ID: 1982-2.29

DATE: 08/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harris Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 1, 1982, to Mr. Vinson of this office with regard to your "new motorcycle lighting system" and asking about possible conflicts with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your device is an "aftermarket accessory" light which may be mounted to a motorcycle helmet, and which is integrated by a cord into the motorcycle's headlighting system, providing an auxiliary beam of light in conjunction with the beam of light projected by the main headlamp.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the standard on vehicle lighting and lighting equipment while Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, is the other standard of relevance. Neither standard directly addresses an aftermarket device such as yours and as your lamp is intended to be installed by the helmet owner, it does not appear to conflict with any other regulatory prohibition of this agency. It would, therefore, be subject to regulation by the individual States in which the device is worn.

We see nothing in your correspondence that legally qualifies as "sensitive proprietary information", and our interpretation will be given its usual circulation.

SINCERELY,

Harris Enterprises

Taylor Vincent Chief Counsel DOT/NHTSA

July 1, 1982

Dear Sir;

Enclosed you will find a description of a new motorcycle lighting system and a copy of the utility patent protecting it.

At the suggestion of Dr. Carl Clark, NHTSA inventor contact, at our meeting of 4/15/82 at DOT, I am contacting you in order to clarify any possible areas of conflict with existing Federal regulations that this system presents.

One possible conflict that was discussed concerned Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 218 with regard to motorcycle helmets. Paragraph S5.5 states that "Rigid projections outside any helmet's shell shall be limited to those required for operation of essential accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.19 inch." As evidenced by the enclosed descriptive material. the system clearly employs a detachable helmet mounted light source whose housing projects substancially beyond the 0.19 inch limit.

This helmet light is an aftermarket accessory which is detachably installed by the operator by means of Velcro- like, 3M Dual Lock self adhesive fasteners. This mounting system is to be engineered so as to allow the helmet light accessory to shear away from the helmet surface upon application of a force substantially less than that which might cause injury. Indeed, the only somewhat permanent projections applied to the helmet itself are the three self adhesive strips of Dual Lock fastener which engage three complimentary strips on the underside of the helmet light. These strips don't project more than 0.19 inch.

As there are not currently any standards directly regarding a helmet mounted light as described, which integrates with the standard lighting system, and may be mediated by a photo electric dimming system to prevent the blinding of oncoming drivers, I would appreciate your opinion as to whether standard headlamp regulations apply.

Dr. Clark has seen the product and is most aware of the properties it exhibits. Any questions you may have may be directed either to Mr. Clark or this office. Your opinions on the above points are of significant commercial interest to us, and your earliest consideration would be appreciated. Please treat everything exclusive of the patent itself as sensitive proprietary information.

William R. Harris, Jr.

ID: 1982-2.7

DATE: 04/21/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Wheel Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, requesting an interpretation concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). Specifically, you noted that your company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Goodyear, wants to import rims from Lemmerz, a West German manufacturer, and mark those rims with the Goodyear name and trademark. This would be similar to the tires sold, for example, with Sears or Montgomery Ward labels and trademarks on the sidewalls. Your question concerns the requirement in section S5.2(d) of Standard No. 120, which specifies that each rim be marked with "a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol." You correctly recognized that Lemmerz would have to be identified as the actual manufacturer, and asked if the block letter "L" would be a sufficient identification. Imprinting an "L" on the rims manufactured for Goodyear by Lemmerz would satisfy the requirement of Standard No. 120.

In the notice initially establishing Standard No. 120 (41 FR 3478, January 23, 1976), this agency stated, "The rim manufacturer is free to use his name, trademark, or a symbol of his choice." The only limitation on this freedom is that the information cannot be presented in a deceptive or confusing manner. In the circumstances you have described, a consumer with a complaint or problem with the rims would know to contact Goodyear about the rims, and Goodyear would know that the block letter "L" indicated that the rim had been manufactured for them by Lemmerz. This would not be confusing or deceptive. Hence, the purpose of the labeling requirement is fulfilled, so Goodyear is free to use the letter "L" as the indicator that the rim was actually manufactured by Lemmerz.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MOTOR WHEEL CORPORATION

February 23, 1982

STEPHEN R. KRATCKE -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Kratcke:

At your suggestion I am formally requesting the Chief Counsel to issue an opinion on compliance with 49 CFR 571.120 S5.2(d).

As indicated during my telephone call, Motor Wheel Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and as such is responsible for Goodyear Metal Products, a producer of rims and wheels for on and off-highway commercial application. In conjunction with the parent company we are presently contemplating introduction of a super-single tire and wheel assembly to replace duals on truck trailers. Without knowing market potential Motor Wheel is hesitant to make the wheels and has elected to temporarily purchase the necessary wheels from a European source. Until such time as a final make or buy decision is made we propose to buy wheels from Lemmerz of West Germany.

Our inquiry is directed toward what NHTSA will accept as a trademark or symbol in lieu of the manufacturer's name on the rim as called for in 49 CFR 571.120 S5.2(d). Lemmerz identification on their rims is their name. We propose that the block letter 'L' be used in lieu of the full name so that we can imprint Goodyear's name and trademark for customer identification.

Is such a symbol acceptable to NHTSA? It is our understanding that Lemmerz is the only wheel producer worldwide whose name begins with 'L'. We would appreciate an early response to our inquiry as there is an eight to ten week lead time plus transit on orders placed with Lemmerz.

Please advise.

Sincerely,

Dale R. Martin

ID: 1983-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/10/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: VREDUSA -- Anthony Lavro, President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Anthony Lauro President VREDUSA P.O. Box 279 Somerset, New Jersey 08873

Dear Mr. Lauro:

This responds to your recent letter asking if you can legally sell certain tires you have imported from the Netherlands. These truck tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall but do not have a maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure labeled on the sidewall.

Under Federal law, these tires cannot be sold or otherwise introduced into interstate commerce because they do not comply with all requirements of Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119). Paragraph S6.5(d) of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) requires that a maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure be labeled on both sidewalls of each tire subject to the standard. The tires described in your letter plainly do not meet this requirement. Hence, the DOT symbol on those tires is misleading, since that symbol is supposed to be a manufacturer's certification that the tires comply with all requirements of Standard No. 119.

Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) specifies that no person shall sell or introduce into interstate commerce any item of motor vehicle equipment (which includes tires) unless the item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) sets forth a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108, if they were offered for sale or introduced into interstate commerce.

At this point, you have two legal courses of action open to you. You may have the tire manufacturer file a petition requesting an exemption from the noncompliance of these tires, arguing that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to the safety of the tires. The procedures to be followed in filing a petition for an inconsequential noncompliance are set forth in the enclosed copy of 49 CFR Part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance. I cannot state at this time that the absence of maximum load information would be viewed as inconsequential, but we would certainly give full consideration to any petition the manufacturer might submit. If the petition were granted, you could sell these tires.

The other course of action available to you is to ship these tires back to the manufacturer in the Netherlands and explain that they do not satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 119. I appreciate your efforts to ensure that you are complying with all applicable Federal regulations with respect to the sale of tires you import.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Office of Chief Council NHTSA - Room 5219 400 - 7th St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Recently I spoke with a Mr. Steve Kratsky, of your office concerning an opinion I desire. Mr. Kratsky advised that I write a letter to your office so that I could receive a written opinion.

I am an importer of a line of tires manufactured in Holland. On my last container I received some light truck radial tires which did not have the maximum inflation or maximum load capacity imprinted on the sidewall. The tires do have a D.O.T. number.

My question is: Can I still sell these tires to a wholesale, retail or user customer?

Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Anthony Lauro President

ID: 1983-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: TRANZ ACC Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 30 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Mike Grant TRANZ ACC Inc. 21807 Plummer Street Chatsworth, California 91311

Dear Mr. Grant:

This responds to your February 25, 1983, letter asking whether a child seat that you would like to import would comply with Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Your child seat attaches to a vehicle by use of several of its own anchorage straps which are attached to existing vehicle belt anchorages or by drilling new anchorages. The seat does not use the existing car seat belt system.

Paragraph S5.3.2 of the standard states: "When installed on a vehicle seat, each child restraint system, other than child harnesses, shall be capable of being restrained against forward movement solely by means of a Type I seat belt assembly (defined in S571.209) that meets Standard No. 208 (S571.208), or by means of a Type I seat belt assembly plus one additional anchorage strap that is supplied with the system and conforms to S5.4" Since your system has its own harnesses and does not utilize the existing car seat belt system (Type I seat belt), it would not comply with this portion of the standard.

The agency requires child seats to be attachable by use of the existing car seat system for ease of installation and to assist in proper installation and usage. The agency determined in rulemaking that to permit other systems that were more complex and that require the proper attachment of several harness straps would not be in the interest of safety, since it would likely result in improper child seat installation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 25, 1983

MR. FRANK BERNDT Chief Council U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 4O0 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

I represent an accessory company who are interested in importing a child seat from England. The seat has passed the British and Dutch safety tests which are probably the most rigorous of its kind in Europe.

However, we think the method of attaching the seat is not covered by your current safety regulations. Due to the complex nature of your regulations I find it difficult to determine whether or not the seat complies with them, and I would appreciate your help and advice in this matter.

I have written to Barbara Kelleher of Arvin Calspan Corp. who advised me to write to you and explain our situation. We both agree that as far as safety standards are concerned the seat easily meets the requirments of Calspan's sled tests.

I am eager to have the seat tested and approved but this would seem little purpose until I receive a decision from your department as to the suitability of our method of attaching the child safety seat.

Please find enclosed fitting instructions and information about the seat and if you require any further information or a sample seat please don't hesitate to contact me.

Your earliest attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Yours Sincerely

Mike Grant

ID: 1983-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/26/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd. -- Kenneth M. Bush, Staff Engineer, Government Relations Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush Staff Engineer Government Relations Department Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. 3251 E. Imperial Highway P.O. Box 1100 Brea, California 92621

Dear Mr. Bush:

This is in reply to your letter of February 245, 1983, asking for an intepretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays.

The last sentence of paragraph S5.3.1 is:

"If a motorcycle is equipped with self-proportioning or antilock braking devices utilizing a single control for front and rear brakes, the control shall be located and operable in the same manner as a rear brake control."

You have asked if your interpretation is correct that this sentence does not preclude the use of single control braking systems which do not incorporate "self-proportioning" or "antilock" braking devices. Your interpretation is correct; The sentence establishes a requirement that applies only to those self-proportioning devices with single control. It does not require a second control nor does it preclude a single control system without proportioning devices.

You have also asked that we provide clarification as to what self-proportioning means. This term includes any brake input device the actuation of which applies braking torque to both the front and rear wheels. Use of such a self-proportioning device does not preclude additional brake actuation devices. Examples include certain current model Moto Guzzi motorcycles.

As you have requested, the publicly available copies of your letter and this response shall not include your name and address. If you have any further questions, we shall try to answer them.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Enclosed is a request for interpretation of a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Because this request related to specific future product designs, we ask that this letter not be made publicly available with the request. For the same reason, we ask that our name and address be deleted from publicly available copies of your response.

Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD.

Kenneth M. Bush Staff Engineer Government Relations Department

This is to request clarification of some of the language contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays (49 CFR 571.123). In particular, we have two questions concerning the last sentence of S5.2.1 which states "If a motorcycle is equipped with self-proportioning or antilock braking devices utilizing a single control for front and rear brakes, the control shall be located and operable in the same manner as a rear brake control.

First, we interpret this sentence not to preclude the use of single control braking systems which do not incorporate "self-proportioning" or "antilock" braking devices. Is this interpretation correct?

Second, we ask that you provide clarification as to what "self-proportioning" means as used in S5.2.1. If you could list examples of self-proportioning devices, this would be helpful.

ID: 1984-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David W. Allen; NHTSA

TO: Orient Glass Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Y. Higuchi Executive Vice President Orient Glass, Inc. 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2430 Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Mr. Higuchi:

This responds to your letter of July 19, concerning the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You specifically asked whether a temporary haze which develops on a test specimen of glass-plastic glazing during Test No. 4, Boil test, constitutes a failure of that test. As explained below, the temporary haze would not be considered a failure of the boil test requirement.

As you correctly noted, Standard No. 205 requires glass-plastic glazing to pass the Test 4 boil test, of American National Standards Institute Z-26, which is incorporated by reference in our standard. As explained in the preamble to the November 16, 1983, final rule setting performance requirements for glass-plastic glazing, the purpose of the boil test is to ensure that the plastic layer of glass-plastic glazing does not delaminate when exposed to high temperatures and humidity.

You explained that during your test of a piece of glass-plastic glazing, a "haze developed all over the plastic side at the end of the test." You further stated that the "haze totally disappears in 24-36 hours" when the specimen is returned to "ordinary room temperature." Since the temporary haze does not result in a permanent change in the structure of the glazing, which would occur if the glazing delaminated, we do not consider the temporary haze to be a failure of the boil test. The glazing must, of course, comply with Test No. 17, Abrasion resistance, which is directly meant to limit haze.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

JULY 19, 1984

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (Attn: Mr. Edward Jettner)

Re: Glass-Plastic Glazing Materials

Dear Mr. Jettner:

The undersigned is writing this letter on behalf of Nippon Sheet Glass Co., Ltd. (Herein after referred as NSG) a potential manufacturer of "Glass-Plastic Glazing Materials" defined in Safety Standard NO. 205 Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205).

With reference to the amendment of Safety Standard NO. 205 Docket NO. 81-04: Notice 4 NSG understands that " Glass-Plastic Glazing " have to pass the Test N0.4 (Boil Test) provided in ANS Z 26. In regard of Test NO. 4 on "Glass-Plastic" NSG wants to confirm that the following interpretation is correct.

When NSG conducted the Test N0.4 on Securiflex, which was made by Saint Gobain Vitrage of France, haze developed all over the plastic side at the end of the test. NSG believes that this haze comes out due to the direct contact with boiling water for as long as two hours. NSG observed this haze totally disappeared in 24 - 36 hours when the said Glass-plastic specimens were kept at ordinary room temperature. NSG, accordingly, interprets this temporary haze shall not be considered as "Other defects" provided in ANS Z 26.

Your competent comments on NSG's observation and interpretation would be highly appreciated.

Truly yours,

Y. Higuchi Executive Vice President

cc: Mr. Mizutani (NSG) Mr. Todoroki (NSG)

ID: 1985-01.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Director of Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/2/69 letter from Charles A. Baker to Reliance Trailer and Truck Company Inc.; 11/10/81 letter from F. Berndt to Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TEXT:

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa Director of Engineering Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1020 Princess Street Alexandria, VA 22314

This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1984 asking our "concurrence that the front clearance lamps on a trailer with a low front end or one designed to be equipped with a tarpaulin...may be mounted at the trailer frame level ( about 50 inches above the ground), to avoid these lamps reflecting into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror."

You thoughtfully attached a copy of my letter to you of November 10, 1981 in which I advised you that "the determination of practicability is one that is made by the manufacturer of the trailer", and that "NHTSA will accept a determination that mounting of clearance lamps at the top...is not practicable if such lamps are reflected into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror." That remains our view if the configuration of any the side view mirror." That remains our view if the configuration of any trailer is such that location of clearance lamps at or near the top of the trailer results in the reflection of the light into the eyes of the driver of the truck tractor.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association ALEXANDRIA, VA. 22314 December 7, 1984 Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel NHTSA, NOA-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation of the Height of Front Clearance Lamps on Trailers with Effective Low Front Ends

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We request your concurrence that the front clearance lamps on a trailer with a low front end or one designed to be equipped with a tarpaulin which would necessicate mounting the clearance lamps low may be mounted as the trailer frame level (about 50 inches above the ground), to avoid these lamps reflecting into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror.

In your letter of May 2, 1969 to Reliance Trailer and Truck Company, you stated that, "the front clearance lamps should be mounted as high as practicable to clear the bottom edge of the tarp." In your letter of November 10, 1981 to TTMA you stared that with regard to low front bulkheads on platform trailers that, "NHTSA will accept a determination that mounting of clearance lamps at the top or the bulkhead is not practicable if such lamps are reflected into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror."

With your concurrence, the sketch in our Recommended Practice No. 9, "Location of Lighting Devices for Trailers", will be revised as shown in the attachment.

Sincerely yours,

Donald W. Vierimaa Director of Engineering Attachments: Interpretations(Letters referenced above) - see 5/2/69 letter to Reliance Trailer and Truck Co., and 11/10/81 letter to Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association RP No. 9 with Drawing - Omitted.

cc: TTMA Engineering Committee

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: 15400.ztv

Mr. Thomas E. Derecktor
Chief Engineer, TracRac
994 Jefferson Street
Fall River, MA 02721-4893

Dear Mr. Derecktor:

This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1997, with respect to the relationship of the TracRac Overhead Rack system to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL).

Specifically, you have cited the concerns of the legal staff of General Motors (GM) that the rack may interfere with the visibility requirements for the CHMSL. The applicable requirements are those of SAE Recommended Practice J186a, September 1977, rather than of SAE J186 DEC89 as you quoted, but they are essentially the same. Paragraph 4.1 of J186a states that "Visibility of the signal shall not be obstructed by any part of the vehicle from 10U to 5D and from 10L to 10R unless the lamp is designed to comply with all requirements when the obstruction is considered."

The upper rails of TracRac may be retracted when the system is not in use. You point out that the CHMSL will comply when TracRac is in its retracted position, but does not comply in a minor respect when the rails are not retracted. You propose adding a label to the driver's side base rail, advising the customer where to position the upper rack when it is not in use. Alternatively, you propose adding a second CHMSL mounted below the forward rack crossbar. You state that this configuration will meet Standard No. 108 with the rack in any position.

Our opinion follows. From the literature you enclosed, we see that TracRac is an accessory promoted by GM in its product literature. We assume that this will be added by a GM dealer, either before or after sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Title 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30112(a) prohibits the sale of a nonconforming vehicle to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Once a vehicle is sold, 49 U.S.C. 30122 forbids a dealer (as well as a manufacturer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business) from making inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This would apply to the aftermarket installation of racks that create a noncompliance with CHMSL visibility specifications.

Your alternative solution is to provide an additional lamp below the forward rack crossbar which "complements the original CHMSL, by blanketing the narrow blind spot caused by the rear rack", and that "this configuration likewise passes FMVSS 108." This language can be interpreted as meaning that neither lamp complies on its own but requirements are met by the array of two CHMSLs. This would not be acceptable. Paragraph S5.3.1.1(b) of Standard No. 108 states that if motor vehicle equipment prevents compliance with any visibility or photometric requirements of a required lamp, an auxiliary lamp shall be provided that meets all applicable visibility and photometric requirements. This means that your additional lamp must itself comply with Standard No. 108 when TracRac is installed on the vehicle.

In a recent telephone call to Taylor Vinson of this Office, you asked whether the CHMSL could be vertical rather than horizontal. Standard No. 108 does not specify the shape of a CHMSL. Most are rectangular but some have been circular (Cadillac Allante), or "string bean" in shape (Cadillac Seville). Thus, any shape may be chosen as long as photometric and visibility requirements are met.

With respect to your "Primary Solution", to add a warning label, we do not view the addition of a warning label as satisfying Standard No. 108. A noncompliance will exist when the rack is not retracted.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.7/28/97

ID: 1985-01.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Eddie Cole Answer Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Eddie Cole Answer Products, Inc. 27967 Beale Court Valencia, CA 91355

Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter regarding the importation of motorcycle helmets by your company from Italy.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, applies to helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. You stated in your letter that there is a DOT "approval sticker" on the helmet and that your company's name is clearly displayed on the helmet. Standard No. 218 requires that each helmet be permanently and legibly labeled with the manufacturer's name or identification, model designation, size, month and year of manufacture, and the symbol DOT. The DOT symbol does not indicate approval of any helmet by the Department of Transportation. Instead, the DOT symbol represents the manufacturer's certification that the helmet meets all the requirements of Standard No. 218. A copy of this standard is enclosed for your information.

As an importer, your company is also considered a manufacturer under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which is administered by this agency. Therefore, either your company's name or the Italian manufacturer's name should be af fixed to each helmet. Your company and the Italian manufacturer are both responsible for any defect in the helmet or failure to comply with the standard's requirements.

You asked about other regulations of which you should be aware. Copies of these are enclosed:

49 CFR Part 551--Procedural Rules (Subpart D--Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers). 49 CFR Part 566--Manufacturer Identification.

If you need additional information, please contact this office.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

December 11, 1984

N.H.T.S.A. Office Chief Council 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20690 Attn: Mr. Frank Berndt

Dear Mr. Berndt

Please let me introduce our company to you. We are, Answer Products, 27967 Beale Ct., Valencia, Ca., 91355.

We currently are importing helmets from Italy. The helmet does have a D.O.T. approval sticker on it, but the manufacturers name is not displayed on the helmet. Our name is clearly displayed on the helmet.

We do have a product liability insurance policy, from the manufacture for, $5,000,000 and our own policy for $2,000,000.

I need to know if there is any other special regulations that we need to be aware of, and also if the manufacture name should be displayed on each helmet?

My secretary spoke to a agent in your office this morning and he mentioned a standard 218, which I am not familiar with. Is there any way you could send me a copy of this?

I would appreciate any information you could forward to me concerning this. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Eddie Cole V.P. Answer products, Inc. EC:sc