ID: PACE.ztv

Mr. John W. Cook
Dir. Materials Mgmt/Product Development
Pace American, Inc.
11550 Harter Drive
Middlebury, IN 48540

Dear Mr. Cook:

This responds to your FAX of August 12, 1996, asking for "a clear definition in inches of the term 'as practicable' especially as it would apply to clearance lights." You explain that you have fenders that attach to the side of your trailers in widths that vary from 2 to 11 inches. You have asked whether it is acceptable for the clearance lamps "to be within 6-8" from the outer most part of the trailer including fenders."

We appreciate your expressed desire to be in conformance with Standard No. 108. This standard employs practicability language in a number of its location requirements in order to afford a manufacturer maximum flexibility in designing its trailer. This flexibility would be lacking were the agency to require clearance lamp location within a specific range such as "within three inches from the top of the vehicle." Thus, the question a trailer manufacturer must determine is whether its location is as practicable as possible given the design of the trailer, where a requirement is expressed in terms of practicability. It is the enforcement policy of this agency not to contest a manufacturer's determination unless it is clearly erroneous.

You have asked a specific question about the location of rear clearance lamps. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires them "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. . . and [to be located] as near the top thereof as practicable." Please note that it is the vertical location of the rear clearance lamps that is expressed in terms of practicability, and that the horizontal location is expressed only as a general requirement to indicate overall width. Paragraph S5.3.1.4 provides an exception to the vertical mounting requirement: "[w]hen the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." Thus, when rear clearance lamps are mounted on a fender, as you wish to do, the question is not whether this is a practicable location, but whether it is a location that indicates the overall width of the vehicle.

The meaning of the term "overall width" is clarified in Note (1) to Standard No. 108 (which follows Table IV in the CFR text):

(1) The term "overall width" refers to the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, marker lamps, outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps, determined with doors and windows closed, and the wheels in the straight-ahead position.

In our judgment, locating a clearance lamp within 6 to 8 inches of the outermost edges of a trailer that is 80 or more inches in overall width does not indicate "overall width" within the meaning of Standard No. 108.

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:108

d:9/4/96

ID: 12218.drn

Mr. Juergen Halfmann
Philips Research Lab Aachen
Department EL
P. O. Box 1980
D-52021 Aachen
Germany

Dear Mr. Halfmann:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. You note that the Standard is "well adapted" to mechanically driven throttle plates, but not to electronically operated ones. You ask for an interpretation of how S5.1 of Standard No. 124, that specifies "at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position," applies to electronic systems.

In an interpretation letter of August 8, 1988 to Isuzu (copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interpreted Standard No. 124 to apply to electronic accelerator control systems. Among other matters, Isuzu described what it considered to be the "two sources of energy" that were capable of returning the throttle to the idle position. Based on the Isuzu's information, NHTSA gave an interpretation as to whether Isuzu's system met S5.1 of Standard No. 124.

As NHTSA did for Isuzu, if you would provide specific information about Philips' electronic acceleration control system, we will address whether the system meets S5.1 or any other part of Standard No. 124.

NHTSA has announced that it is considering amending Standard No. 124 to include requirements specific to electronic accelerator control systems. In a Federal Register notice of December 4, 1995 (60 FR 62061, copy enclosed), NHTSA noted that the standard was last amended in 1973, when only mechanical systems were common on motor vehicles. Although the comment deadline has passed, your company may submit comments on the issues raised in the notice. Any further actions NHTSA may take to amend Standard No. 124 will be announced in the Federal Register.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:124

d:8/7/96

ID: nht75-5.10

DATE: 05/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bock & Jones

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1975, inquiring about the existence of regulations governing the manufacture, design, and on-the-road operation of trailers used to transport fertilizer while hitched to a pickup truck.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the responsibility of promulgating safety standards that set minimum performance requirements for vehicles manufactured and/or sold in the United States. There are five motor vehicle safety standards that apply to trailers. These standards relate to trailer lighting, tires, and braking systems (Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses (49 CFR Part 571.106), Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (49 CFR Part 571.108), Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids (49 CFR Part 571.116), Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR Part 571.119), Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR Part 571.121)).

There is no safety standard that applies to the towing of a trailer. The use of a safety chain to guard against release of the trailer may, however, be mandated by State law.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

BOCK & JONES -- ATTORNEYS AT LAW

May 2, 1975

CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURNED RECEIPT REQUESTED #466442

Legal Department -- Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

I am involved in a lawsuit in which a large fertilizer manufacturer-distributor furnished a four wheel pull-type fertilizer applicator, constructed very similar to a normal trailer, and was used for transporting bulk fertilizer from the distribution point, on the public highways, pulled by a pickup truck, to farms, for fertilizer application.

The trailer hitch was of a standard type which coupled to a hole in the rear bumper of the pickup truck.

For some unknown reason, the clevis pin probably broke, the trailer became uncoupled from the pickup truck, and crossed the centerline of the public highway, killing the driver of the approaching vehicle.

The trailer did not have the standard type of commonly used safety chains, which are also usually attached to the pulling vehicle to avoid accidents if the trailer hitch becomes uncoupled.

Since becoming involved in this litigation, we have determined that this is not uncommon in the area, as apparently these clevis pins through use, jolts, etc., do fracture or break, but fortunately the other accidents in the area were not fatal to other people.

My purpose in writing to your department is to determine:

(1) Whether or not you issue any type of regulations covering the manufacture or design of such trailers?

(2) Whether or not you have any type of regulations that set minimum standards for such trailers or applicators to be pulled or used on public highways?

If your agency should not be involved in such, perhaps you could advise us of another regulatory agency that might have such regulations.

Thanking you for this information, we are

Sincerely yours,

By: Harold D. Jones

ID: nht89-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/89

FROM: DAVID BLUMBERG -- STRUCTO FAB INCORPORATION

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO DAVID BLUMBERG; REDBOOK A33 [6]; VSA 102 [5]; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; PART 566

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel

I had a rather lengthy conversation with George Shifflett, Safety Compliance Specialist, about our proposed business. Based on what he said I believe we qualify as a remanufacturer, but he suggested we write for your interpretation.

We plan on acquiring used chassis, less the corroded body, from various third parties. These chassis are from the right hand drive jeep vehicles, presently being used by the U.S. Post Office.

Once we obtain the chassis we then plan to repair, to restore or to replace parts required to bring the chassis up to a quality level.

When the vehicle mechanics are satisfactory we will add a new fiberglass body and hood. We will also add new seats and interior decoration.

As stated earlier I believe the assembly process described above qualifies us as a re-manufacturer, but because we wish to be sure we are asking for your opinion.

Very truly yours,

ID: 2639o

Art Look, Marketing Executive
Burke Communication Industries
1165 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60610

Dear Mr. Look:

Your letter of October 30, 1987, addressed to Administrator Diane Steed, was referred to me for reply. You are apparently seeking this Department's approval of your product which you describe as a new warning device for stopped motor vehicles. As explained below, we do not provide approvals for products.

Your product is made of inflatable plastic material that you describe as "flexible and extremely durable." When a user inflates your device, the product takes the shape of a cone standing about 18" high. The pictures you enclose indicate that the inflatable part of the cone has three broad alternating stripes. Two of the stripes are orange, and a 6" "reflective" white stripe is sandwiched between them. Your cone sits on a non-inflatable, spherical, black base filled with "approximately" 3 lbs. of sand.

You state that your device has many advantages over the warning device currently specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 125, Warning Devices. Among the advantages you list are that your device is "more visible at night, up to 1,000 ft. away;" that it "(is) not affected by winds up to 50 MPH;" and that if struck, it "will return to an upright position" without damaging the vehicle involved. You state your company's intention to package your device in a corrugated container with three inflatable cones to a kit, including both a "new-type double-action hand pump" and instructions for proper use of your device.

Let me begin with some general information about this agency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agency of the Department of Transportation, and has authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards issued by this agency. Periodically, NHTSA conducts tests to determine whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

One of the safety standards issued by this agency is Standard 125, Warning Devices, which sets uniform performance requirements for certain devices that are designed to be carried in a motor vehicle and used when needed to warn approaching traffic when the vehicle is disabled and stopped in or by the side of the road. The Standard applies to any such device that does not have a self-contained energy source (such as a battery). Your product falls under this Standard. Thus, it must meet the requirements of Standard 125, such as those on configuration, color, and reflectivity. Failure to comply with a standard renders the manufacturer subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Safety Act requires a manufacturer to recall and remedy or replace a noncomplying item of motor vehicle equipment.

As the above discussion suggests, you do not need approval from NHTSA or any other agency in the Department of Transportation to market your product. However, you do need both to ensure that your product meets Standard 125's requirements and to certify compliance. Our preliminary review of your product indicates that you may not be able to make that certification. For example, it appears that your product may not comply with the color, reflectivity, configuration, and stability requirements of Standard 125. If your product fails to meet these or other Standard 125 requirements, you cannot legally market it as a warning device.

I hope you find this response helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:125 d:1/4/88

ID: nht80-4.26

DATE: 12/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 30, 1980, asking questions with respect to the term "overall vehicle width" contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have first asked whether door handles are a part of the vehicle to be included in the definition. The answer is that they need not be included. The definition in 49 CFR 571.3(b) excludes outside rearview mirrors and other equipment items in computing "overall vehicle width." Although the definition does not list door handles among the equipment to be excluded in determining the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, they are substantially similar in character to outside rearview mirrors and the other equipment items listed and may be deemed included.

Your second question is whether vehicles, whose tolerances are such that they are less than 80 inches in overall width, must nevertheless be equipped with clearance and identification lamps if the basic vehicle design is such that the "nominal design dimensions of the widest part of the vehicle" is 80 inches or greater. The answer is yes. If the engineering drawings, etc. of the basic vehicle design posit an overall vehicle width of 80 inches or more, all vehicles manufactured on the basis of that specification must be equipped with clearance and identification lamps even if an occasional vehicle is produced whose overall width may be slightly less than 80 inches due to the tolerances involved.

Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc.

October 30, 1980

The Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Frank Berndt

Subject: FMVSS108 Interpretation

File: S203.108

Dear Mr. Berndt:

IVECO Trucks of North America is a wholly owned subsidiary of IVECO, (Industrial Vehicles Company) B.V. of Amsterdam, Holland. As such we act as importers into the United States of two lines of trucks. One of these lines is the new IVECO Z Range built in Brescia, Italy. It is with regard to this vehicle that we have some questions concerning FMVSS108 and request an offical interpretation. In particular, FMVSS108 makes a basic division of vehicle lighting requirements by "overall vehicle width" defined in 40 CFR, Part 571.3, Definitions. The current definition to the best of our knowledge is: "Overall vehicle width means the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, marker lamps, outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps, determined with doors and windows closed and the wheels in the straight ahead position."

With regard to this definition:

1) Are door handles to be considered as a part of the vehicle to be included in the "overall vehicle width" or is the intent of the definition to take into account only the major body structure as would seem to be indicated by the list of exceptions?

2) If a vehicle were designed such that the "nominal design dimensions of the widest part of the vehicle" was above 80 inches, but the tolerance was such that specific vehicles might in reality be manufactured below 80 inches.

a) Do such vehicles, which physically measure under 80 inches, require the marker/identification lamps per greater than 80" width requirements or should they more properly meet the lighting requirements for vehicles under 80"?

In affect, what is the meaning of "nominal design width" and how does it relate to compliance of vehicles which physically meet one criteria while technically appear to meet another.

These questions are of great concern to us, therefore we would appreciate as prompt an interpretive reply as possible. If clarification or additional information is required, please do not hesitate to call me at the above address and phone number. If a meeting is deemed necessary, I am likewise available. Thank you for your assistance.

Carl G. F. Pedersen

cc: N. GOODWIN

ID: 1982-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. M. Price; NHTSA

TO: T. R. Lamia, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Thomas R. Lamia, Esq. Messrs. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007

Dear Mr. Lamia:

This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1981, submitting a petition to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays.

You have asked for rulemaking to allow the installation of a speed control device on motorcycles which you believe is presently prohibited by the requirement that the manual twist-grip throttle be self-closing after its release. You have pointed out to us that such devices are "permitted" in motor vehicles covered by Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, but that no justification has been given for their "prohibition" by Standard No. 123.

Our review of both standards indicates silence on the question of speed control devices; they are neither permitted nor prohibited by either standard. Standard No. 123's requirement that the manual throttle be self-closing after release is conceptually identical to Standard No. 124's requirement that the throttle return to idle "whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force" (paragraphs S5.1, S5.2). We interpret this specification in Standard No. 124 as a requirement to be met under the implied condition that the speed control device is disengaged. To remove any inconsistency between the two Federal accelerator control standards, we will extend this same interpretation to Standard No. 123; speed control devices are allowable and the throttle must return to idle after manual release when the device is not engaged.

This means that your petition is denied on the basis of mootness. Such a denial will allow us to prepare a Federal Register notice recording this fact and giving this interpretation a wide circulation.

Sincerely,

Courtney M. Price Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

December 16, 1981

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Courtney Price Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

Dear Mrs. Price:

Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 552, we hereby submit the enclosed "Petition to Initiate Rulemaking to Amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 123 ('Motorcycle Controls and Displays')." We believe the Petition contains the necessary information and analysis to support commencement of the rulemaking proceeding sought by the Petition, and we respectfully request that the matter receive prompt attention and expeditious processing.

Please let us know if you have any questions or require any additional information.

Very truly yours,

Thomas R. Lamia of PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER

TRL:mw

ID: nht92-2.35

DATE: 11/11/92

FROM: DAVID KENNEDY -- W.Y. MOBERLY, INC.

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-10-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DAVID KENNEDY (A40; STD. 120); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-30-82 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO KENNETH M. BUSH

TEXT: I am respectfully requesting an interpretation on a specific regulation that deals with Motorcycles and Other Three Wheeled Vehicles.

My client, Lehman Industries from Westlock Alberta Canada, manufactures a "Gold Wing Trike Conversion Kit". The "Kit" consists of a prefabricated fiberglass rear end assembly, complete with brakes, drums, brake lines, 15" tires and rims. The prefabricated fiberglass rear end assembly, is attached to a specific year of Honda Gold Wing Motorcycle. The rear end of the Honda Gold Wing motorcycle is taken apart, and my clients rear end assembly is attached in place of the existing one. When the rear end assembly is attached, certain modifications must be made, the drive shaft is removed, the entire rear wheel is taken off the seat, and all of the moulding etc. that was originally supplied with the Honda. In their place, my clients prefabricated rear end assembley is installed, by bolting, and changing the frame. Once the prefabricated rear end assembly is installed, a rear differential is installed as well, allowing the utilization of regular 15" automotive tires and rims. I have enclosed a picture of a completed "Trike" to show the automotive tires and rims.

Please note that my client in Canada only sells the kits, I have also enclosed a parts list for the "Kits" which shows all of the parts that are included to the purchaser. It is up to the purchaser to install the "Kit" onto the existing Honda Gold Wing. Leheman Industries normally do not do the installation. When Lehaman Industries do the installation they supply the purchaser with a "modified vehicle label" certifing that the modified vehicle conforms to all applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of modification.

The "Kits" are shipped to the actual "end users" they are not shipped to a wholesale [Illegible Word] they are shipped in a disassembled condition, except the rims and tires are attached to the rear differential, and the prefabricated rear end assembly is attached to the differential. The rubber brake hose has the DOT certification on it, as prescribed by law, the tail light lenses have the DOT certification on it as prescribed by law, the 15" automotive tires of the DOT certification on it as prescribed by law, the rims however do not, as they are actually 15" automotive rims. They are not actual motorcycle rims. I understand that motorcycle rim have got to have the DOT certification on them, but in this circumstance, do these specific rims need it? I have enclosed a statement from Lehmans supplier of the wheels as well as a technical data sheet. I relize that it is mostly in German, I was unable to obtain one that in English.

Thank you for your attention in this matter, any clarification that you can give will be greatly appreciated. Lehaman Industries are waiting to continue shipping to their customers in the U.S. based on your reply. Please contact myself if you require any additional information.

ATTACHMENTS (PHOTOS, PARTS LIST AND STATEMENT OMITTED.)

ID: nht74-2.42

DATE: 08/07/74

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

TO: Royal Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 23, 1974, question concerning the certification responsibility of a small manufacturer of trailers that must conform to Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. You ask if road testing of any or all vehicles produced would be necessary to satisfy the requirements.

A manufacturer must "exercise due care" in certifying that the vehicles manufactured by him comply with the applicable standards (National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, @ 108(b)(2), 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(b)(2)). What constitutes due care in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the time to elapse before a new effective date, the availability of test equipment to small manufacturers, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.

A small manufacturer of standard and custom trailers might fulfill his due care responsibility to assure that each of his trailers is capable of meeting the standard in several ways. For example, he could establish categories of models which share a common brake and axle system and certify them all on the basis of tests on the most adverse configuration in the category. Calculations should be written down in such a case to establish that reasonable care was taken in these decisions.

Alternatively, joint testing might be undertaken with a trade association or with a major supplier of brake and axle components. In the case of standard models, you might be able to rely on the supplier's warranty of his products' capacities.

Neither of these methods would require road testing of each vehicle manufactured, nor would every model have to be road tested. A manufacturer must simply satisfy himself that the trailer is capable of meeting the stopping performance requirements if it were tested by the NHTSA.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

PEERLESS DIVISION ROYAL INDUSTRIES

July 23, 1974

Chief Council -- National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

This concerns a recent telephone conversation between Loretta Carlson of the National Highway Safety Administration in Seattle and myself.

As a custom trailer manufacturer, we seldom manufacture any number of trailers of the axact same model. While we may build saveral trailers a year to perform the same job, there could be sufficient change from order to order that could conceivably classify them as different models.

My question of her was whether or not we, as a custom commercial trailer manufacturer, would be required to road test all models of trailers that we build to meet the requirements of FMVSS121.

Loretta Carlson talked to your office and relayed your answer to me in that for a manufacturer to satisfy the requirements of FMVSS121, he has to exercise due care to certify his equipment as meeting the requirements of FMVSS121.

Also, your office felt that if we road tested a trailer that we felt would be the worst configuration to meet the requirements of FMVSS121, then we could be considered as exercising due care.

I am very grateful for the assistance of Loretta Carlson and would greatly appreciate a letter from your office confirming your conversation with her on this matter.

C. J. Baker -- Research & Development Engineer

ID: 07-005972as