ID: nht75-3.48

DATE: 12/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturer Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Trailer Manufacturer Association's November 17, 1975, request that the NHTSA reconsider its opinion that modification of existing tank trailers to increase their volumetric capacity and length does not constitute manufacture of a new air-braked trailer that must comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This opinion appears in a letter of August 28, 1975, to Stainless Tank and Equipment, Inc.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) authorizes the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(a)) and prohibits, among other things, the manufacture of a motor vehicle on or after the date any applicable standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms to the standard, and is so certified (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a) (1) (A), 1403). With the 1974 Amendments, (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a) (2) (A)) no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may perform modifications that render inoperative any device or element of design required by a standard. However, unless the modifications performed are so extensive as to constitute legally the manufacture of a new vehicle, the standards that continue to apply to a vehicle are those in effect at the time of its original manufacture, not those that may have come into effect at a later date.

The modification of a tank trailer to increase its volumetric capacity and length does not, in our view, constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle in the typical situation (about an 18-inch increase in length). For this reason, Standard No. 121 does not apply to existing vehicles that are modified in accordance with your description.

This response does not address the issue of compliance with Federal motor carrier regulations raised in your November 17, 1975, letter.

SINCERELY,

TANK CONFERENCE

TRUCK TRAILER MANUFACTURER ASSOCIATION

November 17, 1975

MESSRS:

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Department of Transportation

Dr. Robert A. Kaye Director Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Department of Transportation

GENTLEMEN: There has been considerable discussion, correspondence, and individual rulings resulting from the legislation that liberalized weight laws at the same time the new braking standard became effective.

The central question is: If a tank trailer is modified to increase its load carrying capacity under the new weight law, must it also be modified to the latest safety standards?

Our industry, because of the type of materials handled in tank trailers that we manufacture, has always had a great deal of concern for the safety aspect of these tank trailers. This was certainly shown in the cooperation between the Tank Conference Engineering Committee and the Department of Transportation during the upgrading of the MC codes in 1967. We felt in tune with, and supported, the obvious objectives of the Department of Transportation to upgrade the safety of tank trailers on the highway. All tank trailers built to the previous less stringent specifications, such as MC 305, were to be gradually phased out through attrition and all new tank trailers built after 1968 would have to conform to the new and safer specification, such as MC 306.

The recent enactment of Public Law 93-643 enabling carriers to transport higher gross vehicle loads has raised two major questions:

(1) Whether a capacity increase in a tank trailer -- or "stretching" would require bringing the tank trailer up to the standard of the existing MC specifications (post-1968), irrespective of when the tank trailer was originally produced, and

(2) Whether this equipment when modified would require compliance with all current MVSS 121 braking standards.

There are additional questions such as whether the modified tank trailer would require recertification per current Motor Vehicle Safety standards, per latest Hazardous Materials Regulations and per ASME and National Board as applicable.

Some of the specific rulings or interpretations issued by various officials in the Department have stated that increasing the capacity of a tank trailer or "stretching" would not require bringing the tank trailer up to the current MC specification nor the installation of the MVSS 121 braking system.

This appears to be inconsistent with what we understood to have been the Department's previous intent, which we as an industry wholeheartedly supported. It appears that under this practice the pre-1967 specifications could be perpetuated indefinitely.

Since the shell of a tank trailer is also its sole structural support, special safety implications must be taken into account which do not apply to other types of trailers.

It is unanimous opinion of the Tank Conference of TTMA that any modification of a tank trailer that increases its volumetric or gross vehicle weight capacity should be permitted only if the tank trailer is brought to the current safety standards as reflected in the current MC specifications and MVSS 121.

Our Engineering Committee would be pleased to meet with you at your convenience to discuss these important items.

Charles J. Calvin President

ID: 22968.ztv.wpd

Mr. Hugo De Roo
Area Export Manager
Van Hool N.V.
Bernard Van Hoolstraat 58
B-2500 Lier Koningshoolkt
Belgium

Dear Mr. De Roo:

This is in reply to the letter that you and Mr. Van Hool wrote on March 20, 2003, asking for an interpretation with respect to required markings on lenses of certain rear lamp clusters on Van Hool buses. You asked that we address both original and replacement lenses. You believed that Van Hool may have failed to comply with our regulations.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, does not require lenses of any rear lamp, whether original or replacement, to be marked with the SAE identification code or any other markings (although the standard permits replacement equipment to be marked with the DOT symbol as a certification of compliance). Therefore, the fact that Van Hool lenses may not be marked is not a failure to comply with a FMVSS that would require the company to notify owners and to remedy a noncompliance.

We understand that owners and users of Van Hool buses may also be subject to the lighting equipment regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of the Department of Transportation, 49 CFR Part 393 (2002). These regulations state that any required reflector on a motor vehicle subject to FMCSA regulations must comply with FMVSS No. 108, and be marked with the manufacturers name or trade name and the letters "SAE-A." See Sections 393.26(b) and (c). As for the marking of lamps, under Section 393.25(d), all lamps "required to conform to the requirements of the SAE standards" are to be marked with SAE designations and other information. However, since March 7, 1990, lamps are no longer required to conform to SAE requirements but must meet FMVSS No. 108 instead. See footnote (b)(2) to Section 393.24(c) (which also specifies that in a conflict between an SAE standard and a FMVSS, the latter shall prevail). Accordingly, with the exception of reflectors as noted, Section 393 has not required lighting equipment to be marked on any vehicles manufactured since March 7, 1990.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.5/29/03

ID: 86-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Timothy Pawl, P.E. -- President, Pawl Inventioneering Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Timothy Pawl P.E. President Pawl Inventioneering Corporation P.O. Box 5425 West Bloomfield, Michigan 48033

This is in response to your letter of November 29 ,1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency Jeffrey R. Miller, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your letter is vague as to the precise function of your "safety related" lighting device, and whether you wish to offer it as original equipment or equipment intended for installation after the sale of a vehicle to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. If the latter, then its legality is determinable solely under the laws of each State in which it will be used.

If you intend it as original equipment, on a vehicle at the time of its initial sale, then its legality would be determinable under Standard No. 108. As a general rule, section S4.1.3 prohibits the installation of any device that would impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. You have informed us that your device, which consists of "amber LED's" in the "rear package tray," is inoperative during application of the service brakes; thus, it does not appear that it would impair the effectiveness of the center high-mounted stop lamp.

You have also stated that it is located "in relative proximity" to the center stop lamp but is not combined with it, and you have asked if this meets the intent of S4.4.1 regarding equipment combinations. This section forbids the combination of the center stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device. Since your device is physically separate from the center lamp, S4.4.1 would not appear to prohibit your device.

You have also stated that when viewed from the rear, "the pattern of illuminated LED's may change, possibly giving the illusion of flashing," and you ask for a definition of "flashing" as described in section S4.6(c). This section has been renumbered S4.5.11, and subsection (c) permits an exception to the general rule that lamps in use must be steady-burning, permitting headlamps and side marker lamps to "flash" for signalling purposes. The definition of flash is that contained in S3, a cycle of activation and deactivation by automatic means, and this definition does not specify frequency or other characteristics. To us, the important question is whether your device complies with section S4.5.11(e) which requires all lamps (other than those specifically excepted) to be steady-burning in use. A lamp that changes patterns may not flash, but it cannot be viewed as steady-burning either.

Finally, you state that "section S4.3 states that no function other than red reflex reflectors shall be combined with CHMSL or rear turn signal lamps" and ask whether amber or any other color "may be used in proximity" since it is not used in combination. We believe you must be referring to section S4.4.1 which states that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp or identification lamp, and no high-mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device." As we do not know the intended functions of your LED device, I can offer only general comments. Although red is the required color for all rear lighting devices except backup and license plate lamps, amber is permitted as an optional color for rear turn signals: furthermore, amber is generally accepted as indicating the need for caution. Thus, amber is not a lens color whose presence on rear lighting devices would per se impair effectiveness. The use of other colors for lighting devices on the rear of vehicles could lead to confusion, and be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of required lighting equipment.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

November 29, 1985

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Council U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington,D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation of FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Miller;

We have under development a new device of a safety related nature for automobiles. Before proceeding further on the development, we are hereby requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. Our device mounts in the rear package tray area of the automobile. We are therefore concerned about the specific sections pertaining to the operation and restrictions thereof for the Center High Mounted Stoplamp (CHMSL).

As a means of definition of the areas of concern, I will list the specific operating characteristic of our device and then the section from the Standard for which we device an interpretation.

1. Our device has amber colored LED's, during the application of the service brakes, these LED's are disabled ,allowing a vehicle following to observe only the CHMSL. Hence, although in relative proximity (near the target area of the CHMSL) it is not combined with the CHMSL. Does this operation meet the intent of S4.4.1 concerning equipment combinations.

2. When a vehicle containing our device is viewed from the rear by a following vehicle, the pattern of illuminated LED'a may change, possibly giving the illusion or flashing. We therefore need a definition of flashing as described in section S4.6(c), frequency, length of time between periods of "steady-burning" operation, etc.

3. As previously mentioned the device contains amber LED's, section S4.3 states that no function other than red reflex reflectors shall be combined with CHMSL or rear turn signal lamps.... since it is not used in combination per our question (1) may amber be used in proximity. If not amber, are there any other colors that may be acceptable.

We would appreciate your attention to this matter and await your response. If necessary we may be reached by phone at (313) 682-2007.

Sincerely,

E. Timothy Pawl, P.E. President

ID: 1984-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J.N. White

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. N. White 1300 California Drive Rolla, MO 65401

This is in response to your January 3, 1984, letter to Roger Fairchild of this office regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 (Rearview Mirror Systems). You have requested information on the applicability of that standard, particularly in regard to aftermarket mirrors.

FMVSS 111 is a rule or regulation (the terms are generally used interchangeably) establishing requirements for rearview mirrors on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses, and motorcycles. Aftermarket mirror manufacturers do not have to certify compliance with our standards. However, the addition of an aftermarket mirror to a motor vehicle may be subject to certain legal requirements. Section 108(a)(2)( A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or any motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses cannot remove a rearview mirror installed as original equipment in compliance with our standard and replace that mirror with a noncomplying aftermarket mirror. Replacement by other individuals or organizations or replacement with a complying aftermarket mirror would be permitted.

With regard to your final question as to requirements applicable to the use of non-glare glass in mirrors, this agency issued on November 6, 1978, a notice of proposed rulemaking on possible upgrading of rearview mirror requirements (copy enclosed). One part of this proposal would establish image luminance criteria for rearview mirrors. The agency has not yet determined whether this requirement should be implemented, and no action is imminent on that proposal.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

January 3, 1984

Mr. Roger Fairchild Legal Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: FMVSS-111 -- Rearview Mirror Systems

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

I have some questions regarding FMVSS-111 and Mr. Kevin Cavey of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, suggested that I write to you for the specific answers.

1. Is FMVSS-111 a rule, regulation or law?

2. Does it apply only to new car/truck manufacturers?

3. As far as the sections that apply to rearview mirror systems, specifically convex mirrors, does it apply to "after market" manufacturers, where their product is sold through warehouse distributors, jobbers, mass merchandisers, etc., to the general, public?

4. Is there any pending "legislation" that might prohibit the use of "non-glare" glass in rearview mirrors?

I want to thank you in advance, for your time and efforts in helping me, with the answers to the above questions.

Sincerely,

J.N. White 1300 California Drive Rol1a, MO 65401 cc: J. L. Levenberg & Associates

ID: nht81-2.11

DATE: 03/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 30 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your letter of February 13, 1981, requesting an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. The odometer/speedometer assembly that BMW wishes to use in its vehicles is built to comply with S4.2.5.2, the encapsulation requirements. The encapsulation consists of plastic "box" having the speedometer/odometer face and lens as its front. The front, top, bottom, and sides of the box are all one piece. The back of the unit is a metal plate to which the speedometer/odometer assembly is attached. The plate is attached to the rest of the unit with six screws. You ask whether the screws must be encapsulated if the unit is to comply with S4.2.5.2. You also ask whether a seal that would have to be cut or torn in order to remove the plates and gain access to the odometer can be used.

Paragraph S4.2.5.2(b) of Standard No. 127 requires that a tamperer not be able to contact the odometer wheels by use of a straight rod .5mm or more in diameter. Such contact is permissible if the contact results when the rod is inserted essentially parallel to the odometer shaft, or if it is necessary either to penetrate the encapsulation or to damage the encapsulation or other odometer components to make that contact. Since your odometer/speedometer assembly is attached to the back plate, the odometer wheels can be easily reached from all angles without damaging the encapsulation when the plate is removed. Thus the screws must be encapsulated if the odometer is to comply with S4.2.5.2(b). If the screws are encapsulated in some fashion, it would be necessary to penetrate this encapsulation in order to remove the screws and the back plate, and the requirements of paragraph S4.2.5.2(b) would be satisfied.

Paragraph S4.2.5.2(d) sets forth the requirements for the encapsulation material. The rule specifies requirements for thickness and resistance to deflection, penetration, fracture, and impacts. The agency is not concerned about the form of the encapsulation as long as these requirements are met.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 13, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 127 Speedometers and Odometers

Dear Mr. Berndt

This letter requests interpretation regarding compliance of an odometer which is part of a combination instrument unit and which BMW intends to use to meet the requirements of FMVSS 127, Speedometers and Odometers, as amended June 16, 1980, 45FR40585.

At a meeting with Messrs. Oesch, Parker and Carson on January 29, 1981, we showed subject unit and it was agreed that the odometer is totally encapsulated and falls under the requirements of S4.2.5.2(a)(1), (b), (c) and (d). The final closure technique, however, was subject to question.

As shown in the attachments 1, 2 and 3, the entire speedometer/odometer is a one-piece lens-top-bottom-sides unit, and plates are held on to the rear via screws. Based on our discussion, we request interpretation of the following questions:

1. At the meeting we showed a closure technique in which all six screws holding the rear plates are encapsulated with plastic caps, which must be broken to gain access to the screw heads (for demonstration purposes, see attached pictures showing only one screw encapsulated by the plastic cap). Accordingly, do the screws themselves holding the rear plates to the rest of the unit have to be encapsulated, such as with devices like these plastic caps?

2. In the event question 1 is answered affirmatively, we wish to know if it would be acceptable to use a seal, instead of the plastic caps discussed under question 1 (e.g. a self-destructing label) affixed to both the unit and the rear plates, in such a manner that the labels would have to be cut or torn in order to remove the plates to gain access to the odometer unit itself (see attachment 3).

Very truly yours

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

KHZ/jps

Attachments

ID: nht95-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 16, 1995

FROM: Michael J. Wirsch -- Manager, Electric Transportation Dept., Ride Electric, Sacramento Municipal Utility District

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Disposition Of Vehicles Following Demonstration, Training And Studies Period; Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD); Reference: (1) NHTSA File 9207-1, (2) Letter dated 11/18/92, Robert F. Hellmuth of NHTSA to Niels Skjodt of CityCo m A/S (copy attached).

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MICHAEL J. WIRSCH (PART 591)

TEXT: As indicated in the referenced November 18, 1992 letter from NHTSA, we obtained permission to demonstrate, test and evaluate for the allowed three year period, sixteen CityCom vehicles produced in Denmark. The subject vehicles are limited performance th ree wheel electric vehicles (EVs) known as the "City-El."

At the time they were imported, there was a possibility of producing the same or similar vehicle in the United States. The test and evaluation was directed toward determining whether this was possible, on a cost competitive and cost effective basis. Th e possibility still exists for development of a design based on similar materials and production techniques, but of an entirely different configuration.

The evaluation period is coming to an end in November, 1995. The approval by NHTSA for evaluation of the vehicles stated that at the end of the evaluation period the vehicles would be modified to comply with the applicable standards or returned to Denma rk. A third alternative is now preferrable to both SMUD and Sacramento's McClellan Air Force Base (McClellan).

The most attractive option for disposing of the sixteen vehicles is transferring ownership directly to McClellan for their use on base, with your permission to do so. The vehicles would be controlled to restrict their use to base property, and therefore not on public streets. Since McClellan can place these vehicles into service that does not need public road access, they would not be registered for use on public streets, not require compliance and need only be controlled as other similar off road veh icles McClellan now has on base.

For the last three years, SMUD has been actively involved with joint Electric Transportation Program activities with McClellan. Nearly identical to the City-El vehicles imported in 1992 are another group of twenty-five vehicles McClellan has been testin g and demonstrating since late 1993, with which they have gained the necessary maintenance and operation experience.

McClellan has indicated an interest in taking over the subject vehicles, and we therefore are pursuing this issue with your agency. Thus, we hereby request authorization to retain the sixteen City-El vehicles in the United States, for the express purpos e of transferring ownership and operation to McClellan Air Force Base. Any action we must take to gain your approval may be communicated directly to me at the following address:

Michael J. Wirsch, Manager Electric Transportation Department P.O. Box 15830 - MS 30A Sacramento, CA 95852-1830

Please provide me with your opinion regarding this approach at your earliest convenience, so that we can take other actions on alternate methods of disposition should your opinion not be favorable. You may contact me by telephone at (916) 732-6754, or b y FAX at (916) 732-6839.

Thank you in advance for any consideration you can give to this request.

Attachment Letter dated 11/18/92 FROM ROBERT HELLMUTH TO NIELS SKJODT (OMITTED)

ID: nht92-6.42

DATE: May 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry Nunn -- President, Automotive Lighting Technologies, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/10/92 from Larry Nunn to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7224)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for information on laws and regulations administered by this agency that would apply to an aftermarket product you have under development. Since your product constitutes "motor vehicle equipment," your product would be subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction as follows.

Your letter described your product, called "LeLite," as a lighting system designed to be attached to motorcycle helmets. The system is intended to increase rider visibility by providing the equivalent of a center high mounted stop lamp for motorcyclists. A drawing you enclosed depicts the "LeLite" as attached to the rear of the helmet, and you state that the "LeLite" includes a stop/running lamp with two amber turn signals.

You state that the lighting system is powered by a cord that connects to a "simple harness unit" mounted at a motorcycle location chosen by the motorcyclist. You further state that the harness is designed to attach directly into the motorcycle's brake/running lamp wires feeding from the battery terminal, enabling the system to light up in conjunction with the brake/running lamps on the vehicle.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the "LeLite" is to be sold separately from the motorcycle helmet and is designed to be readily attachable and detachable by the motorcyclist.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and items of "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement ... or intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers, and other highway users from risk of accident, injury, or death.

In your letter, you stated that the "LeLite" is intended to increase motorcyclist visibility by providing the equivalent of a center high mounted stop lamp. Increased motorcyclist visibility on the road would lessen the possibility of the motorcyclist's being hit by others who may not see the motorcyclist in time to avoid an accident. Thus, we would consider the "LeLite" as "motor vehicle equipment" since it is intended for use exclusively to safeguard motorcyclists from risk of accident, injury, or death.

You provided no information about the degree of difficulty involved in connecting the "LeLite's" harness into the motorcycle brake/running lamp wiring system. As previously stated, your intention apparently is that the individual user installs the "LeLite." However, please be aware that if installation into the wiring system should prove difficult for some users, and the "LeLite" should be installed into the motorcycle or motorcycle helmet by a commercial business, Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). As you may be aware, FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, specifies requirements for lamps on motor vehicles, and FMVSS No. 218; Motorcycle helmets, establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets.

The above-named businesses could sell the "LeLite" but could not install it if the installation would adversely affect the vehicle or helmet's compliance with any of the FMVSS's. In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect. The prohibitions of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle or motorcycle helmet. Thus, a motorcyclist would not violate the Act by installing ,the "LeLite" even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her motorcycle or motorcycle helmet.

However, please note that it is this agency's policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets. Section S5.6.1 of FMVSS No. 218; Motorcycle helmets requires that the following instruction be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications..." We are concerned that attaching the "LeLite" to a motorcycle helmet may cover the symbol "DOT" that constitutes the helmet manufacturer's certification that the helmet complies with the FMVSS's. Also, Standard No. 218 limits "rigid projections" outside the helmet's shell to those required for operation of essential accessories, and that do not protrude more than 5 millimeters. Based on your letter, the "LeLite" may constitute a "rigid projection." If so, it is not clear that the "LeLite" can meet the restrictions on "rigid projections" outside of the helmet's shell. For these reasons, the agency's policy would be to discourage motorcyclists from modifying their helmets by attaching any device that protrudes beyond the standard.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as the "LeLite" are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in the "LeLite," your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the product so that the defect is removed; or (2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Safety Act, and an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: Heller2

ID: 17380.ztv

Herr P. Binder
ITT Automotive Europe
Stuttgarter Strasse 119
74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen
Germany

Dear Mr. Binder:

This is in reply to your fax of February 23, 1998, asking several questions about reflex reflectors.

As we understand your first question, a vehicle would be designed with two rear side reflex reflectors, one on the body and one on the tailgate. You ask whether it is permissible to mount two reflectors on each side, and whether each reflector is required to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

We assume that both reflectors would be red in color. Table IV of Standard No. 108 specifies that a red reflex side reflector be located "as far to the rear as practicable." Thus, the reflex reflector mounted on the tailgate would be the reflector located "as far to the rear as practicable," and the reflector that is required to comply with Standard No. 108. It is permissible to add a second reflector. This would be the reflector located on the body. Supplementary reflectors need not comply with Standard No. 108.

Your second question is whether Standard No. 108 permits mounting reflex reflectors only on the tailgate. Yes, that is acceptable as long as the reflector is located in accordance with Table II.

Your third question relates to a two-compartment lamp containing stop and turn signal bulbs. In the event that either bulb fails, you ask whether there is "any regulation which must be passed."

The only requirement that must be met under Standard No. 108 is that failure of the turn signal bulb be brought to the attention of the vehicle operator by the turn signal pilot indicator, an item of motor vehicle equipment required on new vehicles by the standard.

Under the fact situation in your final question, the stop lamp is optically combined with the turn signal lamp. You have asked which lamp will have priority if the stop lamp and hazard warning signal lamp are activated simultaneously or in succession. The SAE standards for stop lamps and turn signal lamps that are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, state that "when a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing." Because hazard warning signal lamps operate through the turn signal lamp system, many vehicles are wired so that the stop signal cannot be turned on if all the turn signal lamps (i.e., the hazard warning lamp system) are flashing. However, Standard No. 108 and the SAE have no requirements per se for the hazard warning system. This means that a vehicle may be wired with a separate hazard warning system circuit so that it is subordinate to, and overriden by, the stop signal when both are operated simultaneously.

But the stop lamp must not override the individual turn signals when they are operating simultaneously, or if the brake pedal is applied when the individual turn signals are flashing.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/22/98

ID: 18264-r.wkm

Mr. Mike Keenan
Van Raden Industries, Inc.
Post Office Box 6346
Portland, OR 97228

Dear Mr. Keenan:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether directly controlling different axles with an antilock braking system (ABS) on a 3-axle stinger-steered log trailer that your company manufactures would be permitted under the trailer ABS requirements. It is our opinion that your trailer is a pole trailer which is excluded from the ABS requirements.

You stated that your 3-axle log trailer consists of a collapsible drawbar, a tandem axle pony, ball-bearing turntable, log bunk, mainframe gooseneck, and last axle. You attached a drawing of the trailer which shows that the mainframe gooseneck on which is mounted the last axle is permanently attached to the trailer by the turntable. The first 2 of the 3 axles concerned, designated in your drawing as axles 5 and 6, are attached to the trailer while the last axle, designated in your drawing as axle 7, is permanently connected to axles 5 and 6 by means of the turntable. You presented a scenario in which axle 6 is directly controlled by ABS while axles 5 and 7 are indirectly controlled by ABS. In a second scenario axle 7 is directly controlled by ABS while axles 5 and 6 are indirectly controlled. Your specific question was whether either or both of these scenarios would comply with the ABS requirements.

Your description of your trailer and the drawings that you enclosed with your letter show that the trailer meets the definition of a "pole trailer," which is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

[A] motor vehicle without motive power designed to be drawn by another motor vehicle and attached to the towing vehicle by means of a reach or pole, or by being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle, for transporting long or irregularly shaped loads such as poles, pipes, or structural members capable generally of sustaining themselves as beams between the supporting connections.

Your trailer appears to meet the above definition in the following respects:

a. The trailer is designed to be drawn by another motor vehicle, and even if the drawbar would not meet the definition of a reach, pole, or boom, it could be considered to fall within the "otherwise secured to the towing vehicle" definition;

b. The logs that the trailer transports are "long or irregularly shaped loads" and, in addition, would be generally capable of sustaining themselves as beams between supporting connections.

Paragraph S5.2.3.1(a) and (b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, require that semitrailers and full trailers manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 be equipped with antilock brake systems (ABS). The definitions of semitrailers and full trailers both exclude pole trailers from the terms of those respective definitions. Thus, pole trailers are excluded from the requirement to be equipped with ABS. Since your trailer is excluded from compliance with Standard No. 121, you would be free to install either of the systems described in your scenarios. Of course, sound engineering judgment would be warranted to assure that the system installed does not contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

The towing vehicle depicted in your drawing appears to be a truck rather than a truck tractor since it has load-carrying capacity other than as a towing vehicle only. You should be aware, therefore, that the ABS equipment and road test requirements for tractors differ from those for straight trucks, especially in their stopping distance requirements.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.4/21/99