ID: 17684.ztv

Mr. Peter Gross
Electrical Engineer
Spartan Motors
P.O. Box 440
Charlotte, MI 48813

Dear Mr. Gross:

We are replying to your letter of March 25, 1998, asking a question regarding motor vehicle lighting on motor homes wider than 80 inches, which will have rear combination stop/turn signal lamps. Specifically, you write that "when the hazard warning lights are activated the brake signal will not override the flashing tail lamps" (we believe you mean flashing turn signal lamps). You state that this is inconsistent with all vehicles Spartan has built with rear combination stop/turn signal lamps and inquire whether the lack of override is acceptable.

The stop lamp and turn signal lamp standards that apply to vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and are, respectively, SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm Or More In Overall Width, and SAE Standard J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm Or More In Overall Width. Paragraph 5.4.2 of both J1398 and J1395 address the performance priorities of combination stop/turn signal lamps. These paragraphs 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" (the same is required by paragraphs 5.4.2 of SAE J586 FEB84 and SAE J588 NOV84 for combination stop/turn signal lamps on narrower vehicles). 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.

However, the stop lamp must not override the individual turn signals when they are operating simultaneously. This may explain the apparent inconsistency that you noted in Spartan production.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/3/98

ID: nht88-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JAMES T. STREET -- PRESIDENT, STREET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @ 571.211). Specifically, you sent me some product sheets showing several different designs of "spinner" hub caps, and asked whether y ou can market these items at both the wholesale and retail levels. The answer is no.

I have enclosed copies of my May 13, 1987, letter to the Honorable William E. Dannemeyer and my November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. In these letters, I reaffirmed our past interpretations stating that spinner hub caps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)] makes it illegal to "manufa cture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any hub caps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added). We would consider each sale or offer for sal e of spinner hub caps to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation of section 108(a), up to a maximum of $ 800,000.

I appreciate your efforts to ensure that your company does business in a way that complies with all our requirements. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at th is address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: 2852o

Mr. James T. Street
President
Street Specialty Products, Inc.
871 North Hanover Street
Pottstown, PA 19464

Dear Mr. Street:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR 571.211). Specifically, you sent me some product sheets showing several different designs of "spinner" hub caps, and asked whether you can market these items at both the wholesale and retail levels. The answer is no.

I have enclosed copies of my May 13, 1987, letter to the Honorable William E. Dannemeyer and my November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. In these letters, I reaffirmed our past interpretations stating that spinner hub caps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)] makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any hub caps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added). We would consider each sale or offer for sale of spinner hub caps to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108(a), up to a maximum of $800,000.

I appreciate your efforts to ensure that your company does business in a way that complies with all our requirements. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:211 d:3/l8/88

ID: nht76-3.25

DATE: 08/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Modular Ambulance Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPETATION

TEXT: We have received your letter of July 26, 1976, petitioning for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75. When you forward the financial statements promised we shall prepare a notice for the Federal Register.

I would like to comment on two aspects of your petition. The first is that in our opinion, each manufacturer supplying you with a chassis is an "incomplete vehicle" manufacturer as defined by 49 CFR Part 568, and should be able to provide you with sufficient information, in the incomplete vehicle document accompanying each chassis, to enable you to insure that your ambulances upon completion conform with Standard No. 301-75. I enclose a copy of a recent letter that we sent General Motors expressing our views on this subject. Since your problem is basically similar, as part of your good faith efforts to meet Standard No. 301-75 you should attempt to obtain compliance information from your chassis manufacturers as soon as you can. We would like to be informed if you are unable to obtain this information.

My second comment is that your petition presents the "worst case" approach, based upon the presumed necessity to crash test each of the 11 models you manufacture. As a matter of clarification, there is no legal requirement that a manufacturer conduct a barrier test before he certifies compliance with Standard No. 301-75. He must, however, have a reasonable basis for certification that the vehicle, if barrier tested, would meet Standard No. 301-75. Many manufacturers prefer the assurance that is provided by testing according to a standard's procedure. However, engineering calculations, computer simulations, etc., can often provide a reasonable basis for certification. You may wish to reevaluate your petition's cost estimates in light of this.

ID: nht94-2.58

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Simons -- Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/25/93 from Kenneth P. Simons to Department of Transportation, Trucking Division (OCC-8877)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about brake requirements for trailers used in tractor trailer combinations. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether all such trailers are required to be equipped with "maxi" brakes on one or both axles. You state that a "maxi" brake is found on all road tractors and "sets the brakes automatically when the air pressure gets down to a minimum level." Please note that the term "maxi" brakes ordinarily refers to spring brakes used in parking and e mergency brake applications. I further note that most, but not all, trailers are equipped with spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. S1392), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards.

Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.121, copy enclosed), specifies performance requirements for trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to insure safe braking performance of vehicle under n ormal and emergency conditions.

While Standard No. 121 does not require manufacturers to use spring brakes or any other particular type of brake system, many manufacturers use spring brakes to comply with the standard's requirements concerning parking brake performance (truck, buses an d trailers; see S5.6), emergency brake performance (trucks and buses only; see S5.7), and trailer pneumatic system failure performance (see S5.8). I note that while the requirements of S5.65 and S5.8 apply to most air-braked trailers, S3 of Standard No. 121 excludes some trailers from all of the standard's requirements. In addition, S5.6 and S5.8 specify alternative requirements for some trailers.

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.

ID: nht94-6.13

DATE: April 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Simons -- Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/25/93 from Kenneth P. Simons to Department of Transportation, Trucking Division (OCC-8877)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about brake requirements for trailers used in tractor trailer combinations. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether all such trailers are required to be equipped with "maxi" brakes on one or both axles. You state that a "maxi" brake is found on all road tractors and "sets the brakes automatically when the air pressure gets down to a minimum level." Please note that the term "maxi" brakes ordinarily refers to spring brakes used in parking and emergency brake applications. I further note that most, but not all, trailers are equipped with spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. S1392), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards.

Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.121, copy enclosed), specifies performance requirements for trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to insure safe braking performance of vehicle under normal and emergency conditions.

While Standard No. 121 does not require manufacturers to use spring brakes or any other particular type of brake system, many manufacturers use spring brakes to comply with the standard's requirements concerning parking brake performance (truck, buses and trailers; see S5.6), emergency brake performance (trucks and buses only; see S5.7), and trailer pneumatic system failure performance (see S5.8). I note that while the requirements of S5.65 and S5.8 apply to most air-braked trailers, S3 of Standard No. 121 excludes some trailers from all of the standard's requirements. In addition, S5.6 and S5.8 specify alternative requirements for some trailers.

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.

ID: 8877

Ken Simons, Esq.
P.O. Box 883
Fairmont, WV 26555

Dear Mr. Simons:

This responds to your letter asking about brake requirements for trailers used in tractor trailer combinations. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether all such trailers are required to be equipped with "maxi" brakes on one or both axles. You state that a "maxi" brake is found on all road tractors and "sets the brakes automatically when the air pressure gets down to a minimum level." Please note that the term "maxi" brakes ordinarily refers to spring brakes used in parking and emergency brake applications. I further note that most, but not all, trailers are equipped with spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards.

Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121, copy enclosed), specifies performance requirements for trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to insure safe braking performance of vehicles under normal and emergency conditions.

While Standard No. 121 does not require manufacturers to use spring brakes or any other particular type of brake system, many manufacturers use spring brakes to comply with the standard's requirements concerning parking brake performance (trucks, buses and trailers; see S5.6), emergency brake performance (trucks and buses only; see S5.7), and trailer pneumatic system failure performance (see S5.8). I note that while the requirements of S5.6 and S5.8 apply to most air- braked trailers, S3 of Standard No. 121 excludes some trailers from all of the standard's requirements. In addition, S5.6 and S5.8 specify alternative requirements for some trailers.

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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:121 d:4/25/94

ID: nht75-3.1

DATE: 09/04/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Yamaha International Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 5, 1975, asking whether a prototype "stiff rubber supported turn signal" would comply with S4.3.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S4.3.1 requires lighting equipment to "be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle." Your proposed turn signal lamp is mounted at the end of a stiff rubber bracket which is attached to the vehicle. The bracket must be considered part of the vehicle. Obviously, even with a metal mounting there will be some vibration transmitted from the motorcycle to the lamp when the engine is running. We would consider the prototype mounting to be sufficiently "rigid" to conform to the standard if the rubber mount is stiff enough so that there is little or no amplification of vibration when the engine is running.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

August 5, 1975

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

We are considering using a stiff rubber supported turn signal on some of our future model motorcycles.

We are not sure, however, if this device complies with the requirement of S4.3.1 of FMVSS 108, which states each lamp must be mounted on a "rigid part of the vehicle".

We would like to request an interpretation of FMVSS 108 to determine if this stiff rubber supported turn signal complies with the requirement for mounting of the lamp on a rigid part of the vehicle, as specified in S4.3.1.

We are sending, under separate cover, a sample of the device in question.

If you require any additional information or materials please contact me.

Sincerely,

Russ Jura -- Legislative Analyst, Engineering Division YAMAHA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

ID: 86-6.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Glenn Groth

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Glenn Groth 3355 Mission Ave. Ste 211 Oceanside, CA 92054

Dear Mr. Groth:

This is in reply to your letter of July 21, 1986, to Dr. Carl Clark of this agency. You have developed a "brake light enhancer," a device which flashes the stop lamps three times before they become steady-burning. The sample you provided us is packaged to describe the device as "the ultimate in rear end collision prevention," and bears a label "This product is for off road use". The device is specifically permitted under Section 25251.5(c) of the California Vehicle Code. Your letter states that several vehicle manufacturers have shown interest in the device, but wish to see "DOT approval." You anticipate that the device might eventually be "a mandatory device like the third brake light now." You have asked Dr. Clark "What are our next steps to getting the approval of the D.O.T. for this device?"

The Department has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs or items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we establish the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to be met by manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standards apply from manufacture through first sale of the vehicle; after the first sale, as a general rule, modifications may not be performed to a vehicle that take it out of compliance with a standard. However, this prohibition does not extend to modifications performed by the owner himself. The Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which manufacturers certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, without the necessity of prior "approval" by the Department. The Act also requires national uniformity of Federal and state safety standards in that once a Federal standard has been established, a State standard covering the same aspect of performance must be identical to it.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment is the Federal standard on motor vehicle lighting. Because the Federal requirement does not allow a stoplamp to flash three times before becoming steady burning, a motor vehicle may not be manufactured with the brake lamp enhancer installed. Further, if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installs a brake light enhancer, that person could be viewed as having rendered the stoplamps partially ineffective, and therefore as having violated the Act. Because the advertised purpose of this device is to prevent rear end collisions for on road vehicles, the label "This product is for off road use" will not serve to protect any person from liability under the Act.

In summary, your device is permissible under the Act only if it is designed to be installed by a vehicle owner, and so advertised. The fact that it may be legal under California law will not protect a driver from citation for operation of the system in any State where it may not be permitted by local law. You have the right to petition the Department for an amendment to Standard No. 108 to permit or require your device, but at present we are satisfied that the new center high mounted stop lamp sufficiently addresses the identical safety need covered by your system. Because the safety standards are performance oriented rather than design oriented, the agency's regulations are not intended to specify devices or systems of a proprietary nature.

I enclose a copy of our petition regulations for your information. If you file a petition with us, it should contain data substantiating the safety need and demonstrated performance of your device, rather than simple allegations that it prevents rear end collisions. We are returning the sample of your device herewith.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 21, 1986

Dr. Carl C. Clark Inventor Contact Code NRD-12 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Brake Light Enhancer

Dear Dr. Clark:

Thank you for the time you shared with me on the telephone last Friday, July 18, 1986. I appreciate all the information and help you provided.

At your suggestion, I'm enclosing the following items for your review: (1) A copy o; the patent for the Brake Light Enhancer; (2) A copy of the amendment to the California State Vehicle Code permitting the use of the device on vehicles in California to flash the stop lamps three 3 times before coming on steady; (3) A brochure which briefly describes the product; and (4) A sample of the device for your inspection and testing.

As I mentioned to you over the phone we have several auto manufacturers interested in the device, but before they will commit themselves to using it they would like to see more approvals or endorsements for the product, such as by the D.O.T. We anticipate that if and when the device is approved by the D.O.T., it would initially be offered as an option and later as a mandatory device like the third brake light now.

What are our next steps to getting the approval of the D.O.T. for this device?

Thank you again for all your help. I've enclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelope for your convenience.

Sincerely,

Glenn Groth

ID: 11120

Ms. Karey Clock
Moriden America, Inc.
915 Western Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46241

Dear Ms. Clock:

This responds to your inquiry about testing procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. In particular, you asked whether certain materials, which you list as flat woven, double raschel, tricot, and moquette, should be tested by using support wires. The short answer is that during NHTSA compliance testing, support wires may be used in testing any specimen that "softens or bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning." However, the agency cannot specify, outside of the context of a compliance test, whether a given type of material falls in this category.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

You ask about Standard No. 302, which specifies requirements for the flammability resistance of materials in the occupant compartment of new vehicles. Along with specified performance requirements, Standard No. 302 sets forth conditions and procedures under which NHTSA tests materials for compliance with the standard. Section S5.1.3 of the standard states, in relevant part, that

The test specimen is inserted between two matching U-shaped frames of metal stock 1-inch wide and 3/8 of an inch high. The interior dimensions of the U-shaped frames are 2 inches wide by 13 inches long. A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of material is an additional U-shaped frame, wider than the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 1--mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

You ask whether certain specific types of materials could be tested using the supplemental wire described in S5.1.3. The agency uses supplemental wires when there is a reasonable expectation

that a test specimen will soften and bend while burning. The agency bases its determination about the likelihood of softening and bending on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the specimen, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience with components that are highly similar to a test specimen. However, since a decision to use wires is made only in the context of compliance testing, we regret that we cannot tell you at this time whether support wires will be used to test the materials you listed.

Vehicle manufacturers are not required by Standard No. 302 to test the flammability of their vehicles in the manner specified in the standard. The standard only sets the procedure that the agency will use in its compliance testing. Thus, a vehicle manufacturer is not required to use wires only with specimens that are anticipated to soften or bend. However, vehicle manufacturers must exercise due care in certifying that their product will meet Standard No. 302's requirements when tested by NHTSA according to the specified procedures of the standard. Whether a vehicle manufacturer has met that due care standard when using support wires in situations other than those described in Standard No. 302 is a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:302 d:9/25/95