ID: nht76-4.29

DATE: 10/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Trailmobile's August 13, 1976, question whether a trailer would be considered to be newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with applicable safety standards if it is assembled from all new materials except for axles (axle beams, spindles and brakes, and associated brake drums, wheels, seals, and bearings) from an existing trailer whose identity and ownership would be continued in the reassembled trailer.

The answer to this question is yes. The assembly of a trailer entirely from new materials except for the trailer axles does not qualify as a "repair" under NHTSA regulations (49 CFR @ 571.7(f). This regulation states that such trailers will be considered newly manufactured unless, "at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking, and suspension) is not new . . ." In the case you describe, the suspension would be new.

SINCERELY,

Pullman Trailmobile

August 13, 1976

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Used Components in Trailer Manufacturing NHTSA Regulation @ 571.7(f), Effective July 1, 1976

Opinion is requested concerning the extent to which substitution of new components in trailer running gear assemblies taken from existing trailers is permissible under the above regulation which permits the combination of new and used highway trailer components without the re-assembled trailer being considered "newly manufactured".

A customer has tendered to Pullman Trailmobile 200 trailer running gear assemblies selected by the customer from its inventory of wrecked and damaged van trailers. The customer proposes to ship the assemblies to a Pullman Trailmobile factory, identified by the serial numbers of the existing trailers from which the running gear assemblies were taken. The customer requests Trailmobile to combine such running gear assemblies with new components to complete re-assembled van trailers which will continue to be used by the customer in its transportation business. The trailer running gear assemblies to be shipped to Pullman Trailmobile will consist of the following components:

(a) axle beam including the spindle and brake assembly;

(b) complete axle assembly (including brake drums, wheels, oil seals, bearings, etc.).

All other components of the trailer running gear assemblies have been adjudged by the customer's maintenance employees to require replacement, consistent with safe maintenance and operation practices.

Reference is made to NHTSA's discussion and evaluation of comments upon the proposed regulation published in the July 1, 1976 Federal Register; in particular, to that paragraph reviewing the comments of Firestone Corporation concerning rims and wheels. In that connection, it was stated that "The agency in no way intends to modify safe maintenance and operation practices by its action. Substitution of new components or of use of old components is not advocated or discouraged by this action". NHTSA also reported that "frame attachment components" were excluded from the description of running gear assemblies for fear that persons might reuse damaged attachment hardware.

Based upon the foregoing, a favorable opinion is requested that reuse of the above described components of trailer running gear assemblies in combination with sufficient new running gear and other components required to produce re-assembled van trailers does not result in a "newly manufactured" trailer; assuming, of course, that the re-assembled trailer will be used by the owner of the existing trailer which will continue to be identified by its existing serial number.

If additional facts or information in connection with the agency's determination is necessary or desirable, please call upon this writer for assistance.

Edgar E. Lungren Jr.

ID: nht92-5.44

DATE: June 25, 1992

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President - Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: Fred Grubbe -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

COPYEE: TTMA Engineering Committee; Tank Conference Engineering Committee; Brake Associates; Larry Strawhorn -- American Trucking Associations; Hank Seiff -- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association; Andrew H. Card, Jr. - Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: Subject: Petition to Extend the Comment Period for Docket No. 92-29; Notice 1 - Stability and Control Requirements for Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicles

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/92 from Barry Felrice to Donald W. Vierimaa (A39; Std. 121)

TEXT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. 92-29; Notice 1, asks 32 questions pertaining to a proposed requirement to equip trucks, truck tractors, and trailers with antilock braking systems (ABS). This notice issued in the June 8th Federal Register requests comments by August 7th. We petition for an extension of the comment period for another 60 days.

We are disappointed that you have not responded to our petition of April 23, 1992 (enclosed) which requested a comment period of 120 calendar days for any major proposed rulemaking. The proposed requirement for ABS is considered by trailer manufacturers as a major proposed rulemaking. You have also requested comments on ABS even though testing has not been completed nor have test reports on completed testing been issued.

When we petition DOT for rulemaking, we often wait months and even years for a decision. Yet, when you propose rulemaking, you request comments within 60 days. Please provide us with the same amount of time to comment on proposed rulemaking as you require in responding to our petitions for rulemaking.

Enclosure

Letter dated 4/23/92 from Donald W. Vierimaa (TTMA) to Andrew H. Card, Jr., DOT Secretary. Text of letter:

We petition that any major proposed rulemaking issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Highway Administration, or Research and Special Programs Administration allow a public comment period of at least ninety (90) calendar days (approximately 63 working days) and preferable one hundred twenty (120) calendar days.

Typically, a DOT agency will spend months or even years developing a proposed rulemaking, then ask the public for comments within 30 to 60 calendar days, and then spend several months or years analyzing the comments before issuing a final rule.

Several examples of comment closing dates follow.

Comment Extended Published Comment Period Comment Docket Subject Date Closing (calendar Closing days) date)

HM-183 Cargo Tank Requirements 9/17/85 2/11/86 150

HM-198A Elevated Temperature 9/21/89 11/20/89 60 2/20/90 Materials

FS-1 Safeguarding Food During 2/20/91 3/26/91 35 4/29/91 Transportation

91-21; N1 Automatic air brake 5/3/91 6/17/91 45 adjustment

80-9; N4 Conspicuity 12/4/91 2/3/92 60 3/31/92

1-11; N9 Rear Impact Guard 1/3/92 3/4/92 60* 6/8/92 & Protection

(*) 41 working days

We have 86 member manufacturers of trailers and two engineering committees, one of which is concerned with tank vehicles and the other concerned with non-tank trailers. These committees meet about every three months. The following is a typical handling of our response to major rulemakings listed by your agencies.

Day Activity

1 Published In Federal Register 4 Federal Register received by TTMA 6 Proposed rulemaking mailed to members 10 Proposed rulemaking received by members 20 Task Force drafts response to proposed rule 24 Draft received by TTMA office 29 Draft reviewed and mailed to members 33 Draft received by members 40 Comments on draft mailed to TTMA office 44 Comments received by TTMA office 48 Comments compiled and a second draft mailed to members 52 Second draft received by members 59 Comments on second draft mailed to TTMA office 63 Comments received by TTMA office 67 Comments compiled and final draft mailed to members 71 Final draft received by members 78 Approval and/or comments mailed to TTMA office 82 Approvals and comments received by TTMA office 90 Final comment submitted to DOT agency

The above scenario does not include discussion at a regularly scheduled engineering meeting. If a proposed rule is very complex or controversial, it may not be possible to draft a response to the rule without holding a meeting.

In this situation, a 120 day comment period would likely be needed. In the case of Docket 80-9; Notice 4, Conspicuity, we sent four draft comments to our members before obtaining approval. Weekends, holidays, and in the summer, vacations, may add to the days needed to respond to a proposed rulemaking. In some cases, prototype development or testing may be required. This could easily require an additional ninety (90) calendar days or more.

Most trailer manufacturers are small businesses with limited staff. Designing and producing trailers to meet customer orders takes precedence. Often the review of proposed rulemaking must be accomplished on weekends.

Typically, the longer the comment period, the more detailed our comments will be. Your agencies should allow a comment period equal to the period they will require to analyze docket comments and issue a final rule. As a matter of course, we intend to petition for an extension of the comment closing date for any period less than ninety (90) calendar days for any major proposed rulemaking.

cc: Jerry Curry, NHTSA Administrator Travis Dungan, RSPA Administrator Thomas Larson, FHWA Administrator

ID: 11804.ZTV

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

We have received your letter of April 15, 1996, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to trailer lighting.

You have informed us of "lowbed trailers [with] narrow goosenecks that are attached to a wider load deck which may be less than 15 inches above the ground." Because Table II of Standard No. 108 requires side marker lamps on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more to be mounted at a height of not less than 15 inches, you have asked if the lamps may be mounted at a height of less than 15 inches if the height of the mounting location is "as high as practicable."

Your question is asked with reference to a combination clearance/front side marker lamp. As we explain below, this combination lamp cannot be used to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in the manner you posit.

The requirement of Standard No. 108 for front side marker lamps is that they be located "as far to the front as practicable" and, at the front, "not less than 15 inches" above the road surface. Thus, the minimum mounting height is expressed as an absolute rather than, like the horizontal location, in terms of practicability. It is our observation that the gooseneck on lowbed trailers is more than 15 inches above the road surface, and that it would be practicable to mount a side marker lamp there, thus complying with the location requirements of Table II.

You have also informed us that, on the typical lowbed trailer with a gooseneck, the combination front clearance/front side marker lamp is mounted at an angle on the front corners of the deck. The manufacturer chooses this location because "[i]f front clearance lamps were mounted on the front face of the deck directly behind the tires of the towing vehicle, they would likely be damaged by debris thrown by the towing vehicle's tires." Based upon certain NHTSA interpretations which you quoted, you asked for confirmation that a combination lamp mounted at such a location complies with Standard No. 108 "without needing to be visible at 45 degrees inboard."

Upon review, we did not find that the interpretations you quoted really provided confirmation of the interpretation that you seek. However, you also called our attention to the following:

"Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear . . . for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." (49 CFR 571.108, S4.3.1.1.1)."

This provision (now renumbered as S5.3.1.1.1) does allow mounting clearance lamps "at a location other than on the front" if the manufacturer determines that the alternate location is needed to protect the lamp from damage during normal operation of the trailer. We believe that the lamps should also be protected from damage if the alternate location is chosen. It seems to us that mounting the clearance lamps at an angle on the front, rather than on the front involves a move of only a few inches at most, and might not provide any greater protection from road debris than mounting the clearance lamps on the front. We ask you to consider this in determining the appropriate location for the clearance lamps, keeping in mind that their primary purpose is to indicate the overall width of the trailer.

This means that a combination clearance/front side marker lamp will not meet the location requirements of Standard No. 108. A separate front side marker lamp must be provided and located on the gooseneck. A separate clearance lamp must be provided, and located in accordance with the views expressed in the preceding paragraph.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/28/96

ID: 15444.ztv

Ms. Jo Ann Hankin
Vice President
for Finance & Administration
Whittier College
P.O. Box 1634
Whitter, CA 90608

Dear Ms. Hankin:

This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have informed us that six manufacturers of electric bicycles are offering their products to Whittier College, five of which say they are exempt from DOT requirements. As you "want to comply with" our rules, you have asked us to clarify our requirements.

We are pleased to do so. First, let me assure you that we have no rules that apply to Whittier College as the purchaser of electric bicycles. Our rules do apply to the manufacturers of "motor vehicles," and the question is whether the manufacturers of bicycles equipped with electric motors are subject to them.

Under the laws we administer, a "motor vehicle" is one that is driven by mechanical power. Thus, an ordinary bicycle is not a "motor vehicle" because it is driven solely by muscular power. We have also concluded that a bicycle with an engine that supplements muscular power rather than superseding it to become the primary propulsion source is also not a "motor vehicle." Vehicles that are not "motor vehicles" are subject to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

By way of explanation, the addition of a motor to a bicycle transforms it into a "motor vehicle" if the motor operates primarily as a substitute for muscular power. We use the informal term "electric bicycle" to identify a bicycle with a full-time electric motor that provides the main propulsion force of the vehicle. Electric bicycles are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to a class of vehicle called "motor driven cycle." One example of an electric bicycle is the EV Warrior, which is certified by its manufacturer, the Electric Bicycle Company, as meeting applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Some manufacturers offer a "power assist" which supplements rather than replaces muscular power as the prime mover of the bicycle. This feature is intended to help bicyclists in faster get-aways from stop lights and in climbing hills. We have advised that, if the bicycle cannot be operated by the power assist alone, the bicycle will not be a "motor vehicle" subject to our regulations. For example, last year one of your correspondents, AeroVironment, informed us that its "bicycle with power amplification system" was designed so that "the bicycle must be pedaled. If the rider stops pedaling, the power assist is also stopped." We advised it on June 14, 1996, that its product would not be a "motor vehicle" since the power assist system does not operate in the absence of muscular effort, even though the power assist system operates full time as a supplement to muscular power. In addition to AeroVironment, these inquirers, which appear to be offering bicycles with "power assists," included Yamaha, Sanyo, Matsushita, and Zimmark.

Six manufacturers replied to your "The Whittier Experiment Electric Bicycle Questionnaire." Question 11 asks in part "What is the maximum time or distance a rider may go on electric power only?" The answers were "8-20 miles" (ZAP Power Systems), "If the rider does not pedal at all, an average charge will last approximately fifty minutes" (ETC Electric Transportation Company), and "20 miles sans pedaling" (B.A.T. Electrobike). The answers of the fourth and fifth manufacturers, Currie Technologies and the Electric Bicycle Company, were not responsive to the question, but their product literature states, respectively, that the distance between battery charges is "20 miles at 10 mph without pedaling" and "Up to 15 miles on a single charge." These responses and the manufacturers' product literature which you enclosed suggest that the electric engines of these vehicles are intended to serve as the primary propulsion source, and can do so for distances up to 20 miles. Our Office of Safety Assurance intends to contact these manufacturers to ascertain whether their products are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

We thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and affording us an opportunity to advise you. If you have further questions, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.8/4/97

ID: nht95-2.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Teresa Thompson

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/6/95 LETTER FROM TERESA THOMPSON TO NHTSA (OCC 10849)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Thompson:

We have received your letter of April 6, 1995, with respect to an automotive deceleration signal. You have asked for information "on how to have this product tested and approved as well as information on the legal ramifications and liabilities for the p roduct."

The Department of Transportation neither tests nor "approves" products. What it does do is to advise whether motor vehicle equipment is permitted under the statutes and regulations for whose administration it is responsible. In this instance, the appro priate regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. This standard specifies requirements for only certain items of lighting equipment but it also has an effect on lighting equipment that is not specified in the standard. That is to say, if an item of lighting equipment is not allowable for a manufacturer or dealer to install as original equipment (i.e., equipment on the vehicle at the time of its original sale), in most cases it won't be allowable in the aftermarket for manufacturer or dealer installation on used vehicles as well.

As you describe it, the signal is provided by "a strobe light with an independent power supply, which upon heavy breaking (sic), will activate a strobe for five seconds and on impact for ten minutes." The prototype "is approximately 4" by 3" and may be a ttached to a rear window."

Federal laws cover brake activation of your strobe signal. Standard No. 108 requires turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps to flash. Headlamps and side marker lamps may be flashed for signaling purposes. But all other lamps provided as original equipment must be steady-burning. We regard a strobe lamp as one that flashes. For this reason, the deceleration signal you describe could not be installed as original equipment. Further, its installation on a used veh icle would take the vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 108.

Notwithstanding the discussion above, there is no Federal prohibition on the sale of the strobe signal device, and Federal law does not prevent the vehicle owner from installing it on a used vehicle (however, manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and mot or vehicle repair businesses may not do so), no matter what effect the strobe signal may have upon compliance with Standard No. 108. However, the States have the right to decide whether use of the strobe signal is permissible. We aren't able to provide you with information on State laws, and suggest that you seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22303. We can't advise you on your potential liabilities either, and suggest th at you contact your attorney for an opinion on the applicability of local law.

In addition, it is important to note that Standard No. 108 prohibits supplementary original lighting equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The proximity of your strobe device in the rea r window to the center highmounted stop lamp required by Standard No. 108 raises the possibility of impairment, especially if the strobe is of a color other than red, or so bright as to mask the center stop lamp signal.

I am sorry to be unable to offer you more encouragement at present, as we share your concern with the negative effects of fog and rain on drivers and vehicles. It is obvious that you have given much thought to this problem. Noting that you are testing a prototype, this agency would be interested in receiving any data you have or may develop showing a positive effect of the strobe signal upon the frequency and severity of rear end collisions. You may send this to Michael Perel, Office of Research and D evelopment, NHTSA, Room 6206, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC 20590. It is conceivable that at some time in the future we would allow the center stop lamp to flash under conditions of rapid deceleration. This could open the way to permissibility of an additional lamp such as yours.

I note that, to the extent that your device were only to activate upon impact and not during conditions of rapid deceleration, it would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108. Such a device would be permissible as a supplement to, or substitute for, a ve hicle's hazard warning signal system. We do not know whether it would be permissible under State laws (see discussion above).

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

ID: 0849

Ms. Teresa Thompson
1686 Desoto Trail
Dalton, GA 30721

Dear Ms. Thompson:

We have received your letter of April 6, 1995, with respect to an automotive deceleration signal. You have asked for information "on how to have this product tested and approved as well as information on the legal ramifications and liabilities for the product."

The Department of Transportation neither tests nor "approves" products. What it does do is to advise whether motor vehicle equipment is permitted under the statutes and regulations for whose administration it is responsible. In this instance, the appropriate regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. This standard specifies requirements for only certain items of lighting equipment but it also has an effect on lighting equipment that is not specified in the standard. That is to say, if an item of lighting equipment is not allowable for a manufacturer or dealer to install as original equipment (i.e., equipment on the vehicle at the time of its original sale), in most cases it won't be allowable in the aftermarket for manufacturer or dealer installation on used vehicles as well.

As you describe it, the signal is provided by "a strobe light with an independent power supply, which upon heavy breaking (sic), will activate a strobe for five seconds and on impact for ten minutes." The prototype "is approximately 4" by 3" and may be attached to a rear window."

Federal laws cover brake activation of your strobe signal. Standard No. 108 requires turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps to flash. Headlamps and side marker lamps may be flashed for signaling purposes. But all other lamps provided as original equipment must be steady-burning. We regard a strobe lamp as one that flashes. For this reason, the deceleration signal you describe could not be installed as original equipment. Further, its installation on a used vehicle would take the vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 108.

Notwithstanding the discussion above, there is no Federal prohibition on the sale of the strobe signal device, and Federal law does not prevent the vehicle owner from installing it on a used vehicle (however, manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not do so), no matter what effect the strobe signal may have upon compliance with Standard No. 108. However, the States have the right to decide whether use of the strobe signal is permissible. We aren't able to provide you with information on State laws, and suggest that you seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22303. We can't advise you on your potential liabilities either, and suggest that you contact your attorney for an opinion on the applicability of local law.

In addition, it is important to note that Standard No. 108 prohibits supplementary original lighting equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The proximity of your strobe device in the rear window to the center highmounted stop lamp required by Standard No. 108 raises the possibility of impairment, especially if the strobe is of a color other than red, or so bright as to mask the center stop lamp signal.

I am sorry to be unable to offer you more encouragement at present, as we share your concern with the negative effects of fog and rain on drivers and vehicles. It is obvious that you have given much thought to this problem. Noting that you are testing a prototype, this agency would be interested in receiving any data you have or may develop showing a positive effect of the strobe signal upon the frequency and severity of rear end collisions. You may send this to Michael Perel, Office of Research and Development, NHTSA, Room 6206, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC 20590. It is conceivable that at some time in the future we would allow the center stop lamp to flash under conditions of rapid deceleration. This could open the way to permissibility of an additional lamp such as yours.

I note that, to the extent that your device were only to activate upon impact and not during conditions of rapid deceleration, it would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108. Such a device would be permissible as a supplement to, or

substitute for, a vehicle's hazard warning signal system. We do not know whether it would be permissible under State laws (see discussion above).

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

refL108 d:5/11/95

ID: nht88-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH P. FAIA --

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: UNDATED LETTER TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM JOSEPH P FAIA, OCC - 2177

TEXT: This is in reply to your recent undated letter regarding a vehicle lighting accessory for trucks and trailers. It appears from your letter and enclosed diagram that the purpose of the device is to illuminate "two dimensional displays" on the side or rea r of vehicles. A number of such devices would be required, depending on the size of the display to be illuminated. You have not stated the candlepower of the device. Reference is made to a transparent section through which the light is emitted, and to a "semi-translucent" section which is "tinted and arranged to function as the running lights commonly seen on trailers." The color of the light is not specified, but we shall assume that it is amber or red when emitted through the "semi-translucent" sec tions, and white when emitted through the transparent sections to illustrate the display.

You have asked four questions with regard to this device. The first question is whether it can be used as a "combination side illumination and marker light." As a general rule, supplementary lighting devices such as yours are permissible as original equ ipment if they do not impair the effectiveness of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. They are permissible as aftermarket equipment under Federal law if their installation by a p erson other than the vehicle owner does not "render inoperative in whole or in part" lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108, but their legality is otherwise determined by the laws of the States in which the vehicle is registered and operated. As for whether your device may be used as a combination side illumination and marker light, if you mean as the only side marker lamp, the combination per se is not prohibited by Standard No. 108. However, the side marker lamp in such a c ombination must comply with photometric, location, color, and other requirements for such lamps, and its effectiveness must not be impaired. One example of impairment would be if the glare from the device's white light masked the conspicuity of the side marker. As a combined device supplementing the required side marker lamp, it is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of

the required side marker. For purposes of this letter and with respect to Standard No. 108 we equate "impairment of effectiveness" with "partial inoperative."

Your second question is whether it can be used "as a backup light and parking light, to be used only in these situations." It is unclear whether you intend the device to be the backup lamp required by the standard, or one that supplements it. If the for mer, its use is permissible provided that the backup function meets all requirements of Standard No. 108 that are specified for backup lamps, such as color and photometrics, and provided that the display function does not impair the effectiveness of the backup function. Because the color of light in both functions would be identical, care must be taken to ensure that the backup signal is clearly perceived. If you intend it as a supplementary backup lamp, it is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the primary backup lamp. Your term "parking light" is unclear; because front parking lamps are not required on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more, I assume you mean a lamp on the rear of a vehicle that is not a backu p lamp but which can be used to indicate that the vehicle is moving slowly while being parked. The device appears permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the other lighting equipment on the rear.

Your third question is whether the device may be used as a stop lamp, activated only when the brake is applied. Two devices may be used as the original equipment stop lamps, provided all requirements of Standard No. 108 are met and that the display func tion does not impair the effectiveness of any other lighting equipment. One or more devices could be used as supplementary stop lamps under the same restriction.

Your final question is whether it may be used alone as a display light. The answer is yes, subject to the impairment prohibition. The only specifically prohibited use of the lamp is its combination with a clearance lamp, a configuration which appears d epicted by the uppermost lights, front and rear, of your Figures 2 and 3.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase -- Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN

This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1985, to Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, asking for an interpretation of the recent amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allowing motorcycles to be equipped with modulating headlamp systems.

In your first question, you asked for confirmation of your understanding of the modulation cycle and maximum power. We confirm that your interpretation is correct. Please note that the value of A on the modulation cycle of your diagram may be equal to or less than the value of D. However, the requirement relates to C/D rather than C/A, and it is the value of C/D that must be at least 0.17.

With reference to the electrical wiring diagram that you provided, you have asked whether the voltage drop maximum of 0.45 volt in S4.6.1(g) applies to condition (a) (when the modulator switch is "on") or condition (b) (when the modulator switch is "off"). The maximum voltage drop applies to both conditions (a) and (b), i.e., when the modulator is operating and when the headlamp is on. Paragraph S4.6.1(g) states "When tested in accordance with the test profile shown in Figure 9, the voltage drop across the modulator when the lamp is on at all test conditions ....shall not be greater than .45 volt." This not only includes the period of time when the modulator is operating, but also the period when the headlamp is on without the modulator. Paragraph S4.6.1(e) requires that both the upper and lower beams remain operable in the event of a modulator failure, and thus the agency views headlamp operation without modulator as one of the test conditions included in the term "test conditions" in S4.6.1(g). We would like to comment further that when the modulator is turned on, during the test profile of Figure 9, it should be activated when the headlamp is on, since most manufacturers of motorcycles wire their vehicles so that the headlamp is on when the ignition switch is on.

Your next question concerns the acceptability of three types of modulator switch systems which you have diagrammed. All your designs appear consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 108. The modulator must be capable of being switched out of the circuit if it fails, in which case upper and lower beams could be used im a steady-burning mode. This does not necessarily mean another switch, other than the Hi-low beam switch, however.

In response to your final question, you may write Herbert Thrower, Jr., President, Dotech Inc., P.O. Box 3322, Charlotte, N.C. 28210.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

SUBJECT: ACTION: Request for Interpretation of Motorcycle Modulating Headlamp Requirements (FMVSS No. 108) by Koito

FROM: Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

TO: Jeffrey Miller Chief Counsel

Rulemaking received the attached request for an engineering interpretation of the intent of certain requirements for motorcycle headlamp modulators.

Herein is the engineering interpretation of the requirements in question. Please prepare the official response to Koito based on this information.

In response to question 1:

1. Yes, 0.21 < y < 0.30 sec., as suggested by koito, is correct.

2. Yes, x/y = 50 to 70%, as suggested by Koito, is correct.

3. The value of A may be equal to or less than the value of D. However, the requirement relates to C/D rather than C/A. It is the value of C/O that must be at least 0.17.

In response to question 2:

The intent of the requirement in S4.6.1 is to assure that less than 0.45 volts is lost as a result of the addition to a headlamp circuit for the purpose of modulating the headlamp. The 0.45 volts is for night operation condition of the headlamp (i.e. condition "b" in Koito's letter).

In response to question 3.

We do not approve designs, but offer the following comments on the intent of the rule. The modulator should be capable of being switched out of the circuit if it fails, in which case upper and lower beams could be used in a steady burning mode. This does not necessarily mean another switch, other than the Hi-low beam switch, however. All your designs appear to be consistent with the requirements of the standard, however some appear more desirable, based on number of switches, case of use, etc., than others.

In response to your request for the address of Dotech, a modulator manufacturer, the following information is furnished:

Mr. Herbert Thrower, Jr.. President Dotech Inc. P.O. Box 3322 306 Clanton Road Charlotte, N.C. 28210 Tel. No. (704) 523-6727

Attachment

ID: 7175

Mr. Raymond B. Kesler
Kesler Research Enterprises
5508 Cahuenga Blvd.
North Hollywood, CA 91601

Dear Mr. Kesler:

This responds to your February 29, 1992 letter asking the agency to reconsider its decision to deny your earlier petition for rulemaking to amend Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. As explained below, your request is again denied, for the same reasons explained in the previous denial.

You initially petitioned the agency to amend Standard No. 111 to require passenger side convex mirrors to have a radius of curvature of 25 inches and to have a plastic label with a ring indicator applied to these mirrors. After reviewing the petition, the agency denied your request, finding that (1) a safety need for a wider field of view for passenger side convex mirrors had not been established and (2) your suggested mirror system would, by comparison with currently specified convex mirror systems, have increased distortion and reduced a driver's depth perception and judgment about another vehicle's closing speed. (56 FR 42715; August 29, 1991).

In your February 29, 1992 correspondence, styled a "petition for reconsideration," you restated your previous request for the agency to amend Standard No. 111 to require a mirror with a 25 inch radius of curvature and a plastic label with a ring indicator applied to these mirrors. That request does not provide any new information beyond what was presented in your initial petition.

Petitions for reconsideration may be filed only in response to an agency rule. See 49 CFR 553.35(a). A denial of a petition for rulemaking is not a rule, since such denials do not amend any existing provision in the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, your correspondence is not a petition for reconsideration.

It is possible that there might be instances in which additional information has become available since the agency considered and denied the initial petition for rulemaking. If such a situation were to arise, the petitioner could file a new petition for rulemaking, asking again for the requested action based upon the newly available information. NHTSA would consider this as a petition for rulemaking. As noted above, your correspondence did not provide any new information. Thus, your correspondence is not a petition for rulemaking. Instead, your correspondence is simply a request for NHTSA to take the same action you previously asked us to take in a petition for rulemaking. Absent any new information, there is no reason for NHTSA to reexamine its previous conclusion on this matter.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding of the agency's regulations on your part. In your February 29, 1992 correspondence, you made the statement that your product "should be approved to be made available to the driver as an optional choice." In our notice denying your petition, the agency tried to make clear that products like your convex mirror with a ring sensor label are not prohibited from being installed on vehicles by the current requirements in Standard No. 111. However, such mirrors are permitted only as supplements to the required mirrors, for the safety reasons explained at length in the denial notice. See 56 FR 42716; August 29, 1991. Hence, your product may be installed as a supplement to the required mirrors on current vehicles, without any amendments to Standard No. 111.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:111 d:5/14/92

ID: nht93-2.23

DATE: March 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James L. Vasko

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-1-89 from Stephen P. Wood to John K. Moody; Also attached to letter dated 2-17-93 from James L. Vasko to John Womack (OCC 8337)

TEXT: Thank your for your letter of February 17, 1993, replying to my letter of February 11 with respect to your invention, the "Front Brake Light System."

Although you did not address my assumption that your invention flashes both front signal lamps when the brake pedal is applied, it would appear from your latest letter that the system activates the front signal lamps in a steady-burning state, with a flashing turn signal overriding the steady-burning front stop signal when the turn signal is activated. We derive this from your statement that a driver pulling into traffic "would see the turn signal and the brake light showing that the vehicle was braking and turning."

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, under which we issue the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT specifies the requirements for lamps and reflectors that are used as original equipment on motor vehicles. There is no restriction under the Safety Act or Standard No. 108 as to the manufacture and sale of your invention. Equipment that is not specified in the standard, such as the "Front Brake Light System," may be installed by either the vehicle manufacturer or the dealer, provided that the equipment does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. Thus the question is whether a front turn signal would be impaired by the illuminated presence of its counterpart in a steady-burning mode on the other side of the vehicle. The decision is initially to be made by the installer. If the decision appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will inform the appropriate party who made the decision. We note that the possibility of impairment exists if an observer is momentarily confused as to the message that the vehicle driver is sending, and that such momentary confusion can exist when novel lighting devices are used on motor vehicles, or when familiar lamps are used in unfamiliar ways.

The legality of the "Front Brake Light System" in the aftermarket, when a vehicle has been sold and is in use, is determinable under the Safety Act itself. The Act prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." We tend to equate impairment with partial inoperability. Thus, if your invention, as original equipment, impairs the effectiveness of the front turn signal it would also, as aftermarket equipment, render the turn signal partially inoperative within the meaning of our interpretation of the Safety Act. However, the Safety Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from personally-modifying his or her vehicle in any manner.

Optional lighting equipment such as your invention is also subject to the laws of the States in which the equipment will be used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and recommend that you contact, for an opinion, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. We have previously given an interpretation with respect to a front stop light indicator system, and I enclose for your information a copy of our letter of November 1, 1989, to John K. Moody.