ID: aiam4493

Dear Mr. Apple: This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1987 in which you ask whether a U-Turn Indicator 'is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product.' Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-turn indicator. However, a U-turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the importance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment. Standard No. 108 does not cover a U-turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment that was installed pursuant to Standard No. 108. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) The legality of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 120l Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, may be able to advise you further on State laws. Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the general type of crash for which U-turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-turn crashes is substantially less than the 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles. We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator 'will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent'. However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing our Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted. We appreciate your interest in safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel CC: Michael Finkelstein;

ID: aiam5463

"Dear Mr. Sheppard: We have received your letter of November 2, 1994 asking whether certain conspicuity material could be used on trailers required to meet S5.7 of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed samples of the material. The material alternates red and white stripes 'oriented at a 45 degree angle to the edge of the roll.' Rolls are either 6 or 8 inches in width and 'will not have DOT-C2 marking.' In addition, we note that the horizontal length of the red segments is 5 1/2 inches (and presume an equal length for the white segments). Specifically, you have asked whether this material could 'be applied to the lower edge of the vehicle's rear doors as a compliant substitute for the 2' 'block pattern' material currently being used?' Paragraph S5.7's specifications for conspicuity material are intended to ensure uniformity of treatment in order to enhance the ability of drivers of other vehicles to detect large objects in the roadway under conditions when headlamps are used. While S5.7 does not require that the red and white color segments be rectangular, it does establish requirements for their length and width. Under S5.7.1.3(b), each segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm. The color segment separation of 5 1/2 inches on your sample is approximately 140 mm, and thus below the minimum permitted by the standard. Although currently, under S5.7.1.3(d), three widths of retroreflective material are permissible: 50 mm (DOT-C2), 75 mm (DOT-C3), and 100 mm (DOT-C4) and your widths of 6 inches (150 mm) and 8 inches (200mm) do not conform to these specifications, the agency has proposed that these be minimum minimum widths for the DOT grades indicated. We expect a final rule to be issued on this proposal in the near future. Because the retroreflective material discussed above would not comply with Standard No. 108's requirements for color segment length (and currently width), it could not be used as a substitute for the DOT-C2 material that you currently manufacture. Further, geometrically and photometrically complying material would require the appropriate DOT grade identification marking for use on a trailer required to comply with Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: 11814.ZTV

Mr. William J. Schultz
Principal Engineer
United States Motorcycle Manufacturers Association
Dept. 704
3700 W. Juneau Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53208

Dear Mr. Schultz:

This is in reply to your letter of April 4, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Table IV of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to the location of reflex reflectors on motorcycles.

You point out that agency interpretations permit front turn signal lamps and headlamps "to rotate about the steering axis as long as they are within the location limits specified in the regulation". You ask for confirmation that this interpretation is equally applicable to front side reflex reflectors.

The answer is yes. Table IV requires front side reflex reflectors to be located "on each side. . . as far to the front as practicable." Conformance is determined with the front wheel in the straight-ahead position. The determination of practicability of location is initially that of the motorcycle manufacturer and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will not question it unless it is clearly erroneous. Thus, a front side reflex reflector may be mounted on a portion of the motorcycle that turns if the manufacturer determines that that location is as far to the front as practicable, even though, during a turn, that reflector may not be visible from the side of the motorcycle.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/10/96

ID: nht90-3.51

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1990

FROM: Robert Erhardt -- Senior Project Engineer, Advance Transformer Co.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-13-90 from P.J. Rice to R. Erhardt (A36; VSA Sec. 10(a)(2))

TEXT:

As you may know, we at Philips are working on the development of high intensity discharge (HID) lighting systems for use as motor vehicle headlamps. These systems promise dramatic improvements in forward illumination while using less energy in a lower p rofile (allowing more aerodynamic vehicle design).

We are now at the point in our development where we have engineering samples available that we wish to test on road vehicles and would like to be advised of the laws concerning such an undertaking. It is our intention to equip 110 private and/or company vehicles for everyday use. The test would continue indefinitely (for lifetime/reliability evaluation) and could begin as early as August 27, 1990.

If a waiver or official authorization for this type of test is necessary, please consider this a request for same.

Given the competitive nature of the market that this product is being developed for, we are interested in beginning our test as soon as possible. A response by August 27 would be greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions concerning our program please contact either our Director, Mark Fellows, or myself at Advance Transformer (708) 390-5000.

ID: 9948

Mr. J. L. Steffy
Triumph Designs Ltd.
Jacknell Road
Dodwells Bridge Industrial Estate
Hinckley, Leics. LE10 3BS
England

Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your FAX of May 5, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You describe a motorcycle lamp "which comprises a headlight with high and low beams and 2 symmetrically (sic) flanking front auxillary (sic) lamps possessing low beam (sic) that augment the headlight." You ask for our comments.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits auxiliary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 108 includes certification to S5.1.3 and represents its determination that the supplementary equipment does not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. Unless that determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it.

Your letter contains too little information for us to comment further. For example, we do not know whether the candela of the auxiliary lower beam lamps is higher, lower, or the same as the main lower beam of the headlamp. Nor does the letter indicate whether the supplementary lower beam lamps are extinguished when the upper beam is activated.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/31/94

ID: 21324.ztv

Mr. Kenneth J. Sailor
2 Oaks Road
Shiplake
Henley on Thames
Oxfordshire RG9 3JH
England

Dear Mr. Sailor:

This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 2000, informing us of your plans to import "an assemblage of parts" intended to restore a 1979 Caterham Seven sports car.

The parts to be imported would not include the engine and transmission. We note also that the assemblage would not include the following parts that are themselves subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS): brake hoses, brake fluid, glazing, seat belts, headlamps, "taillight assemblies," turn signals, side marker lamps, and reflectors. You will also "fit DOT certified tires to the wheels." You have asked us for a letter stating that the "assemblage of parts being imported is not subject to DOT requirements."

You have not mentioned other motor vehicle lighting equipment such as stop lamps, parking lamps, backup lamps, and license plate lamps. If the Caterham Seven was equipped with these items of lighting equipment (you may have included stop lamps in the phrase "taillamp assemblies"), these items also must be removed from the assemblage if they have not been certified to comply with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Then, the individual equipment items remaining on the assemblage of parts as you have described it will not be subject to any of the FMVSS.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.3/27/00

ID: nht94-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached T o Letter Dated 5/5/94 From J. L. Steffy To Taylor Vinson (OCC-9948)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your FAX of May 5, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You describe a motorcycle lamp "which comprises a headlight with high and low beams and 2 symmetrically (sic) flanking front auxillary (sic) lamps possessing low beam (sic) that augment the headlight." You ask for our comments.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits auxiliary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance with Stan dard No. 108 includes certification to S5.1.3 and represents its determination that the supplementary equipment does not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. Unless that determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question i t.

Your letter contains too little information for us to comment further. For example, we do not know whether the candela of the auxiliary lower beam lamps is higher, lower, or the same as the main lower beam of the headlamp. Nor does the letter indicate whether the supplementary lower beam lamps are extinguished when the upper beam is activated.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

ID: nht92-9.21

DATE: February 6, 1992

FROM: S. Watanabe -- Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Marking requirements of FMVSS No. 108 S7.2.(b)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated March, 1992 (est.) from Paul Jackson Rice to S. Watanabe (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

As the overseas company of our firm-Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. in Japan, there are Thai Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. in Thailand and Taiwan Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. in Taiwan. We would like to have your advice about the Manufacturer Identification Mark required by FMVSS No. 108 S7.2.(b) on Thai or Taiwan made headlamps for U.S.

As the Manufacturer Identification Mark, Thai Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. has "TH STANLEY", "TH STANLEY" (in capital letters) and "STANLEY. TH" (in capital letters), as well as Taiwan Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. has "TW STANLEY", "TW STANLEY" (in capital letters) and "STANLEY. TW" (in capital letters). Can Thai Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. and Taiwan Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. use one of the marks to identify the manufacturer in order to conform the requirements of FMVSS NO. 108 S7.2.(b)?

In connection with this matter, we inform you that "TH STANLEY" and "TW STANLEY" have been made an application to the U.S. Patent and Trade Marks Office as a trade mark. However, "TH STANLEY" (in capital letters), "STANLEY. TH" (in capital letters), "TW STANLEY" (in capital letters) and "STANLEY. TW" (in capital letters) are not registered as a trade mark, because we think that they are not a trade mark, but a manufacturer's name.

ID: 1985-04.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Finbarr J. O'Neill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 18, 1985 Finbarr J. O'Neill General Counsel Hyundai Motor America P.O. Box 2669 Garden Grove, California 92642-2669 Dear Mr. O'Neill: September 18, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to application of the "DOT" symbol to lighting equipment. You first ask for confirmation of your interpretation that Standard No. 108 does not require the DOT symbol on original equipment lenses of lamps other than headlamps. That is correct; the general certification of the vehicle manufacturer that its product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is inclusive of all original equipment and of all requirements of the specific standards such as the color requirements for lenses imposed by Standard No. 108. You have also asked for confirmation that under Standard No. 108 the marking of replacement lenses with the DOT symbol is optional. That is correct; the other permissible certification options for replacement lenses are those imposed by 15 U.S.C. 1403, certification in the form of a label or tag on the lens itself or the container in which it is shipped. Finally, you have asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can comment on whether it intends to propose mandatory marking of lenses in the near future. We have received a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to require items of replacement lighting equipment to be marked with the DOT symbol. However, the agency has not announced a decision on the petition at this time. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3174

Dear Mr. Brown: Thank you for your letter of November 21, 1979, pointing ou discrepancies in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as published in the Code of Federal Regulations and as published in 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.'; You are correct that the version of S4.1.5 appearing in 'Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations' erroneously incorporates the paragraph of the Federal Register amendment notice finding that good cause had been shown for an immediate effective date. The error does not appear, however, in the official version of Standard No. 108 which appears in the Code of Federal Regulations.; The footnote reference to 'S4.4.2' and the reference to 'S3.1' in th interpretation do appear, however, in the Code of Federal Regulations. Originally, there was a paragraph S4.4.2 prescribing the testing sequence of combination turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers, referenced by footnotes in Tables I and III. As you may recall, there was a Standard No. 108a scheduled to become effective on January 1, 1973, which omitted S4.4.2 with its footnote reference, and added detailed performance and testing requirements for flashers under a new paragraph, S4.6. When Standard No. 108a was revoked, S4.4.2 was never reinstated as a requirement, though the footnote references to it still appear in Tables I and III as you have noticed.; With respect to the reference to 'S3.1' appearing in Note 2 to Standar No. 108 in the Code of Federal Regulations, this is the S3 which appeared in the December 16, 1967, version of Standard No. 108 cited by the Note. When Standard No. 108 was amended effective January 1, 1972, S3.1 became S4.1. Thus, the continued reference to S3.1, though confusing, is correct in its context.; Your final comment is that the amendments to Tables I and III affecting headlamps, as published on July 27, 1978, have not been picked up by the agency's publication 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.' You are correct. We hope that recent steps taken by this agency will end the problems that have been experienced with this publication. However, I must emphasize that the only legal version of Standard No. 108 is that appearing in the Code of Federal Regulations, currently revised as of October 1, 1978, plus amendments and corrections published in the *Federal Register* since that date.; We appreciate your calling these mistakes to our attention. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel