ID: aiam3832

Dear Mr. Kano: This responds to your letter inquiring about the test specifications o Safety Standards 203 and 204 and the New Car Assessment Program. You specifically asked about the positioning of a tilting steering wheel for each of those tests. The answers to your questions are as follows.; Standard No. 203 incorporates by reference Society of Automotiv Engineers Recommended Practice J944, December 1965. SAE J944 provides that a steering wheel is to be mounted at the angle specified by the manufacturer's 'package drawing.' Therefore, a tilting steering wheel would be placed at the nominal design position set by the manufacturer.; Standard No. 204 does not specify the positioning of a tilt wheel. I Standard No. 204 compliance testing, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance positions adjustable steering columns and wheels at the midpoint of the tilt and telescope adjustments. In the case of your particular tilting steering wheel, there is no midpoint. Thus, we would test the vehicle with the steering wheel in the position which is closest to the geometric center of the steering column. Based on the sketch enclosed in your letter, it appears that tilt positions 2 and 3 of your wheel are at an equal distance from the geometric center of the steering column. Therefore, your tilt tilt (sic) steering wheel should be capable of complying when tested in either of those positions.; The New Car Assessment Program does not use the Standard No. 208 tes procedures, but instead uses its own set of test procedures. Those procedures specify that an adjustable steering wheel is to be positioned at the midpoint of its tilt adjustment. Since there is no midpoint for your wheel, the wheel would be set at the position closest to the geometric center of the steering column. As discussed above, the agency would use either position 2 or 3 for your tilt wheel.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4438

Dear Mr. Meyer: This responds to your November 24, l987 letter askin about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to the manufacture of automobile seat cushions and seat backs. Specifically, you asked whether it would be permissible if the fabric (i.e., felt) from which the seat cushions and seat backs would be manufactured were made from 'old clothes and rags.' Standard No. 302 neither specifies nor prohibits any particular type of raw material used to manufacture seat backs and seat cushions. The felt must meet the flammability requirements of the standard if it is used for cushions and seat backs for new motor vehicles. Also, felt used to manufacture seat cushions and seat backs for new and used motor vehicles must contain no safety related defects. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations require manufacturers of new motor vehicles to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 302. Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used to manufacture seat cushions and seat backs on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. Thus, any person manufacturing a new vehicle with seat backs and seat cushions made from the felt material you described must ensure that the seat backs and cushions possess the burn resistance characteristics required by Standard No. 302. If the felt can meet those requirements, it may be used in new motor vehicles in satisfaction of Standard No. 302, regardless of the felt's raw materials. The felt manufacturer should also be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act requires all vehicle and equipment manufacturers to ensure that their products contain no defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined by the manufacturer or this agency that the seat cushions and seat backs had a safety related defect, all purchasers of the vehicle containing the defective equipment would have to be notified and the defective item repaired or replaced without charge. If the felt material is used to manufacture items of motor vehicle equipment that are sold to vehicle owners for use in used vehicles (i.e., vehicles previously purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale), the felt need not meet Standard No. 302. In general, it would not violate Standard No. 302 to add aftermarket seat cushions to used vehicles, even if the addition of the seat cushions caused the vehicles to no longer comply with the standard. This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section specifies: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. Thus, any person in the aforementioned categories that installed a seat cushion which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating a section 108(a)(2)(A). Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $l,000 for each violation of section 108. Again, the manufacturer of the aftermarket seat cushions would be obligated to recall and remedy cushions that are determined to contain a safety related defect, even if the cushions were installed by the vehicle owners themselves. You asked about other Federal laws that might have a bearing on the manufacture of the felt material. You might wish to contact the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at (202) 523-8148 and the Environmental Protection Agency at (202) 475-8040 for information about the applicability of any of their statutes and regulations. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: nht74-2.41

DATE: 02/05/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Trailmobile Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of January 21, 1974, you cite the provision of Standard No. 108 under which "the height of the rear clearance lamps is optional if the identification lamps are located at the top of the trailer", and suggest that a similar option be adopted for identification lamps, i.e., that their height location "be made optional if the rear clearance lamps are located as close to the top of the closed van trailer as practical".

Clearance lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to "indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . as near the top as practicable". The primary purpose of these lamps is to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, and the secondary purpose is to indicate the overall height. Identification lamps on the other hand are a system (three lamps with specified spacing) located "as near the top as practicable". The sole purpose of this system is to identify a vehicle as one of large size. When the widest part of a vehicle is at a point other than the highest point, such as when the fenders are separate or protrude from the body, the option in Standard No. 108 in effect allows the clearance lamps to be mounted at the widest point even though it would be practicable to mount them higher, as long as the identification lamps are mounted at the top of the vehicle, thus fulfilling the secondary function of the clearance lamps. Since the identification lamps are a system serving only the one function of identification, the clearance lamps cannot act as substitutes and the system must be mounted at the point of maximum visibility ("as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle"). To adopt your suggestion would allow a manufacturer to mount the system at the bottom of a vehicle even if it is practicable to mount them at the top, thus substantially negating the identification function the system serves. For this reason we cannot adopt the option you suggest.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

TRAILMOBILE TECHNICAL CENTER

January 21, 1974

Richard B. Dyson, -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Thank you for your ruling on the rear identification lamps in a trailer shallow header (N40-302TV).

Although the ruling was not what we had hoped for, it did however contain the nucellus of a solution to the problem that would satisfy everyone concerned.

Today, the height of the rear clearance lamps is optional if the identification lamps are located at the top of the trailer. Obviously, the intent is to have the top of the rear of a van trailer marked by lights (but not necessarily by all of the required lamps).

To solve some of the problems that we manufacturers face, I request that the height location of the rear identification lamps be made optional if the rear clearance lamps are located as close to the top of the closed van trailer as practical.

I believe that this request is consistant with the intent of MVSS #108 and, in fact, is consistant with the requirements for open top, grain, and dump trailers.

Your prompt consideration and reply will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Evan Hammond -- Manager - Central Engineering

cc: E. E. Lungren; R. J. Deller; J. E. Cook

ID: colonial_ice

Mr. Edward Gordos
President
Colonial Ice Inc.
2323 Greenville Road
Cortland, OH 44410

Dear Mr. Gordos:

This is in response to your letter of August 12, 2002 to Coleman Sachs of my staff, concerning a problem that you have recently encountered with one of your delivery trucks.As described in your letter, the Ohio State Patrol issued the driver of this vehicle a citation for operating the vehicle without a commercial drivers license (CDL).The patrolman who issued the citation informed the driver that he concluded that a CDL was required based on information derived from the vehicle identification number (VIN) assigned to the truck. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration requires a CDL if the vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) that exceeds 26,000 pounds.

You identify the vehicle as a 1994 International 4900 series single axle truck that you purchased in May 2000 from Hoffman Trailer Company in Louisville, Kentucky. In making this purchase, you state that you selected a used cab and chassis and a used refrigerated body to be mounted on this cab and chassis.After noting that the cab and chassis had a GVWR of 29,000 pounds, you informed Hoffman Trailer Company that you needed a truck that could be operated without a CDL. The company informed you that the vehicle would be modified so that a CDL would not be required.

When you picked up the vehicle after the agreed work had been performed, you were given a copy of a work order invoice from Uhl Truck Sales in Louisville, Kentucky, showing that springs had been removed from the vehicle to bring it under the CDL threshold. In addition, a label was affixed inside the vehicle, on the cab wall above the drivers seat, identifying Uhl Truck Sales as the vehicles manufacturer. Enclosed with your letter was a separate sheet setting forth the contents of this label. From the information on this sheet, the label has the same language and format prescribed in NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR 567.5(c) for the certification label that a final stage manufacturer is required to affix to a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages. The label also identified the vehicle as having a GVWR of 26,000 pounds.

After receiving the citation from the Ohio State Patrol, you contacted Hoffman Trailer Company, which referred you to Uhl Truck Sales.You state that you were informed by Mr. Pete Dalton, the service manager of Uhl Truck Sales, that his dealership had "derated the rear axle to 16,000 pounds by removing springs on that axle." Mr. Dalton assured you that the modifications to the vehicle and the relabeling were lawful, as they had been performed by his dealership on hundreds of vehicles. Mr. Dalton disregarded your requests to contact this office for guidance on this matter. You have consequently asked us to advise you in writing whether your vehicle is still subject to the CDL requirements.If it is still subject to the CDL requirements, you have asked whether any means are available for recertifying the vehicle so that it would no longer be subject to those requirements.

Because the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and not NHTSA, administers the CDL program, we are not in a position to advise you whether your vehicle is subject to the CDL requirements.All we can inform you of is the GVWR that we would recognize for the purpose of our own regulations.

NHTSA has long taken the position that the only parties who can assign or modify a vehicles GVWR are the original manufacturer, a final stage manufacturer, or an alterer. The term "final-stage manufacturer" is defined in the agencys regulations at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." Even though it attached the refrigerated body to the cab and chassis of your delivery truck, Uhl Truck Sales cannot be regarded as the vehicles final stage manufacturer. That is because the cab and chassis were used at the time these manufacturing operations were performed.

For the same reason, Uhl Truck Sales cannot be considered an "alterer" with respect to the modifications it performed on your vehicle. The vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR 567.7 describe an "alterer," as

a person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified . . . other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or who alters the vehicle in such manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale . . . (emphasis added).

Consistent with this description, a person who makes modifications to a used vehicle (i.e., a vehicle that has already been purchased for purposes other than resale) does not qualify as an "alterer," as that term is used in NHTSAs regulations.

NHTSA has stated in past interpretation letters that when a used vehicle is modified in such a manner that the originally assigned GVWR is inappropriate for the vehicle as modified, the modifier can affix an informational label to the vehicle, identifying its appropriate loaded weight. See, e.g., letter to James Barber dated April 2, 1997. The agency has noted, however, that it would not recognize the loaded weight specified by the modifier as the vehicles GVWR. That is because the modifier would not be in a position to assign the vehicle a new GVWR since he would not qualify as an original or final stage manufacturer or as a vehicle alterer. Id.

Consistent with these interpretations, NHTSA would not regard the value specified by Uhl Truck Sales on the label it affixed to your vehicle as the vehicles GVWR. The agency would instead recognize the 29,000 pound GVWR assigned by the vehicles original manufacturer. Because the originally assigned GVWR remains with the vehicle throughout its service life, no means are available for "recertifying" the vehicle with a lower GVWR.

We are furnishing a copy of this letter to Hoffman Trailer Company and to Uhl Truck Sales so that they are apprised of our views on the issue you have raised.If you have any further questions regarding the vehicle certification regulations, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc: Hoffman Trailer Company, Inc.
Uhl Truck Sales

ref:567
d.9/23/02

ID: aiam2806

Dear Dr. Yeager: This responds to your telephone request of March 24, 1978, askin whether the seats in school buses are sufficiently strong to allow the installation of seat belts. You stated that some manufacturers are indicating that they cannot install seat belts because the floors of larger school buses cannot withstand the forces generated by seat belts.; As you indicated, Notice 5 of Docket 73-3 stated that school bus seat should be strong enough to withstand the forces seat belts would impose upon them. This statement was based upon the fact that the seats would be designed to comply with the other force requirements of the standard which would increase the strength of the seats making them capable of withstanding seat belt loads. At the time of that notice, there were special seat belt requirements for seat belts in school buses in the then proposed Standard No. 222. These seat belt requirements would have mandated lower belt load requirements than those found in Standard No. 210 which currently applies to school buses (under 10,000 pounds GVWR). The seats in larger school buses should be sufficiently strong to withstand the former proposed force requirements of Standard No. 222, but they might be incapable of withstanding the belt load requirements of Standard No. 210.; Manufacturers who indicate that the seats or floors of larger buses ar not strong enough to install seat belts probably misunderstood the belt requirements for large buses. Seat belts can be installed for passenger seats in larger school buses without complying with any existing seat belt requirements. Seat belts for passenger seats are not required, for example, to comply with Standard No. 210. Therefore, a State would be permitted to establish their own acceptable belt load requirements for these seat belts in large school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suggests that States adopt the belt load requirements previously proposed for Standard No. 222. School bus seats currently in production should be sufficiently strong to withstand the former proposed belt load requirements.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: C. A. France -- President, Converto Manufacturing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. C. A. France President Converto Manufacturing P.O. Box 287 Cambridge City, Indiana 47327

This is in reply to your letter of July 18, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Converto produces the "Leav-A-Tainer." As you describe it this is "a truck mounted, hydraulically operated hoisting mechanism designed to handle detachable containers" The hoisting mechanism is mounted on top of regular truck or trailer frame rails. Converto has placed the rear lamps "as near the end of the...frame rails as practicable," but law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania and Minnesota state that the lamps must be placed at the extreme end of the hoisting mechanism. You believe that is not feasible because the lamps will be destroyed when the hoist is In the dump position, and have asked for our opinion.

The basic location requirements established by Standard No. 108 for most truck or trailer rear lamps is, first, that they be "on the rear" and, second, that they be "as far apart as practicable." In these positions they afford the visual and signalling cues associated with their respective functions. Among those cues are the location of the rear end of the vehicle and indications of its width. However, there are configurations of commercial vehicles where literal compliance with the requirements so as to provide both of those cues is a physical impossibility, calling for a compromise. In those instances, it may be possible to locate the lights at the rear of the vehicle, but not to provide any indication of the vehicle's width or any lateral separation between the left and right sets of lights. Alternatively, it may be possible to place the lights so that they indicate the vehicle's width and are laterally separated, but at a location forward of the rear of the vehicle. In the case of your vehicle, there is the additional complication that locating the lights at the rear of the vehicle would appear to result in their being damaged or destroyed during the operation of the work performing equipment. You have interpreted Standard No. 108 as permitting mounting at the end of the frame rails, although the work-performing structure extends as much as 32 inches beyond the frame rails. The lamps, as you have located them, are "as far apart as practicable." The two States, as we understand it, are insisting that the lamps be mounted at the end of the work-performing structure where they would be "on the rear"; in that location, the lamps would appear to have to be bunched together because of the narrow width of the work-performing structure, and therefore would not be "as far apart as practicable" in the sense that Standard No. 108 intends. That is, there would be essentially no lateral separation between the sets of lights and no indication of the width of the vehicle.

We have concluded that the primary location requirement that the lamps be on the rear is more important than the secondary requirement of width location in the event of a conflict. In their present location, we question whether the lamps meet the requirement that they be visible throughout an angle from 45 degrees to the right to 45 degrees to the left. Further, with a container in place providing the 32-inch overhang, there may be certain angles of approach in which the lights become obscured and cannot be seen by a driver following too closely. Under paragraph S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108, if motor vehicle equipment such as the hoist prevents compliance with the visibility requirements of the standard, an auxiliary lamp meeting the visibility requirements may be provided. We suggest that you examine the possibility of installing lamps on the side of the hoist, close enough to the rear that they are not damaged when the hoist is in operation.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 18, 1985 Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel - N.H.T.S.A. Room 5219 #400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

SUBJECT: Request for ruling for the location of lighting devices for truck mounted and semi-trailer "roll-off" tilt frame hoists under FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Miller:

Converto Mfg. Co., Inc. manufactures roll-off tilt frame hoisting mechanisms commonly referred to as "roll-off tilt frame hoists"" under the trade name of "Leav-A-Tainer" This is a truck mounted, hydraulically operated hoisting mechanism designed to handle detachable containers of varying sizes and types. This system utilizes a frame that tilts hydraulically and a reeving cable system to power the container on and off the frame.

This hoisting system is either mounted on an existing truck chassis frame or is manufactured as a semi-trailer unit. In either event, the hoisting mechanism itself is mounted on top of the regular truck or trailer frame rails.

Converto has always believed it was complying with Federal lighting standards by placing the rear lights as near the rear end of the truck or trailer frame rails as practicable. However, several of our cutomers have encountered problems with local law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania and Minnesota. These agencies state the lights must be placed at the extreme rear end of the hoisting mechanism rather than at the end of the truck or trailer frame. This would seem to be impracticable to us since the design of the equipment is such that is necessary to extend the hoisting mechanism beyond the end of the truck or trailer main frame. When the hoist is in its fullest raised position to either discharge or to take the container aboard, the hoist must pivot at the rear of the truck so that the rear end of the hoist positions itself on the ground for both stability and control of the container. To attempt to locate lights on that part of the hoist would result in destroying the lights when the hoist was in the drmp position. For this reason, we presently locate the lights approximately 32" inward from the end of the hoisting mechanism itself.

Photographs of actual hoist showing this product in both the extended and retracted positions are included for your information. Several pieces of product literature are also enclosed to help you better understand the product, how it operates, and to depict what our problem is.

We certainly hope you will be able to give us a ruling for this application so that we may assist our customers with the problems they have encountered.

Should you have questions or need additional information or clarification of any point, please contact me.

Sincerely, C.A. France President CAF/bc

Enclosures 85-97

ID: nht95-6.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Colleen Grant

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/17/95 LETTER FROM COLLEEN GRANT TO NHTSA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: Dear Ms. Grant:

This responds to your letter asking whether your 1974 Chevrolet Blazer is "street-legal." You stated that an official of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles has questioned whether your vehicle is street-legal because it does not have shoulder belts. According to your letter, the vehicle has a fiberglass removable roof, and was originally manufactured with lap belts. You also stated that inquiries at local dealers indicate that General Motors does not make a shoulder belt for this model "because there is no place to safely mount it."

We assume that you are asking whether your vehicle was originally required to have lap/shoulder belts, because many states require vehicles in use to be equipped with the same kinds of safety belts that were required by the Federal government for the vehicles when new. As discussed below, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts, but was required to have at least lap belts at each seating position.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies, among other things, seat belt requirements for new vehicles.

Standard No. 208 generally required, for model year 1974 vehicles such as your Blazer, either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at each seating position, at the manufacturer's option. Therefore, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Colleen Grant

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/17/95 LETTER FROM COLLEEN GRANT TO NHTSA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: Dear Ms. Grant:

This responds to your letter asking whether your 1974 Chevrolet Blazer is "street-legal." You stated that an official of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles has questioned whether your vehicle is street-legal because it does not have shoulder belts. According to your letter, the vehicle has a fiberglass removable roof, and was originally manufactured with lap belts. You also stated that inquiries at local dealers indicate that General Motors does not make a shoulder belt for this model "because th ere is no place to safely mount it."

We assume that you are asking whether your vehicle was originally required to have lap/shoulder belts, because many states require vehicles in use to be equipped with the same kinds of safety belts that were required by the Federal government for the veh icles when new. As discussed below, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts, but was required to have at least lap belts at each seating position.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies, among other things, seat belt requirements for new vehicles.

Standard No. 208 generally required, for model year 1974 vehicles such as your Blazer, either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at each seating position, at the manufacturer's option. Therefore, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 11059

Ms. Colleen Grant
6335 W. Newville Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89103

Dear Ms. Grant:

This responds to your letter asking whether your 1974 Chevrolet Blazer is "street-legal." You stated that an official of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles has questioned whether your vehicle is street-legal because it does not have shoulder belts. According to your letter, the vehicle has a fiberglass removable roof, and was originally manufactured with lap belts. You also stated that inquiries at local dealers indicate that General Motors does not make a shoulder belt for this model "because there is no place to safely mount it."

We assume that you are asking whether your vehicle was originally required to have lap/shoulder belts, because many states require vehicles in use to be equipped with the same kinds of safety belts that were required by the Federal government for the vehicles when new. As discussed below, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts, but was required to have at least lap belts at each seating position.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies, among other things, seat belt requirements for new vehicles.

Standard No. 208 generally required, for model year 1974 vehicles such as your Blazer, either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at each seating position, at the manufacturer's option. Therefore, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:9/14/95

ID: 24459.ztv

Mr. Steve Karcz
Helmetlight, Inc.
P.O. Box 190151
Anchorage, AK 99519

Dear Mr. Karcz:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 2002, with reference to your "Lead-Dog Helmet Light" intended for motorcycle operators.You asked whether there are "Federal issues" involved with it.

You related that the Helmet Light "is wired to the motorcycles existing headlight, taillight, and brake light wires," and then, "attached to the riders helmet with VELCRO." You stated further that "our headlight is wired into the high beam wire of the motorcycle and controlled by the high/low beam switch." When the Helmet Light is on, "our housing illuminates red creating a second, more visible taillight atop the helmet." Finally, "our brake light is wired to the motorcycles brake light wire and activated by the brake light switch. . . ." We note from your website that the light source is described as a "35 watt halogen spotlight."

I enclose a copy of an interpretation of this Office dated May 22, 1992, to Larry Nunn of Automotive Lighting Technologies regarding a similar invention. This letter will provide you with our views on the relationship to your invention of the laws that we administer. Our views remain the same today. However, the relevant statute was recodified in 1994. As a result, the statutory references in the 1992 letter have changed."Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4))" defining "motor vehicle equipment," is now 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7). "Section 108(a)(2)(A)" relating to post-sale vehicle modifications has become 49 U.S.C. 30122. Finally, "sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419)" concerning recall and remedy are now 49 U.S.C. 30117-30121.

In brief, Helmet Light is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the Safety Act. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to motor vehicle equipment that is designed to be attached to a motorcycle helmet and connected with the wiring system of a motorcycle. We are concerned, however, about the potential effects of Helmet Light on compliance of the helmet to which it is attached, with FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, and of the motorcycle with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, when Helmet Light is connected with the wiring system.

Specifically, FMVSS No. 218 (S5.5) prohibits a motorcycle helmet from having a rigid projection on the outside of a helmet shell, except for "those required for operation of essential accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm)." We do not regard Helmet Light as an "essential accessory" within the meaning of the phrase. This means that a motorcycle helmet to which Helmet Light is attached would not comply with FMVSS No. 218. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), it is a violation to manufacture for sale, sell, or offer for sale a motorcycle helmet that fails to comply with FMVSS No. 218. This means that a helmet may not be sold with Helmet Light attached, or as part of the sale of a new helmet. Whether it is legal for a person to operate a motorcycle while wearing a helmet with Helmet Light attached is not a Federal question, but a question to be answered under the laws of each jurisdiction in which Helmet Light is used.

Individual items of lighting equipment on motor vehicles are required to meet specified minimum candela at certain specified test points. We would have a safety concern if connection of Helmet Light to the motorcycle lighting system in some manner reduced candela at any test point of any lamp below the minimum specified in the standard so that the motorcycle no longer complied with the specifications of FMVSS No. 108 when Helmet Light was operating.

We are also concerned about the potential glare effects of the use of Helmet Light, which you further describe as a "35 halogen watt spot lamp." You advise on your web site "NEVER point spot lamp at another persons eyes, you may temporarily affect their vision."This caution indicates that there is a distinct possibility of glare when a motorcyclist wearing a Helmet Light turns his or her head side to the side when approaching a crossroads or corner, or when the light is projected into the interior and exterior rearview mirrors of a vehicle ahead. Glare is a current issue of great public concern, and the agency has received several hundred letters relating to headlamps and daytime running lamps.

We would be especially concerned if the "35 halogen watt spot lamp" were distracting to the point that an oncoming driver would fail to notice the motorcycles front turn signals when they were operating. Lighting equipment other than that specified by FMVSS No. 108 is not permissible as original equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment such as turn signal lamps. Although Helmet Light is not an item of original motorcycle lighting equipment, it becomes part of the overall motorcycle lighting and conspicuity package when it is used and there are sound safety reasons that the same principle should apply, that it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment.

However, there is no Federal prohibition on the sale of Helmet Light as a vehicle accessory independent of the sale of a motorcycle helmet. As noted above, State laws determine whether it is legal to operate a motorcycle while wearing a Helmet Light.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.9/23/02