ID: nht93-6.44

DATE: September 23, 1993

FROM: Barry H. Wells -- M.D., Drs. Herzinger, Biles, Zagula & Wells, P.A.

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Atty., NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from John Womack to Barry H. Wells (A41; Std. 121)

TEXT:

Thank you for the information regarding the upcoming NHTSA publication on the problem of jackknifing in tractor-trailers. I look forward to reading the document. As I mentioned, I would welcome the opportunity to either testify or to go on public record in writing as to the existence of a safety device for tractor-trailers that has been tested and proven to eliminate jackknifing and to stop fully-loaded trucks in distances comparable to those of an automobile.

I have enclosed a promotional videotape featuring the brake. As you can see, it has been tested under a variety of driving conditions and with maneuvers that should precipitate a jackknifing of the test vehicle- maneuvers which also anticipate the agency's goal of establishing performance requirements for a braking-in-a-curve test, as well as a lane- change test. These test were all supervised by Dr. Everett C. Carter of the University of Maryland Transportation Studies Department.

In reading the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 110) that you recommended, I was encouraged to discover that NHTSA is "undertaking a comprehensive effort to improve the braking performance of heavy vehicles." It is apparent from my review of the material I requested from the Federal Highway Administration (Accidents Reported by Motor Carriers of Property, 1990, publication no. FHWA/MC-93/011), that the highways are becoming increasingly unsafe as automobiles share the road with more heavy trucks which differ dramatically in their stopping characteristics, especially in inclement conditions. This report cites a 37% increase in the number of accidents in 1990 over the 1986 totals, a 26% increase in the number of fatalities for the same period, and $507 million worth of property damages for 1990. A recent spate of fatal tractor-trailer accidents on the Capitol Beltway has drawn local attention to the problem, and calls have been made for more vigorous safety inspections. However, even doubling the number of inspection teams could not truly make the roads safe, as even under the best road conditions and with properly operating equipment, the fact remains that tractor- trailers require stopping distances that they cannot maintain on the crowded highways, and under inclement weather conditions, they are extremely difficult to stop quickly in a controlled fashion.

Further on in the same ANPRM, it is stated that "...interested persons are requested to provide any relevant factual information on the anticipated safety benefits...of improv(ing) the lateral stability and control performance during braking of heavy trucks," as well as "the type of equipment needed to comply with the new requirements." This relatively simple safety device, which is easy to retrofit on existing equipment or to assemble on original equipment, seems to address directly the problems of lateral stability and increased stopping distances of tractor-

trailers and should save lives if in widespread use.

While I recognize that the agency cannot specifically promote the use of a particular manufacturer's product, it would seem that, from what I have seen of the complexity and cost of the antilock braking systems as well as their performance, the agency would at least be interested in testing the E.B.T. system as extensively as it has the ABS.

Again, I thank you for directing me in obtaining the rulemaking documents, and I look forward to the upcoming NHTSA publication and any opportunity to comment in the Public Docket. If you can offer any further direction, please let me know. I have been told by a friend, who is an aide to Rep. Dan Hamburg of California, that I should inquire as to an opportunity to testify before the House Committee on Public Words and Transportation, or the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. Any guidance such as this is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht93-6.45

DATE: September 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carolyn H. McDaniel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/1/93 from Carolyn H. McDaniel to Mary Versailles (OCC-9060)

TEXT:

This responds to your September 1, 1993, letter to Mary Versailles of my staff. You are concerned with vehicles used by a company called Extradition Services, Inc. (ESI), to transport prisoners, one of which was involved in an accident in Texas. You describe the vehicle involved in the accident as follows:

...an extended Dodge van, bars over the windows, handles off the doors, one bench in a wire cage, two more bench seats and a bench seat across the back of the van. The aisle ran along the passenger side of the van. The seats appeared to be the original seats and seat belts apparently had been removed because none were present.

You also expressed concerns related to the way these vehicles were operated.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. The regulations administered by this agency only address the way in which the vehicle is manufactured, not the use of the vehicle.

Based on your description of the vehicle, there may be a question as to whether the vehicle was required to have seat belts. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. In addition, different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which the prisoners were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and GVWR of the vehicle.

Your letter states that you believe the seat belts were removed from the vehicle after manufacture. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

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

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from removing seat belts from a vehicle. Please note, however, that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications owners make to their own vehicles.

Your concerns about ESI's use of the vehicle are not addressed by the Federal law administered by this agency, which addresses only the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, not their use. It is possible that there may be an issue associated with commercial driver regulations, and we have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration. In addition, because your questions concern the safety of vehicles used to transport prisoners and an accident in Texas, you may wish to contact the Governor's Office, the head of the Texas prison system, or your state representative.

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

ID: nht93-6.46

DATE: September 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joel Trim -- Manager, Mechnical Service Department, Neal and Massy Motors

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from Joel Trim to The Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (OCC-8902)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of July 7, 1993, asking the Secretary of Transportation for assistance in obtaining copies of any regulations and standards that govern the certification and operation of modified vehicles (stretch limousines), kit cars, and homemade vehicles. Your country, Trinidad, has no such regulations.

Under the dual Federal-State system of government in the United States, the registration, inspection, and operation of motor vehicles is a State function. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, but you may find assistance by writing the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Federal regulation of motor vehicles is primarily concerned with establishing and enforcing standards to be met when the vehicle is manufactured, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). With one minor exception the United States has no laws or regulations that apply specifically to the types of vehicles you have named. I am pleased, however, to explain how we have treated them over the years in the interpretive letters we have written.

A. Modified vehicles As you may know, each vehicle manufactured for sale in the United States must bear its manufacturer's label certifying that it complies with all FMVSS. If a vehicle is modified after it has left the factory and before it is sold, the modifier is required to affix its own label stating that the vehicle as modified complies with all FMVSS affected by the alteration. However, this label is not required if the modifications are minor changes affecting readily attachable equipment items. Further, under our law, no label is required if the vehicle is modified after it has been sold. I enclose a copy of our certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567 and call your attention to Section 567.7 Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.

We have discovered instances in which modified vehicles (stretch limos) failed to conform to the FMVSS on braking and passenger protection. In accordance with our procedures, the modifiers were required to correct the noncompliances and to pay civil penalties for their violations.

B. Kit cars We have no definition of "kit cars" but we understand them to be passenger cars consisting of a mixture of old and new parts, assembled into vehicle form by either the supplier or purchaser of a kit of motor vehicle equipment. Some of the FMVSS apply to individual equipment items (for example, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies), and if these items are new and furnished with the kit,

they will have been certified by their manufacturers. If the vehicle is assembled entirely from new parts, the kit supplier must furnish certification with the kit that, when assembled, the vehicle will comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if the vehicle is manufactured incorporating a number of previously used parts, particularly involving the chassis and/or drive train, we generally have considered the vehicle to be a used one, and none of the FMVSS that apply to new completed vehicles (as contrasted with those that apply to equipment items) apply to it.

In order to be registered for use, a kit car must meet the requirements of the State of licensing.

C. Homemade cars We have no definition of a "homemade car" but we understand such a vehicle to be a "one-off" and not intended for production. The FMVSS apply to every newly manufactured vehicle without exception, so that a vehicle built in a series of one must conform to the FMVSS if it is constructed entirely from new parts, and if the agency has not exempted it from compliance.

A homemade car must meet the requirements of the State where it is to be licensed.

For your information, I am also enclosing a booklet containing a brief description of each FMVSS, and an order blank for "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999" which contains the complete text of the FMVSS. If you have any further questions on this subject, we will be happy to answer them.

ID: nht93-6.47

DATE: September 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott R. Dennison -- Vice President - Production, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter date 4/27/93 from Scott R. Dennison to John Womack (illegible OCC number)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of April 27, 1993, clarifying your FAX of March 12 to which I responded on April 19.

We appreciate your goal of helping people comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and those of EPA. We can well understand why, as you put it, "at times I do not feel I have the right answers for some of these manufacturers." The regulation of kit cars and vehicles combining old and new parts is a complicated subject, and our opinions usually depend upon the specific facts of individual cases with the result that one may differ in degree from another. Because these are legal opinions, the Office of Chief Counsel is the proper Office within NHTSA to address questions of this nature, rather than the agency's Enforcement office.

We are sorry that some of your inquirers "are afraid to call (NHTSA) for fear of reprisal." By this, I think you mean that a call from a small manufacturer might cause NHTSA to initiate enforcement action concerning nonconformance with the FMVSS or agency regulations. The potential of an enforcement action should be sufficient to encourage those engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles to discern their responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to comply with them. We are willing to assist manufacturers in interpreting the Act and regulations. If they do not wish to write or call us, they can review our interpretation letters which are available to the public in NHTSA's Technical Reference Division. Also, they can consult a private attorney.

You enclosed a copy of the "EPA Kit Car Policy" which we have reviewed, comparing it with NHTSA policy. In most respects, the two policies are congruent. Paragraph 1 of the EPA document fairly expresses NHTSA policy; fully assembled kit cars, and complete kit car packages are "motor vehicles" under the Act, required to be certified by the manufacturer or kit supplier. If they are not certified, they must be imported by a NHTSA-registered importer (the counterpart to EPA's Independent Commercial Importer), or one who has a contract with a registered importer to certify the kit car (an allowance that we understand does not exist under EPA regulations). I shall return to Paragraph 2 later. Paragraph 3 differs from NHTSA policy; although automotive bodies are not "motor vehicles" under either EPA or NHTSA's definitions, they are "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of NHTSA's jurisdiction. Paragraph 4 essentially states NHTSA policy; kit car body/chassis combinations may be imported as automotive equipment and are subject to NHTSA's regulations. Similarly, any attempt to circumvent the

Act or import regulations may be viewed as a violation subject to enforcement. However, NHTSA will also regard as a "manufacturer" any person importing kits or kit cars for resale, as well as the actual fabricator or assembler of a kit.

Paragraph 2 reflects the fact that EPA regulates only engines and emission- related components. A vehicle "will be considered to be a rebuilt vehicle of a previously certified configuration and will be considered to be covered by that configuration's original EPA certification of conformity" if the engine and all emission-related components and settings conform to those of the previously certified configuration, and if the weight of the completed kit vehicle is not more than 500 pounds greater than that of the originally certified configuration. Under EPA policy, a "rebuilt vehicle" could be a motor vehicle all of whose parts were new and unused except for its engine and engine-related components. NHTSA has no definition of "rebuilt vehicle" which would permit a similar interpretation, and while a vehicle as I have described could be covered by the previously existing EPA certification, NHTSA very likely would regard it as a newly manufactured motor vehicle which must be certified as meeting all contemporary FMVSS. It is here that the two agencies most diverge because of the breadth of NHTSA's regulatory authority which encompasses all motor vehicle equipment, and motor vehicles assembled from that equipment.

You cite as an example of difficulty "the treatment of FMVSS with regards to a '23 T-Bucket Hot Rod." The first question to answer is whether the car has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Factors to consider in this determination are whether the Hot Rod is intended solely for use on closed race tracks, whether it must be trailered from race to race, and whether a State would license it for on road use. If the car has not been manufactured primarily for on road use, then it is not a "motor vehicle" as defined by the Vehicle Safety Act, and not subject to the FMVSS. If the car is a "motor vehicle" and entirely assembled from parts from a disassembled motor vehicle or vehicles previously in use, then it is considered a "used" vehicle, and also not subject to the FMVSS (but subject to state and local standards). On the other hand, if the kit car is entirely comprised of previously unused parts, then it is a new motor vehicle that is required to comply with, and be certified as complying with, the FMVSS (and its manufacturer may be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of those standards under 49 CFR Part 555). If the kit car is comprised of parts both previously used and unused, NHTSA's examination of the list of components in each category will enable it to advise whether the kit car must comply with the FMVSS that apply to new vehicles.

In addition, we also receive inquiries from those who wish to construct vehicles which use a "host" chassis from a previously certified vehicle. The Act permits a manufacturer to modify a previously certified vehicle in any manner as long as it does not knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed by the original manufacturer in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as meaning that, if the manufacturer removes the original body, at the end of the conversion process the resulting motor vehicle must continue to comply with the FMVSS that were in effect when it was originally manufactured. However, a certain divergence from original vehicle

compliance is permitted. For example, if a 1982 enclosed passenger car is modified to become a convertible, at the end of the conversion process it is no longer required to meet enclosed car FMVSS but must comply with those that applied to 1982 convertibles. The Act does not require that such vehicles be certified but the manufacturer should be prepared to substantiate that it has not rendered inoperative any of the vehicle's original safety equipment, either directly or indirectly (such as a substantial increase in the weight of the vehicle that might affect its crash protection characteristics) in the event NHTSA should so ask.

Finally, we note your remark that NHRA and SEMA are debating whether a policy can "be developed which will allow these builders to produce an authentic replica and stay within the standards." As I discussed above, the FMVSS would not appear to apply to a replica vehicle such as a Miller racing car from the 1920's that could not be licensed for on road use. However, the FMVSS do apply to vehicles composed of newly manufactured parts that replicate the look of older vehicles. For this reason, 100% authenticity cannot be achieved for a replica required to meet the current FMVSS because of equipment such as the center highmounted stop lamp, side marker lamps and reflectors, and head and other occupant restraints required for safety today. As a general rule, we would not provide temporary exemptions from these standards. In our view, the only viable candidate for an authentic replica is one that is constructed on a "host" chassis of a vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1968, the date that the first FMVSS became effective, or entirely from used parts. I would also note that much authenticity could result from use of a "host" chassis manufactured during calendar year 1968. Although the appearance of the interior would be affected by compliance with certain FMVSS, the FMVSS requiring side marker lamps and reflectors and head restraints did not become effective until January 1, 1969.

ID: nht93-6.48

DATE: September 28, 1993

FROM: Thomas G. Cehelnik -- Ph.D., Accutron T.C.S., Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to Thomas G. Cehelnik (A41; Std. 108) and letter dated 1/25/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Larry S. Snowhite (Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am inquiring for information and assistance with the interpretation of Section 571.108 of the Federal Traffic Code. I was informed by the Office of State of Inspection of Pennsylvania that lights that indicate braking must be "steady burning". Our company and others have developed a light system to indicate the deceleration of the vehicle. Pennsylvania has informed us that the NHAT Administration is investigating the safety of such a device. A question of concern: is it and will it become legal to turn on a warning or stop light that indicates the particular dynamic state of the vehicle? Must such a system necessarily be considered as a brake light? I would appreciate a copy of the regulations and any information on the status of the safety investigation. Assistance with interpreting the code is also appreciated. Thank you for your time!

ID: nht93-6.49

DATE: September 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William C. Longo -- Chief Executive Officer, Ram Off Road Accessories

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/7/93 from Willaim (William) C. Longo to Office of the Chief Consel (OCC 8746)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning possible liability involved with marketing a product you manufacture, particularly with respect to installation of the product on vehicles equipped with Supplemental Restraint Systems (SRS), also known as air bags. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. In a June 16, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, Troy Wood explained that the products are aftermarket decorative sheet metal accessories that attached to the exterior of vehicles. Your company also makes replacement bumpers for vehicles. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, this letter will discuss Federal laws which might be affected by the addition of your products on vehicles equipped with air bags. Potential liability questions should be addressed to a private attorney who is familiar with tort law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. 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.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are-not used). A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles; therefore, if your products are installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208, with your product installed. However,

as explained in the phone conversation with Ms. Versailles of my staff, we understand your products are intended as items of after-market equipment.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

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

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing your product on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard. For example, the installer would have to be careful not to activate a sensor while attaching your product, causing the air bag to deploy.

Please note that the "render inoperative" prohibition would apply to a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing your product, and not to your company as the manufacturer of the product. Also note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your product on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual states have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

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

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

ID: nht93-6.5

DATE: August 9, 1993

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

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: TTMA Engineering Committee

TITLE: Preemption of State Additional Lighting Requirements

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/1/94 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (VSA S103(a)), letter dated 5/12/94 from Donald W. Vierimaa to Billy Mohr, and letter dated 5/16/89 from Billy Mohr to Donald W. Vierimaa

TEXT:

The State of Michigan in their letter of May 16, 1989 (enclosed) requires that:

(8) A truck tractor and semitrailer combination with a semitrailer length longer than 50 feet shall not be operated on the highways of this state at the times specified in section 684 unless equipped with all of the following lamps and reflectors, in addition to any other lamps and reflectors required under this act:

(c) Two clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable.

In our letter of May 12, 1989 we advised Lt. Mohr that "it would appear that your requirement is invalid as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ" from it. Lt. Mohr responded in his May 16, 1989 letter that "the lamp is not a marker lamp" per the NHTSA letter of December 10, 1974 to the California Highway Patrol.

It is our opinion that paragraph (8)(c) of Section 719 of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code is not enforceable as it is preempted by Subsection (d) of Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which states that:

"Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard established under this title is in effect, no State of political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or items of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard."

Our opinion appears to be supported by NHTSA interpretations issued December 29, 1971, January 30, 1973, December 10, 1974, April 22, 1975, and December 10, 1984 (enclosed).

Please advise us as to whether Michigan may enforce their requirement for two "clearance" lamps located 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear of a semitrailer and located as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable.

ID: nht93-6.50

DATE: September 29, 1993

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS #108 INTERPRETATION REQUEST

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Dennis G. Moore (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am requesting an Interpretation of the term "at the same height" used in FMVSS #108 when referring to the mounting position of the three I.D. Lights required on Vehicles over 80" in width.

At least on two occasions in the past 20+ years, NHTSA has allowed the slight misalignment of I.D. lights because of "Practical" circumstances. I didn't copy these cases from the Federal Register or from NHTSA's Docket Files so unfortunately I haven't them to refer to.

I'm requesting copies of these Interpretative allowances or better yet, an entirely new Interpretation hopefully allowing the "Practical Misalignment" of I.D. lights used specifically on Boat Trailers.

We are trying to improve the widespread visibility (conspicuousness) and breakage problems associated with mounting "Sizeable" yet Submersible I.D. Lights on a Boat Trailer's rear cross member. To do this, we are offering an I.D. Light Bar that is slightly bendable which corrects the problems outlined in the sketches below.

When slightly staggered, the Vulnerability and Covering problems shown in the sketches are eliminated yet still guaranteeing a protected, longer lasting yet Conspicuous I.D. Light Cluster.

"Conspicuous" is the requirement term used in Section S2. "PURPOSE" of FMVSS #108 and I believe represents the original objective for mandating 3 I.D. Lights. The "Conspicuous" objective is better accomplished even if the three lights are allowed to be somewhat staggered. Also, safety is better served when these lights are protected from damage and/or from being knocked off.

It seems to us that "at the same height" could be defined as where the Top of the middle light is no higher than the Bottoms of the Outboard Lights... or where at least one portion of the three lights are "at the same height".

We hope you concur with our interpretation of this term so that this safety improvement is allowed to be made on Boat Trailers.

TYPICAL BOAT TRAILER I.D. MOUNT AREA Problem 1: Typical Roller or "AT THE SAME HEIGHT" Protective Pad Requirement makes OUTBOARD LIGHTS hang below the Frame Typical V making them "VULNERABLE" to Shaped Cross Frame being DAMAGED or KNOCKED OFF

Typical Roller or Problem 2: Protective Pad "AT THE SAME HEIGHT" Requirement Typical V also encourages the "COVERING" of Shaped Cross Frame the MIDDLE LIGHT

Solution: Typical Roller or ALLOWING SLIGHT STAGGERING Protective Pad yields a PROTECTED yet Typical V "CONSPICUOUS" 3 I.D. Shaped Cross Frame Light Cluster

I would appreciate a response as soon as possible.

ID: nht93-6.51

DATE: September 29, 1993

FROM: Timothy McQuiston -- Vice-President Sales, California Dream

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/94 from John Womack to Timothy McQuiston (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Our company, California Dream, Inc. provides an auto aftermarket product, a spoiler, to new car dealers. Some of our spoilers are installed at dealer locations and others are installed at port of entry.

Our spoiler incorporates a 15" wide high mount third brakelight that complies with the SAE standards (please see attached). During installation our brakelight wire is connected to the existing 3rd brakelight wire in the rear window. In some cases the original window brakelight is left on and in other cases the fixture remains intact, however the light is not connected and therefore does not light. The choice of connection is made by the dealer.

Recently, we had a request from a New England auto dealer for a statement which they would provide their state inspectors. This statement would verify that our spoiler is in compliance with existing regulations regardless of whether the third brakelight is functional (engaged) or not.

We would greatly appreciate it if you would compose a position statement which we could provide our affected dealers. Roughly, the statement would affirm that when the dealer installs a spoiler containing a high mount third brakelight meeting/exceeding SAE standards, they are, in fact providing an equivalent light source, thereby allowing them (dealers) to remain in compliance with federal regulations.

Thank you for your assistance. I can be reached at 800-788-2484 if you have questions.

ID: nht93-6.6

DATE: August 12, 1993

FROM: Richard Horian -- President, Woodleaf Corporation

TO: Michael Perel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/1/93 (est) from John Womack to Richard Horian (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Last December, after preliminary conversations with you, Mr. Paul Rice wrote to us regarding the "Sudden Brake Indicator Hazard Light." We now have progressed in our research to the point of actually prototyping a working unit for further research and study.

One of the operating techniques of this hazard light is for it to flash. Question: What is the fastest flash rate or range of flash rates expressed in "flashes per minute" that are allowed by Federal law?

Please FAX the answer back at your earliest convenience so we may proceed with our experimentation. Thank you for your continued cooperation.