ID: 14414.ztv

Mr. Jack Z. Zhang
P.O. Box 10-A
San Carlos CA 94070-0316

Dear Mr. Zhang:

This responds to your letter of March 24, 1997, asking the agency to support your "courtesy light." You have stated five "needs" that you ask us to address. We shall be happy to do so.

1. Whether "it is legal to install the Courtesy Signal Light (the "Light") in motor vehicles in the U.S."

As you have described it, the Light is a green-flashing signal lamp installed in the front of a motor vehicle, on its vertical centerline. Further, "[i]t starts to flash when the driver of a car pushes a switch button and it stops flashing when the driver releases the switch button."

Your letter indicates that you are familiar with the prohibition in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 against original equipment that impairs required lighting equipment, as you have addressed this issue at length in your letter. In your view, the green color of the Light, its status as the only center-mounted front lamp, and its flash rate are such that the effectiveness of the other front lighting equipment won't be impaired. You cite other factors, such as ease of operation which we do not consider are relevant to the impairment issue.

It is imperative for safety that the messages sent by lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, whether signaling or marking, be clearly understood at the moment other drivers perceive them. Use of a flashing green lamp on the front of a vehicle has the potential to cause confusion for the very reason that it is unique. For example, in your Figure 5 you present the hypothetical situation of a driver signaling a left turn to a vehicle approaching on the other side of an intersection who is not sure to go or stop; at this point, the first driver can flash the courtesy signal to indicate that the first driver will yield, so that the second driver "will cross the intersection with more confidence." On the contrary, we believe that the second driver may well hesitate in confusion when confronting an unfamiliar vehicle. In a real life situation, the second driver has the right of way over a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction that is signaling a left turn. Thus, the second driver should need no further assurance to proceed through the intersection. In summary, we believe that an amber flashing turn signal's effectiveness could be impaired by a front-mounted flashing green light installed as original equipment.

For the same reason, we believe that the Courtesy Signal could not be offered as an aftermarket device. The test for aftermarket devices is whether their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would "make inoperative" a safety device such as turn signals. Failure to immediately perceive the intent of a turn signal would make its signal at least partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition.

The prohibition does not extend to the owner of the vehicle. Assuming that an owner has the capability of installing the Courtesy Signal, the question is whether the lamp is legal under the laws of the various states. We are unable to advise you of state laws and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles of the states for their opinion.

We also raise the question of the possible effect upon safety of a lamp that requires the driver's continuing attention to activate and deactivate. This mode of signal operation has the potential to distract the driver from critical driving tasks such as braking.

2. Whether you may "petition [NHTSA] to amend Standard 108 to permit the Light as an optional lighting device for motor vehicles."

You have the right to petition for rulemaking for an amendment of this nature, but you should be aware that the agency invariably denies petitions that involves optional vehicle signaling equipment because of the importance it places on standardization of signals. Denials of rulemaking must be published in the Federal Register where they become public information.

3. Whether to submit the Light idea as a candidate for NHTSA research and development project."

Your letter states that the Courtesy Signal Light would likely reduce "Right-of-Way" and "Improper Overtaking" accidents by 50%. We have already addressed our reservations on the ability of the lamp to prevent right of way collisions. We also have reservations about its ability to prevent improper overtaking, or lane-change collisions under the conditions shown in your Figures 2 and 3. You surmise that when a vehicle wishes to enter an adjacent lane and flashes its turn signal, the driver of a vehicle in the adjacent lane can flash the Light to indicate that it is all right for the vehicle to enter the lane. The only way that the lane-changing driver is going to be able to see the Light is in a rear view mirror. The sight of a flashing green light can create a momentary distraction which could result in a rear end collision by the lane-changing vehicle with a vehicle farther ahead in the lane into which the turning vehicle is entering. The Light may also be subject to abuse, used for false signals.

I'm afraid I must say that we see very little safety benefit to this device, and do not view it as a candidate for NHTSA research.

4. Whether you may have a letter from NHTSA supporting your effort to improve traffic safety through the "Courtesy Signal Light."

We very much appreciate the fact that you have devoted time and effort to improve traffic safety. We would be interested in discussing your safety ideas further at such time as you have actual data from field trials, etc., that can support your assertions that the Light will reduce vehicular crashes and resulting deaths and injuries.

5. Whether you may present the Light and a prototype to NHTSA.

At the present time, I don't see the value of such an idea. We believe that it is an unproven concept with a possible negative impact upon safety. As I indicated above, at such time as you have actual data demonstrating that the invention will enhance traffic safety, we will be pleased to talk with you further.

I regret that we are unable to share your enthusiasm about the potential of the Light. If you have further questions about this letter, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:4/14/97

ID: 14516.ztv

Mr. Larry C. Lavender
Fleetline Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 298
Springfield, TN 37172

Dear Mr. Lavender:

This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You state that you have received "verbal" answers to certain questions from the Office of Safety Performance Standards and need a written confirmation of these answers from the Office of Chief Counsel. You wish to supply parts to "heavy duty truck manufacturers" that meet Standard No. 108, and are concerned with sheeting to be applied to the rear fenders, mud flaps or mud flap support brackets.

My initial comment is that we encourage manufacturers to seek written interpretations directly from the Office of Chief Counsel. Only the written interpretations of the Office of Chief Counsel are binding.

My second comment is to note that the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108 apply only to heavy trailers and to truck tractors that are 80 or more inches in overall width. Thus, a manufacturer wishing to add conspicuity sheeting to rear fenders, mud flaps or mud flap brackets of a straight truck need not follow Standard No. 108. Nevertheless, in the belief that standardization enhances safety, we encourage voluntary compliance with the conspicuity requirements for straight trucks as well.

The interpretations for which you seek confirmation are:

"The sheeting must be in a pattern of alternating red and white segments. The individual segments must be 300mm long plus or minus 150mm, i.e. from 150mm to 450mm long."

Yes. The specifications stated in paragraph S5.7.1.3(a) and (b) for the side and rear of trailers and truck tractors apply also to rear fenders, and mud flaps and their support brackets.

"There is no requirement for the color pattern to begin or end in either color. The inboard and outboard segments may be either red or white."

You are correct. The text of Standard No. 108 speaks of "alternating white and red color segments" (S5.7.1.3(a)) while Figure 30-1 through Figure 30-4 show red and white segments installed. However, there is no requirement that the color pattern begin or end with either color, or that inboard and outboard segments be red or white.

"There is no requirement for the tape to be completely free of discontinuities. On the brackets which have a 45 degree angle, the tape does not have to be cut in a miter joint."

Paragraph S5.7.1.4(a) specifies that sheeting "need not be applied to discontinuous surfaces" and provides several examples of these. We assume that this is what you mean by your statement. There is no requirement that tape be cut in a miter joint.

"Minor trimming of the tape to conform to the shape of a bracket is acceptable, provided the length measured on the center line of the tape is a minimum of 600mm. On the drawing included with this memorandum one corner of the tape is trimmed. This is acceptable."

Minor trimming of the tape is acceptable, as shown on your drawing. The length measured on the center line of the sheeting may be any length from 600mm to 900mm. (300mm +/- 150mm x 2).

"The drawing included with this memorandum illustrates a proposed bracket satisfying FMVSS 571.108."

The drawing shows an acceptable solution to mounting conspicuity material on a mud flap bracket.

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
ref:5/28/97
d:5/28/97

ID: 14520toy.2

Mr. James G. O'Neill
Clever Living Products
P.O. Box 274
Rancocas, N.J. 08073

Dear Mr. O'Neill:

This responds to your March 26, 1997, letter asking whether an August 5, 1993, interpretation to you reflects current National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) law and policies.

The answer is yes, the general policies, legal principles and requirements discussed in that letter have not changed. You wrote about an aftermarket toy holder that attaches to a child restraint system by a mounting bracket. Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," has been amended a number of times since 1993, but still does not apply to aftermarket accessories for child restraint systems. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on a child restraint system in compliance with Standard 213.

For your information, the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" to which the 1993 letter refers has been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the letter are outdated; however, the substantive requirements it describes have not changed.

If you have other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213
d:5/6/97

ID: 14635.ztv

Mr. Mark Boykin
J&M Enterprises
1523 Grand Ave.
Spring Valley, CA 91977

Dear Mr. Boykin:

This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1997, telling us of your interest in manufacturing side marker lamps. You ask whether these lights are required to be "DOT approved". You also ask for information on state and local laws.

We are pleased to try to help you. First, the applicable laws do not provide authority for "DOT approval" of vehicles or equipment items. Under these laws, a manufacturer must satisfy itself, through testing for example, that its product conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The manufacturer then must certify its product. No permission or approval by DOT is needed.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement side marker lamps, which have been required on all new passenger cars since January 1, 1969. These requirements are those of SAE Standard J592e, July 1972. I enclose a copy for your information.

However, it is not immediately clear that these requirements would apply to you. The color photo you enclosed shows a side marker lamp installed on a contemporary Saab car, just behind the front wheelwell. The Saab also has a yellow lens before the front wheelwell that appears to be part of the front lamp assembly. We take this to be the front side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108. The second lamp which you indicate by an arrow, the lamp you are interested in manufacturing, is a side-mounted turn signal, not a side marker lamp in this photo. On this vehicle, the lamp in question flashes in phase with the required front and rear mounted turn signal lamps. Supplemental lamps, regardless of their purpose, need not meet any Federal specifications.

If you intend to sell the lamp for installation as original or replacement equipment on vehicles, trailers for example, then even this lamp would not have to meet any specifications because side-mounted turn signal lamps are not an item regulated by Standard No. 108. However, other requirements would come into play: the necessity to file a one-page manufacturer identification statement with the agency, and the obligation to notify and remedy in the event that a noncompliance or safety-related defect is found to exist in the lamp.

A state may impose its own requirements for aspects of performance not covered by Standard No. 108, in this case, with SAE Standard J914 Side Turn Signal Lamps. We are not able to advise you on state laws and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in states where you intend to market the device.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.6/16/97

ID: 14668.ztv

Mr. Tommie Matthews
347 South Mountain Road
Fruit Heights, UT 84037

Dear Mr. Mathews:

This is in reply to your letter of March 31, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking how this agency would classify "a Velo Solex 'pedal assisted' bicycle."

As you describe it, the Velo Solex is equipped with a small internal combustion engine. The vehicle can be operated as a bicycle driven solely by muscular power, "by leaving the motor in the 'pulled back' position." If the rider wishes to use the assist, the engine will not start until the vehicle reaches a speed of about 5 mph. If the rider stops pedaling, the vehicle will eventually come to a halt as the power of the engine alone is insufficient to keep the vehicle moving.

This agency is authorized by Congress to regulate "motor vehicles". In part, a "motor vehicle" is defined as a vehicle driven by mechanical power (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). It is evident from your description that the primary driving force of the Velo Solex is muscular power, and that the mechanical power of the engine is not operative at all times the bicycle is in motion and only supplements the primary driving force. We have therefore concluded that the Velo Solex is not a "motor vehicle" subject to the regulation of this agency. The Federal agency that has jurisdiction over bicycles is the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:571
d:5/15/97

ID: 14669a.drn

Ms. Carol Zeitlow, Engineering Quality Manager
Oshkosh Truck Corporation
2307 Oregon St.
Oshkosh, WI 54904

Dear Ms. Zeitlow:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your company must retain the vehicle identification numbers (VINs) that were assigned to Medium Tactical Vehicles (MTVRs), that your company will refurbish for the U. S. Marine Corps (USMC) and the U.S. Army. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not require the VINs to be retained because they were not required for military vehicles. However, Federal criminal legislation enacted in 1992, administered by the Justice Department, proscribes persons from knowingly removing an identification number from a motor vehicle.

Your letter describes your company's work on the MTVRs as replacing the engine, axles, transmission, and frame with updated parts. Oshkosh will also be retaining and reworking the cargo body and the cab along with other components. The vehicles you are working on were built for the U.S. Armed Forces for military purposes, and will be used for military purposes after refurbishment. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that because Oshkosh did not originally manufacture the vehicles, you do not know why the vehicles were assigned VINs.

A required VIN generally must be retained on a vehicle throughout the life of the vehicle. However, military vehicles are not required by NHTSA to have VINs. NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 571.7(c), Military vehicles, states:

No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

While the VIN requirements are now in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, rather than in a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), we interpret Part 565 not to apply to military vehicles.

The requirement that vehicles have VINs was in a FMVSS, Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements, until recently. In 1996, Standard No. 115 was consolidated with Part 565, as part of an effort to simplify the VIN requirements. 61 FR 29031;

June 7, 1996. NHTSA indicated in consolidating the requirements that it did not intend to make any substantive changes to the VIN requirements. Thus, this consolidation did not have the effect of requiring that military vehicles have VINs. The consolidation took effect on July 8, 1996.

Accordingly, nothing in Part 565 or in any other NHTSA regulation would require Oshkosh to retain the old VIN or (in the event Oshkosh is manufacturing a new vehicle) to assign new VINs. When originally manufactured, since the MTVRs were manufactured for, and sold to, the U.S. Armed Forces in conformity with military specifications, the MTVRs were not required by NHTSA to have VINs. In Oshkosh's "remanufacture" of the MTVRs, since the MTVRs will be built for, and sold to the U.S. Armed Forces "in conformity with contractual specifications," NHTSA would not require the newly manufactured vehicles to have VINs.

Nevertheless, since VINs have already been assigned to the MTVRs, the following provision under Federal criminal statutes may apply. Section 511, Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers, was added to Title 18 of the United States Code by the "Anti Car Theft Act of 1992." That section states that whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, for purposes other than repair, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Since the U.S. Department of Justice administers Section 511, you should contact that agency for further information about the provision.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565
d:6/10/97

ID: 14714.ztv

Mr. Reggie Lawrence
Intelligent Safety
P.O. Box 8618
Midland, TX 79708-8618

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This is in reply to your letter of April 4, 1997, telling us about your "Brake Light Delay System" and "Blinker Delay System", and asking for an opinion "regarding the legality and use of these systems."

The "Brake Light Delay System" is spliced into the wiring of the stop lamp switch and has the effect of delaying deactivation of the stop lamps for approximately 6 seconds after the operator's foot is removed from the brake pedal. You envision installation of the System on a truck tractor-trailer combination so that when the truck tractor begins to accelerate after it has turned, the delayed stop lamp will indicate to a driver following that (s)he must continue to exercise caution

I am sorry to tell you that Federal law does not allow installation of the "Brake Light Delay System", either as original or aftermarket equipment. Under paragraph S5.5.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, stop lamps must be activated upon application of the service brakes. We have interpreted this to mean activation only upon application of the service brakes. Thus, continued activation of the stop lamps after application of the service brakes has ceased would result in a vehicle's failure to comply with paragraph S5.5.4. We appreciate your offer to provide one of these systems for evaluation, but because Federal law does not allow the system, we must decline your offer.

I remarked above that your System cannot be installed in the aftermarket. The regulations of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for commercial vehicles operated in interstate commerce prohibits motor carriers from installing your system if it results in a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. The FHWA requires that commercial motor vehicles manufactured on or after March 7, 1989, meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured. The FHWA also prohibits the use of additional equipment or accessories that are inconsistent with its regulations. Therefore, your system may not be installed on commercial motor vehicles manufactured before March 7, 1989.

Please note that State laws for interstate commercial motor vehicles are consistent with, if not identical to, the FHWA's requirements. Also, the States are required to have intrastate safety regulations that fall within the FHWA's Tolerance Guidelines. Under this circumstance, the legality of the use of your system on commercial motor vehicles operated exclusively in intrastate commerce would be determined by the laws of the States in which the System would be used. We are unable to provide you with an interpretation of relevant State laws and suggest that you consult the Department of Motor Vehicles of the various States.

Your "Blinker Delay System" is intended to prevent the automatic cancellation of the turn signal system for 3 to 4 seconds after the front wheels of a towing vehicle have been straightened, again to indicate that a turn has not been completed. You note that "most tractor trucks have a blinker system that must manually be switched off to deactivate the blinker," and that the "Blinker Delay System" is intended for other trucks. Under paragraph S5.1.1.5, turn signals on all motor vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width must be self-canceling by steering wheel rotation. Thus, installation of this device would also create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. For the same reasons, and with the same exception, noted above, this device would not be acceptable as either original or replacement equipment on motor vehicles required to comply with paragraph S5.1.1.5.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:5/30/97

ID: 14834.mls

Mr. Scott Slaughter
Pitts Enterprises, Inc.
5734 Highway 431
P.O. Box 155
Pittsview, AL 36871

Dear Mr. Slaughter:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a logging trailer known as the "knuckle boom loader trailer" needs to comply with new regulations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that require trailers manufactured after January 26, 1998, to be equipped with rear underride protection and that require medium and heavy-duty trucks and trailers manufactured after March 1, 1998 to be equipped with antilock brakes.

In a February 2, 1994 interpretation from me to you, I stated that it "appear[ed] that your trailer is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act." This opinion was based on the fact that your equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. I have no new information to warrant changing this initial interpretation. Accordingly, since your trailer continues not to be a motor vehicle, it would not be subject to any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including standards requiring rear impact underride protection and antilock brakes.

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
ref:VSA
d:5/14/97

ID: 14836.ztv

Mr. Paul G. Scully
Consultant
525 Lasher Drive
Seymour, IN 47274

Dear Mr. Scully:

We have received your letter of April 8, 1997, bringing to our attention the possibility that certain trailer manufacturers may not be mounting identification and clearance lamps "as close to the top as practicable" as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You sent copies of this letter to representatives of the Office of Safety Performance Standards and the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance as well.

Representatives of these Offices and mine have met to consider your letter. We appreciate your informing us about this matter, and we shall look into it further.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:5/22/97

ID: 14891.ztv

Mr. Guy E. Koelling
Manager, Office of the Chairman
SANYO North America Corporation
2055 Sanyo Avenue
San Diego, CA 92173

Dear Mr. Koelling:

This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1997, about the Sanyo "Enacle" pedal assist bicycle.

You refer to the agency's interpretation letter of February 16, 1993, to J.C. Townley in which we advised him of our conclusion, on the basis of the facts in his letter, that the Yamaha pedal assisted bicycle is not a "motor vehicle" required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You state that Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. produces a very similar product that "is operated on the same principle as the Yamaha product, i.e. a torque sensor that activates when muscular effort is applied. In other words, just as with the Yamaha product, the Enacle will not operate on its own, in the absence of muscular assist." You ask for confirmation that, for the same reasons as set forth in the Townley letter, the Enacle would not be classified as a motor vehicle.

We confirm that interpretation. Pedal assisted bicycles whose power assist is insufficient alone to drive the bicycle are not "motor vehicles" subject to our jurisdiction, but instead are under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Noting that your letter is headed "confidential" we asked you for a clarification. On May 14, 1997, you asked us to disregard the "Confidential" letterhead on which your letter was typed. Therefore, a copy of our response to you will be included in the agency's public interpretations file.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
cc: Consumer Product Safety Commission
ref:5/28/97