ID: nht79-2.40

DATE: 05/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 28, 1979, asking two questions with respect to certification of lighting equipment by use of the DOT symbol, as permitted by S4.7.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is whether disassembled parts such as lenses, screws, or bulbs must also be certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is no; only the completed lamp assembly must be so certified.

You have also asked "in the case of lamp lens incorporated with reflex reflector do we have to label the DOT label on this reflex reflector certifying it meets FMVSS?" The answer is yes. Although the lamp lens is not a required equipment item and not certified since it is only part of a lamp, the reflex reflector incorporated in it must be certified since the reflector is an item required by Standard No. 108.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

April 28, 1979

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs,

According to your National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Sec. 114 a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to which FMVSS applies is required to be certified that it conforms to FMVSS. In the case of an item or motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.

And from FMVSS No.108, Sec. 4.7.2. the symbol DOT may be labeled which shall constitute a certification that it conforms to FMVSS 108.

We are now labelling the DOT labels on our lamp assemblies, lamp units and reflex reflector assemblies of motor vehicle equipment for replacement.

The motor vehicle lighting equipments for replacement, however, are now delivered not only in the form of ass'y or unit but also in the form of disassembled parts such as for example, lenses, screws and bulbs, etc. Is it necessary for these parts also to be certified that they conform to FMVSS?

Also, in the case of lamp lens incorporated with reflex reflector do we have to label the DOT label on this reflex reflector certifing it meets FMVSS?

We would appreciate very much having your comments on our above questions at your earliest convenience.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

ID: nht79-2.41

DATE: 06/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 1979, asking two questions with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is "if it is permissible to locate clearance lamps up to 13 inches inboard of the outermost extremity of a boat trailer?" You have submitted a drawing approved by NHTSA in 1975, in which the center of the rear clearance lamps are within a zone extending from the edge of a truck to 13 inches inboard.

Standard No. 108 requires rear clearance lamps to be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle" (Table II). The zones installed on the truck drawing are at the extreme width of the vehicle at its top, and proper for the configuration shown. The widest part of a boat trailer, however, is at its fenders, but because of its configuration, clearance and identification lamps are necessarily mounted at the bottom of the vehicle rather than at its top. In this location they can be obscured by the load projecting over the rear of the trailer edge if mounted inboard of the fenders whereas outboard mounting renders this improbable. We conclude, therefore, that a mounting 13 inches inboard would not meet the requirement of Table II that clearance lamps be mounted to indicate the overall width of the vehicle.

Your second question is whether "it is permissible to combine a clearance lamp function in a tail lamp fixture if a second bulb is installed in the tail lamp which, when lit alone, satisfies the photometric requirements for the clearance lamp shown through the tail lamp lens . . . and further assuming that all tail lamp photometric requirements are met when the tail lamp bulb alone is lit and when both lamps are lit."

The answer is no. Paragraph S4.4.1 clearly specifies that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp . . . ." The combination lamp you describe would appear to create an optical combination when both bulbs are lit.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

Trailer Manufacturers association

May 2, 1979

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Recently the enclosed information came to our attention where apparently since 1975, an interpretation has existed that the clearance lamps on commercial highway trailers may be up to 13 inches inboard of the outermost extremity of a trailer.

Boat trailer manufacturers would like to take advantage of this same interpretation which would allow clearance lamps to be mounted directly to trailer frame siderails where both the lamp and wiring harness would be better protected than mounted to projecting fenders that owners invariably use as steps. These fenders do not project more than 13 inches, and are normally well forward of the rear of the trailer.

Please advise us if it is permissible to locate clearance lamps up to 13 inches inboard of the outermost extremity of a boat trailer.

A second question is if it is permissible to combine a clearance lamp function in a tail lamp fixture if a second bulb is installed in the tail lamp which, when lit alone, satisfies the photometric requirements for the clearance lamp shown through the tail lamp lens --- and further assuming that all tail lamp photometric requirements are met when the tail lamp bulb alone is lit and when both bulbs are lit.

Director of Engineering

Donald I. Reed

KEY

(Illegible Lines)

NOTES

(Illegible Lines)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-2.42

DATE: 07/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck-Lite Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 19, 1979, to Mr. W. M. Elliott of this agency requesting clarification of Paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This Paragraph states:

"Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle, as for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees in board."

You have asked the following questions:

"1. Is the decision to use another mounting location made at the discretion of the manufacturer?"

Yes. The manufacturer determines whether placement of the lamps in accordance with Standard No. 108 will indicate overall width or whether they are susceptible to damage if so placed, and there is no requirement that it obtain the concurrence of this agency in its decision.

"2. Are there any specific conditions that are required in order to consider it 'necessary' to mount clearance lamps in other location?"

No. The agency has established no criteria of necessity and questions on variations from front and rear mounting requirements are treated on an ad hoc basis.

"3. When the decision is made to mount the clearance lamps in another location, can a manufacturer use combination clearance/side marker lamps mounted on the side of vehicle to fulfill the clearance lamp requirements."

Yes, as long as the clearance lamp function is visible from the rear and indicates the overall width of the vehicle.

"4. Section S4.1.1.1 states that in 'such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard'. Does this mean that they need not be visible from 0 to 45 degrees inboard?"

No. SAE Standard J592e, Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification lamps, July 1972, requires clearance lamps to be visible at the H Point at 10 R and L, 20 R and L, 30 R and L, and at 45 R and L. Paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 specifies that under the alternate mounting positions the lamps need not be visible at the 45 degrees positions. They must, however, be visible at the other positions. I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

June 19, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dept. of Transportation

Attention: W. M. Elliott

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, Paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 which states that "Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to (Illegible Word) the overall width of a vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard".

Dear Mr. Elliott:

We would appreciate some clarification as to the proper application of the paragraph above which is Section S4.3.1.1.1 of FMVSS 108.

More specifically, it would be most helpful if you might be able to provide information that would help us answer the following questions:

1. Is the decision to use another mounting location made at the discretion of the manufacturer?

2. Are there any specific conditions that are required in order to consider it "necessary" to mount clearance lamps in another location?

3. When the decision is made to mount the clearance lamps in another location, can a manufacturer use combination clearance/sioemarker lamps mounted on the side of vehicle to fulfill the clearance lamp requirements?

4. Section S4.3.1.1.1 states that in "such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard". Does this mean that they need not be visible from 0 to 45 degrees inboard?

Any insight (official or otherwise) that you might be able to provide regarding these questions would be most appreciated. If you or someone in the department would like to contact us, feel free to telephone collect at 716/665-6214, ext. 32.

Thank you for your consideration.

A. L. Bragg Laboratory Manager

CC: J. BENNETT; R. TARR; C. POWLEY

ID: nht79-2.43

DATE: 12/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 21, 1979, pointing out 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 Standard and Regulations."

You are correct that the version of S4.1.5 appearing in "Federal Motor 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 the 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 Standard 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,

ATTACH.

November 21, 1979

F. Berndt, Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Subject: Discrepancies in Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, as published in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations

Upon recent review of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, we have found a few discrepancies between the Standard as published in the Federal Register and as published in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations compilation.

The Federal Register of June 15, 1978, amended Section S4.1.5. There was a paragraph printed after Section S4.1.5 which we believe was not intended to be part of the Standard; however, the compilation has this paragraph included as part of the Standard. Are we correct in assuming that this paragraph is not part of the Standard?

The Federal Register of July 27, 1978, amended the Table I headlamp requirements. The compilation does not reflect this amendment.

Table I of the compilation is footnoted to "See S4.4.2"; however, there is no Section S4.4.2 in the compilation. The reprinted Standard in the Federal Register of August 23, 1976, also has the same mistake. What is the correct footnote?

The second paragraph under "Interpretation", following Section S5.2, in both the compilation and the Federal Register of August 23, 1976, refers to paragraph S3.1; however, there is no such paragraph in either document. What is the correct reference?

We trust that you will have these areas reviewed and advise us of your findings. We have attached the appropriate pages from the compilation and the Federal Register for your reference.

Very truly yours, MACK TRUCKS, INC.;

Thomas F. Brown -- Executive Engineer-Vehicle Regulations and Standards

Attach.

ID: nht79-2.44

DATE: 03/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: L. B. Leiby

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1979, to the Department asking about the legality of wiring the rear hazard warning signals so that they automatically flash when the gear shift lever is placed in reverse.

We are able to give you guidance about applicable Federal law only. The Federal requirements for new motor vehicles are set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.108). As you probably know, the hazard warning system and the turn signal system typically use the same lights. There is no provision in the standard which prohibits a manufacturer from wiring the rear hazard signals/turn lights so that they flash when the vehicle gear shift is in reverse. Please note, however, that the standard (S4.6(b)) requires the separate rear tail lamps to be steady burning. Thus, those lamps may not be wired so that they flash.

As for modification of used vehicles, contact the State in which the modified vehicle would be licensed and operated to determine if it has any applicable vehicle-in-use laws.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

SINCERELY,

7 February 1979

Dear Sir,

I am working on a concept which if legal and feasible, will, I believe, reduce accidents in parking areas.

The concept concerns the utilization of blinker lights normally used for highway emergency purposes to be wired to the backup lights circuit so that when the gear shift lever is placed in reverse, the red tail lights will automatically blink thus providing extra warning to oncoming drivers in parking areas.

Can you provide information as to the legality of the above concept, and please include any related factors.

Thank you.

Lawrence B. Leiby

ID: nht79-2.45

DATE: 05/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1979, to Bill Eason with respect to headlamp lens marking. Mr. Eason is no longer associated with the Office of Rulemaking and we regret the delay in writing you.

You have asked for a confirmation of your interpretation that:

"The headlamp designed to conform to J579c shall be provided with the lens marking specified in S4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the conventional maximum restriction of 37,500 cd."

You are correct that S4.1.1.21 permits the new code marking for headlamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J579c even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the maximum of 75,000 cd permissible under 579c or the previous maximum of 37,500 cd of J579a. But because the code could be misleading, we are considering proposing an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would delete the new code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed a certain value, such as 40,000 cd.

SINCERELY,

Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

January 29, 1979

Subject: Headlamp Lens Marking

Reference: Docket No. 78-5; Notice 3 of Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 145 dated July 27, 1978

Dear Sir:

With reference to the headlamp lens marking, the latest S 4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 as amended in Docket No. 78-5; Notice 3 of FR Vol. 43, No. 145 dated July 27, 1978, provides as follows;

Quoted " S 4.1.1.21 The lens of each headlamp designed to confom to SAE Standard J579c, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, December 1974, manufactured on or after July 1, 1979, shall be marked with the symbol ------------ -------- ." unquoted

The NHTSA's basic intention of establishing the above lens marking code is to give consummers a means of identification to determine which the photometric and beam pattern design specified in either SAE J579c or SAE J579a does apply to the headlamp and also to enable them to replace original headlamp with headlamp of compatible photometric properties, we believe.

In addition, it can be said that the headlamp designed to conform to SAE J579c is substantially different also in the upper and lower beam patter distribution as well as being different in the upper beam photometric maximum output, when compared with the headlamp of SAE J579a, we think.

KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

Attn. Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dated January 29, 1979

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your definite confirmation and our interpretation is as follows;

The headlamp designed to conform to SAE J579c shall be provided with the lens marking specified in S 4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the conventional maximum restriction of 37,500 cd.

If you have another interpretation of this code to this matter, please kindly let us know soonest possible because we have to change lens moulds to provide our headlamp with the proper marking.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

M. Iwase Chief, Overseas Technical Section Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

PS: POSTAGE STAMP ENCLOSED FOR YOUR REPLY BY AIR.

ID: nht79-2.46

DATE: 01/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 14, 1978, to Mr. E. T. Driver, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Your letter depicted the use of two headlamps, both round and rectangular, mounted side by side, and also one above the other.

Table IV of FMVSS No. 108 requires that if two headlamps are mounted on a motorcycle they must be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline. The same requirement applies to taillamps, stoplamps, and reflex reflectors. This has been interpreted previously, in the case of reflex reflectors, to mean that if two are used they may be mounted only side by side. Four headlamp systems are not permitted on motorcycles. These are specified in the new paragraph S4.1.1.34 in the amendment published in the Federal Register July 27, 1978. A copy of the new amendment is enclosed, along with copies of previous notices that constitute FMVSS No. 108. However, if two headlamps are mounted on a motorcycle, they still must be mounted side by side and equidistant from a vertical centerline of the body of the motorcycle.

This Agency is currently considering an amendment to the standard that will, if approved, permit the positioning of headlamps and reflectors one above the other when two are mounted on a motorcycle. The necessary rulemaking procedures, if initiated, would take several months and there is no certainty that the contemplated amendment would be issued.

We welcome your further comments and questions.

ID: nht79-2.47

DATE: 03/16/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vespa of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your letter of January 22, 1979, petitioning for a determination that a possible noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

This is to inform you that upon review of Mr. Levin's letter to you of March 14, 1978, and examination of the turn signal system employed on Vespa motor scooters, we have determined that there is no failure to comply with the standard and your petition is moot.

Vespa brought to our attention the fact that S4.5.6 of Standard No. 108 requires each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit to have an illuminated pilot indicator but SAE Standard J588e, incorporated by reference, requires it only if turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Mr. Levin informed Vespa that, if all turn signal lamps were readily visible to the driver, no pilot indicator was necessary. Mr. Levin continued by saying:

"If the driver must turn his head to the rear to check the operation of turn signal lamps, then those lamps are not 'readily visible to the driver' and a turn signal indicator must be provided."

You have now informed us that you believe the turn signal system on Vespa motor scooter manufactured between March 1975 and the latter part of 1977 "are the functional equivalent of turn signal indicators", specifically

"The turn signal systems . . . are designed so that in the event of a failure of either rear turn signal lamp, the appropriate front turn signal lamp will flash at three times the normal rate. As the front turn signal lamps and their flash rates are readily visible at all times to the operator, any turn signal malfunction will be readily apparent to the operator."

We agree with your conclusion. The rapid flash rate will indicate the presence of a problem in either the front or rear turn signal system and the equivalent of a turn signal indicator appears to have been provided.

SINCERELY,

vespa of america corporation PIAGGIO GROUP

January 22, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Joan Claybrook, Administration Petition for Exemption

Gentlemen:

Vespa of America Corporation ("Vespa") respectfully submits its petition for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Act") pursuant to 49 CFR S 556.4 with respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's November 14, 1977 notification of possible non-compliance with Section 4.5.6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Vespa is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 355 Valley Drive, Brisbane, California 94005. The motor vehicles involved are Vespa motor scooters manufactured by Piaggioe & C. S.p.A. and imported into the United States by Vespa from March of 1975 through December of 1977.

On October 14, 1977, Vespa received notification from Mr. Francis Armstrong (letter ref. NMV-22 GSH CIr. 1627.2) that Vespa motor scooters with obtainable speeds of over 30 MPH were required to be equipped with a turn signal indicator under Section 4.5.6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. On October 24, 1977, Vespa responded to the Administration pointing out the apparent inconsistency between Section 4.5.6 and SAE Standard J588e. On March 17, 1978, Vespa received a response from Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Esq., the Administration's Chief Counsel (letter ref. NOA-30) acknowledging this inconsistency and indicating that vehicles equipped with signal lamps readily visible to the driver in compliance with SAE Standard J588 (e) did not need to be equipped with an illuminated pilot indicator in order to comply with the Act. Mr. Levin interpreted the phrase "readily visible to the driver" to require that all turn signals (both front and rear) must be visible to a driver facing forward in the normal driving position.

For the reasons hereinafter set forth, Vespa believes that the turn signal lamps on the affected vehicles are in substantial compliance with Section 4.5.1 of SAE Standard J588 (e) and that, because of their location, visibility and operation, these turn signal lamps are the functional equivalent of the turn signal indicators required by SAE Standard J588 (e). Vespa accordingly believes that any non-compliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Although the affected vehicles are not equipped with a separate illuminated turn signal indicator, Vespa motor scooters incorporate an alternate but equally effective method for operator notification of turn signal malfunction. The turn signal systems in the motor vehicles involved are designed so that in the event of a failure of either rear turn signal lamp, the appropriate front signal lamp will flash at three times the normal rate. As the front turn signal lamps and their flash rates are readily visible at all times to the operator, any turn signal malfunction will be readily apparent to the operator.

It is apparent that the purpose of both sections is to afford the driver with an immediate and readily visible indication that a failure in the turn signal system has occurred. Vespa believes that its present system completely satisfies this objective and that no modification of any sort would increase the safety of the vehicle or would increase the driver's ability to detect any failure in the turn signal system.

To require Vespa to modify and equip all vehicles which have been imported into the United States since its formation in March of 1975 with an additional turn signal pilot indicator lamp would impose an impossible financial burden on the corporation which could quite possibly result in the insolvency of the corporation. The modifications which would be required would entail a major modification of the existing headlight housing and a total revision of the existing electrical system. The estimated cost of bringing all vehicles into strict compliance with the Act's standards will exceed $ 493,000. A breakdown of the estimated cost is attached hereto as Attachment I.

The Vespa motor scooter was redesigned in the latter part of 1977 and the turn indicators on the new model are no longer readily visible to the operator. Accordingly, all new models are equipped with illuminated turn signal indicators which meet the Act's requirements.

In light of the foregoing, we respectfully request that Vespa be exempted from the requirements of Section 4.5.6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and from the requirements of Section 4.5.1 of SAE Standard J588e with respect to all Vespa motor scooters imported from March of 1975 through December of 1977.

Bruno Porrati President

ATTACHMENT I

NOTIFICATION REPAIR COST BREAKDOWN

Approximate total of effected vehicles imported by Vespa of America Corporation since March 1975 - 4,500

Notification Costs:

(Customer & Dealer) $ 8,000.00

Repair Cost:

Time allotted for unit repair - 5 hrs. @ $ 20.00 per hour

(100.00 x 4,500) = $ 450,000.00

Special Tools needed - $ 20.00/tool

(20.00 x 425 dealers appx.) = $ 8,500.00

Cost of Replacement Parts - $ 6.00 per vehicle

($ 6.00 x 4,500) = $ 27,000.00

TOTAL $ 493,500.00

ID: nht79-2.48

DATE: 01/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: R.C. Back -- Director, Government Relations, Ryder Truck Rental Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1979, in which you asked for confirmation of your interpretation that the new restriction on mounting height of rear side marker lamps applies only to trailers and not to trucks.

This confirms your interpretation. As is stated in Table II of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, rear side marker lamps are to be mounted above the road surface "not less than 15 in., and on the rear of trailers not more than 60 in."

SINCERELY,

RYDER TRUCK RENTAL INC.

January 23, 1979

The Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Taylor Vinson

Gentlemen:

Effective March 1, 1979, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment is amended to require that side marker lamps be mounted on semitrailers and trailers at a height not less than 15" nor more than 60" from the roadway. The purpose of the amendment is to afford the manufacturer more flexibility with respect to trailers of unique design while satisfying the goal of making it more likely that the trailer rear side marker lamp can be viewed in the outside rear view mirror of the tractor pulling it, "acting as a reference light by which the tractor driver may check the tracking of the trailer's rear end."

On August 25, 1978, your agency issued a rule in accordance with the prior notice amending Table II of 49CFR571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Table II as amended provides:

Item . . . . Height above road surface measured from center of item on vehicles at unit weight

Side . . . . Not less than 15 in., and on the rear of

Marker trailers not more than

Lamps 60 in.

The purpose of this letter is to request a formal interpretation of the table as amended. It would appear that the purpose of the rule-making procedure was to limit the application of the amendment to trailers and semitrailers.

The reference in the table, in apparent conformity with the purpose of the rule making, limits the application of the 60" limitation to trailers only. Consequently, straight trucks are not affected. Will you please confirm our interpretation of the amendment.

R. C. Back, Director Government Relations

ID: nht79-2.49

DATE: 01/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: SAE Lighting Committee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1978, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The standard was recently amended to establish a ceiling of 60 inches from the roadway surface for the mounting height of rear side marker lamps. You have asked whether it is permissible to mount an additional side marker lamp at the upper rear corner of a trailer whose overall height exceeds 60 inches.

The answer is yes. Such a supplemental lamp would not appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, within the meaning of the prohibition of S4.1.3 that you mentioned.

SINCERELY,

COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE

December 18, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Agency

Attn: Office of Chief Council

SUBJECT: Docket No. MC-66-1; Amendment No. 77-8

Gentlemen:

The DOT/FHWA/BMCS recently announced a new rulemaking notice which required that large semi-trailers and full trailers have their rear side marker lamps located at a height between 15 inches and 60 inches above the road surface. This is the so-called tracking light to enable drivers to have better visibility of the rear section of the trailer in bad weather.

The specific question raised here is whether or not trailer manufacturers and users can continue to mount a side marker lamp at the upper rear corners of the trailers on the sides of the vehicles in addition to the newly required device at the lower mounting dimensions just described above.

Past precedent would indicate that having an additional, optional side marker lamp at the top rear corners would certainly not, in any way, interfere with the required lighting. However, we are getting inquiries as to whether or not this is permissable and I would like your confirmation that this presents no problem in using this added, optional light.

Apparently, some manufacturers and vehicle users prefer to use a rear side marker lamp at both the top and bottom which would undoubtedly increase the safety. We would appreciate your prompt response so that we can in turn reply to these inquiries.

Paul G. Scully Chairman, SAE Lighting Committee

P.S. The NHTSA final rule was published 31 August 1978 as Docket No. 77-1;