are trucked to the work site on trailers and then assembled in the configuration needed for the work at hand. You further state that when the units are to be used on a site that is "local," the modules would be configured at your site and the resulting trailer would be towed to the site where it is to be loaded. In a telephone conversation, you also indicated that with the exception of the two axle units, an individual unit or module would travel empty on the highway en route to a location where it would be loaded.

In your letter, you stated that the trailer is always accompanied by company escorts and state police as required by permits. You also indicate that the maximum travel speed is 40 miles per hour empty and usually less than 20 miles per hour when the trailer is loaded. We assume that your use of these trailers is consistent with the intentions of the manufacturer.

Based on the information you provided, it is our opinion that the vehicles you describe are motor vehicles for the purposes of Chapter 301 and Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As you indicated in your letter and telephone conversation, all of the units will travel on public highways at speeds above 20 miles per hour. Furthermore, such operation would not be incidental to their main use but would be part of the normal use and operation of the vehicles.

As the trailers are motor vehicles, they are subject to the requirements of Chapter 301. Section 30115 of Chapter 301 (49 U.S.C. 30115) requires that the manufacturer must certify that a vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and, in the case of a vehicle, must permanently affix a certification label or tag to the vehicle. For your information, I have enclosed an agency guide for trailer manufacturers which provides guidance on the safety standards applicable to trailers.

We note, however, that due to the unusual configuration of these trailers, they would not be required to conform to several Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to more conventional trailers.

For example, Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996, at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are wheels back vehicles and low chassis vehicles. Wheels-back vehicles are excluded by S3 of Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection. The term is defined in S4 as a "trailer or semitrailer whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located such that the rearmost surface of [the tire] on that axle is not more than 305 mm forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle."

The drawing you enclosed of the trailer owned by your company shows that the rear surface of the tires on that axle is within 305 mm of the rear extremity. Assuming the axle is "permanently fixed," this is a wheels back vehicle, and no guard is required.

We also note that your trailers appear to be excluded from the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121). Standard No. 121 applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. However, subparagraphs S3(a) through (g) of Standard 121 lists seven types of vehicles to which the standard does not apply. Applicable to your trailer, paragraph S3(a) excludes 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. Similarly, S3(e) excludes any trailer that has a GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds and whose body conforms to that described in the definition of heavy hauler trailer set forth in S4

Heavy hauler trailer is defined in S4 as:

[A] trailer which has one or more of the following characteristics, but which is not a container chassis trailer:

(1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or

(2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition ...

The drawings that you have provided indicate that the trailers at issue are 118 inches wide and have two short track axles under the trailer deck. Accordingly, these trailers are, by virtue of S3(a) of Standard No. 121, not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 121. The information attached to your letter also indicates that the trailers have a GVWR exceeding 120,000 pounds and that the cargo-carrying surface of the trailer bed is less than forty inches above the ground. If so, S4(a)(2) applies and, when combined with the trailer's GVWR, excludes your trailer from the ABS requirements in accordance with S3(e) of Standard No. 121.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack.
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.3/22/01

ID: 21941.ztv

Mr. Ryan Hoffman
Hoffman Group, Inc.
2863 Mandela Parkway, 2d floor
Oakland, CA 94608





Dear Mr. Hoffman:





This is in reply to your fax of July 25, 2000, with respect to the Funtech 50. You describe the vehicle as a "three-wheel motorcycle with two outrigger wheels (stabilizer wheels)."

You write that "the stabilizer wheels are not in contact with the ground under normal driving conditions" although a wheel can momentarily touch the ground during a turn. You have asked for an interpretation that the Funtech 50 with its outrigger wheels is a "motor-driven cycle" as we define it.

For purposes of our jurisdiction, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b), a "motorcycle" is "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." I enclose copies of letters of January 3, 1995, to James D. Murphy, Jr., and June 11, 1986, to Terry W. Wagar providing interpretations that two-wheeled vehicles with outrigger wheels used to provide stability in turns are considered to be "motorcycles." When outrigger wheels serve the same stabilizing purpose on a three-wheeled vehicle such as the Funtech 50, we also consider such a vehicle to be a "motorcycle."

A "motor-driven cycle" is defined as "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less." Your letter does not identify the Funtech 50's engine. If it produces 5-brake horsepower or less, the vehicle would be a "motor driven cycle; otherwise," the Funtech 50 is a "motorcycle."

You also asked for clarification that a three-wheeled motorcycle "can have either two wheels at the front and one wheel at the rear, or, one wheel at the front and two wheels at the rear." We

confirm your understanding that both configurations are acceptable; the regulatory definition of motorcycle does not specify how three wheels must be arranged.

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel





Enclosures
ref:571
d.7/31/00

ID: 21964

Mr. Larry Cernosek, Chairman
Texas Towing & Storage Association
2104 Lyons Avenue
Houston, TX 77020





Dear Mr. Cernosek:

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 2000, "responding to [my] letter of May 9, 2000, for further clarification." My letter provided an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it relates to a light bar consisting of stop and taillamps.

In that letter, I expressed my assumption that the light bar was installed on tow trucks, as required by S5.3.1.1, to serve as a compliance surrogate for required lighting equipment whose conformance was affected by the truck's work-performing equipment. You have explained in your latest letter that the original equipment is unaffected by the work-performing equipment and that the lamps in the light bar are additional lamps within the meaning of S5.1.3.

In my earlier letter, I stated that additional lighting equipment was permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. I further commented that additional lighting equipment "need not meet any performance or location requirements." You have replied that the additional stop and taillamps do not impair the effectiveness of the original equipment lamps and do not have to meet any location or performance requirements.

We agree with your remarks. There are no location or performance requirements for supplementary lighting equipment. From the photos you enclose, it does not appear that that the supplemental stop lamps in the light bar would cause "impairment" of the original ones located below, or of any other required rear lighting equipment.





Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.10/13/00

ID: 21971.ztv

Mr. Thomas J. Carter, P.E.
Carter Engineering
5735 North Lick Creek Road
Franklin, TN 37064






Dear Mr. Carter:

This is in reply to your fax of August 3, 2000, asking for a clarification of whether headlamp aiming mechanisms are required for motorcycles, and, if so, where they are specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You reference our letter of December 6, 1999, to Sig. Rotta of Piaggio in which we informed him that we did not intend S7.8.2 of Standard No. 108 to apply to motorcycle headlighting systems, and that we have never required these systems to have aiming mechanisms. You believe that this opinion is contradicted by SAE Recommended Practice J566, "Headlamp Mountings," January 1960, incorporated by reference in Table III of Standard No. 108.

I confirm my earlier statement that Standard No. 108 has never required motorcycle headlighting systems to have aiming mechanisms. SAE J566 requires that headlamps and headlamp mountings be designed and constructed so that:

"1.   The axis of the light beams may be adjusted to the left, right, up, or down from the designed setting, the amount of adjustability to be determined by practical operating conditions and the type of equipment.

2.   The adjustments may be conveniently made by one man with the tools ordinarily available.

3.   When the headlamps are actuated, the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service."

As S5.2.1 states, the words "it is recommended that" and "recommendations" or "should be" in SAE Standards and Recommended Practices are read as setting mandatory requirements. Although the word "may" used in SAE J566 is not included in this list, we intend that it be read as a mandate as well. Applying this construction to SAE J566, then, Standard No. 108 requires light beams on all headlamps to be adjustable with the tools ordinarily available, but in no way do I interpret this as imposing a requirement for an "aiming mechanism." The aiming mechanism requirements of Standard No. 108 are imposed by S7.8, and, as I indicated previously, we do not intend S7.8.2 to apply to motorcycle headlamps. We intend the paragraphs of S7.9 Motorcycles and their referenced materials to cover motorcycle headlamps. These do not require motorcycle headlamps to have aiming mechanisms as defined elsewhere in Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.9/29/00

ID: 21978ogm

Dear:

This is in response to your recent letter regarding a new product being produced by your company and the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Your letter describes your company's product as a supplemental pump/booster unit that is automatically activated to provide power-assist to a vehicle brake system if the primary power source for brake assist fails. You ask the agency to confirm that your system, which uses an electrically driven pump to provide vacuum boost to a conventional vacuum assisted brake booster, would meet the failed power-assist requirement of Standard No. 135.

After examining the information provided by your company, we agree that your company's design appears, in concept, to meet the failed power-assist requirements of Standard No. 135.

Paragraph S7.11.4 establishes the performance requirements for failed power-assist as follows:

The service brakes on a vehicle equipped with one or more brake power-assist units or brake power units, with one such unit inoperative and depleted of all reserve capability, shall stop the vehicle as specified in S7.11.4(a) or S7.11.4(b).

(a) Stopping distance from 100 km/h test speed: 168m (551 ft).

(b) Stopping distance for reduced test speed: S0.10V + 0.0158V.

In testing for this requirement, subparagraph S7.11.3(g) provides:

Disconnect the primary source of power for one brake power-assist unit or brake power unit, or one of the brake power unit or brake power-assist unit subsystems if two or more subsystems are provided.

Subparagraph S7.11.3(h) provides:

If the brake power unit or power-assist unit operates in conjunction with a backup system and the backup system is automatically activated in the event of a primary power service failure, the backup system is operative during this test.

In a vacuum-assisted brake system, the power or medium used to operate the brake power-assist system is vacuum, the primary source of which is the engine. Thus, the "primary source of power" of a vacuum-operated brake power-assist system is the engine intake manifold, which provides vacuum to the power-assist unit. Loss of vacuum generated by the engine constitutes a loss of the primary power source. The failed power-assist test of S7.11 seeks to replicate this loss and ensure that the driver will still be able to bring the vehicle to a stop in the required distance of 168 meters (551 feet) with the prescribed maximum brake pedal force of 500 Newtons. Therefore, in this test, the primary booster unit is disconnected and the system is depleted of all vacuum. The stopping tests are then conducted without reconnecting the brake power-assist unit to the vacuum source.

Under S7.11.3(h), a separate electric or vacuum accumulator that automatically activates in the event of failure of the primary power source would be a "backup system" that remained operative during the test. The system you describe in your letter, in which an electrically driven pump provides a source of vacuum, provides such a function. Thus, the electrically driven vacuum pump you described in your letter could be used to meet the failed power-assist requirement of Standard No. 135.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:135
d.11/17/00

ID: 22007.drn

Mr. Charles E. Carter
Fleet Sales Manager
DeRussy Motors
P.O. Box 2118
Bay St. Louis, MS 39521






Dear Mr. Carter:

This responds to your August 8, 2000, request for an interpretation whether it is permissible to sell a new 15-passenger van to a college or university for the transport of students. Assuming the college will be using the van to transport college students, the answer is yes.

Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. We do not consider buses sold for the transportation of college-age students to be school buses.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#571.3
d.9/27/00

ID: 22036.ztv

Mr. Rodney Ehrlich
V.P. Engineering
Wabash National Corporation
P.O. Box 6129
Lafayette, IN 47903






Dear Mr. Ehrlich:

This is in reply to your three letters of August 8, 2000, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

1.   "Front Clearance Lamp Interpretation for van trailers over 80" wide"

You would like to use a combination front clearance and side marker lamp that would be mounted on the side of a van trailer at the top. You relate that it will be "recessed into the top rail, as far forward as practicable and still protected" from damage from tree limbs. You reference S5.3.1.1.1 of Standard No. 108 and express your belief that "the alternate mounting is permitted whereby the front inboard 45-degree requirement can be waived if the lamp is mounted for increased protection."

You are correct. Table II requires clearance lamps to be mounted "on the front." However, S5.3.1.1.1 specifies in pertinent part that "clearance lamps may be located at a location other than on the front . . . for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not meet the photometric output at any test point that is 45 degrees inboard" (they are, however, required to meet all other test points specified). We note that the location you describe on a van trailer would also appear to meet the other requirements for clearance lamps, that they be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and as close to the top as practicable.

2.   "Sources of Stop Lamp Activation"

3.   "Can Stop Lamps be activated upon actuation of the trailer emergency braking system"

You have asked whether means other than application of the service brakes may be used to activate the stop lamps on a semi trailer. You point out that "today's ABS (antilock braking system) can be used to sense any deceleration rate and thus be used to apply the stop lamps in all braking' situations." You also point out that "another form of braking is the emergency brake that currently does not activate the stop lamps when applied," and ask whether the emergency brake system could be used for this purpose.

Your questions are similar to those we addressed recently in letters of May 26, 2000, to Eugene Farber and C. Thomas Terry, copies enclosed. Mr. Farber had asked whether it was permissible to illuminate the stop lamps when the brakes are automatically applied. We replied that when the specific purpose of a brake application is to diminish vehicle speed, the stop lamps must be illuminated. Mr. Farber had also asked whether it was permissible to illuminate the stop lamps when other mechanisms such as transmission downshifting or engine retarders are used to achieve vehicle decelerations in excess of the normally achievable coast-down deceleration. We replied that it was permissible to illuminate the stop lamps, but not required. Our letter to Mr. Farber references a letter of April 10, 1992, to Lance Watt on the same subject, and I am enclosing a copy of that as well.

You would like to install a trailer-mounted pressure switch that would activate the stop lamps when the emergency brake is activated and "significant deceleration of the vehicle can occur." As you will understand from our previous interpretations, it is permissible for the stop lamps to be activated upon activation of the trailer emergency braking system. You will note that the letter to Mr. Terry refers to his petition for an amendment to Standard No. 108. Mr. Terry petitioned for rulemaking to provide for automatic activation of the stop lamps when a certain rate of deceleration is reached. After review, the agency granted this petition in mid-September. As provided by 49 CFR 552.9(a), the agency will commence a rulemaking proceeding in accordance with applicable NHTSA and statutory procedures.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:108
d.9/29/00

ID: 22038

Mr. Ronald E. Kish
Plastics by Design
P.O. Box 220
Marcellus, MI 49067





Dear Mr. Kish:

This is in reply to a recent undated fax you sent Richard Van Iderstine of this agency about a license plate lamp design for a cargo utility trailer. The lamp would be mounted to the left of the door-mounted plate on the trailer frame.

The standard that applies to your question is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 requires trailers to be equipped with a license plate lamp, or lamps, in accordance with SAE Standard J587 OCT81, License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration Plate Lamps), and located "at rear license plate, to illuminate the plate from the top or sides."

Conventional license plate lighting systems consist of either one lamp illuminating the plate from the top, or two lamps illuminating the plate, one from each side. These systems are intended to ensure a reasonably uniform distribution of light on the surface of the plate. We are not conversant with the use of a single lamp to illuminate the plate from one side only. The lamp must comply with SAE J587 and we cannot determine from your two-dimensional drawing whether it does so. I enclose a copy of SAE J587 so that you may make this determination. I call your attention to Paragraph 6.5 which specifies that:

When a single lamp is used to illuminate the plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make an angle of less than 8 deg. to the plate of the plate, this angle being measured from the edge of the light emitting surface of the device farthest from the surface of the plate.

If you are asking whether a design is acceptable in which the lamp is mounted on a fixed part of the vehicle, and the lamp on a moveable part, our answer is yes, provided that SAE J587 is met. Compliance of the vehicle is determined with deck lids and doors shut.





Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:8/25/00:62992:OCC 22038
cc: NcC-01 Subj./Chron
interps std. 108; redbook -2
ztv; 22038; U:\ncc20\interp\108\22038.ztv