ID: 1983-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Able Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jim Cowen Manager Able Body Company P.O. BOX 1868 Joplin, MO. 64802

Dear Mr. Cowen:

This is in reply to your letter of May 26, 1983, petitioning for a determination that a noncompliance with Standard No. 302 existing in truck sleeper berths that you manufacture is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

We do not believe that Able Body has the legal responsibility to file a petition of this nature. Your description of the company as a manufacturer of "sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks" indicates that Able Body is a supplier of original equipment which is installed in trucks rather than the manufacturer of the truck itself. While Able Body may have a contractual obligation with truck manufacturers to provide them with evidence of compliance with Standard No. 302, the truck manufacturer itself assumes ultimate responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act for compliance with that standard by affixing a label to each truck certifying compliance with all applicable standards. This means that the truck manufacturer has the legal responsibility to notify purchasers and remedy noncompliances in its products involving Standard No. 302, even though the component concerned was produced by another company. As the obligation to notify and remedy rests upon the truck manufacture, only that party may petition for an inconsequentiality determination.

When noncompliances occur, they must be reported to the agency pursuant to 49 CFR 573 Defect and Noncompliance Reports. Under this regulation either a component or a vechicle manufacturer may report a noncompliance to NHTSA if the noncompliance exists only in original equipment of a single vehicle manufacturer. However, if the noncomplying component has been used in the vehicles of more than one manufacturer, the manufacturer of the component and all vehicle manufacturers must file individual noncompliance reports. We have no record that Able Body has filed a Part 573 report on this matter. I enclose a copy of Part 573 for your information.

We would appreciate prompt filing of a Part 573 report by Able Body and/or relevant truck manufacturer(s). You may advise your customers of their right to file an inconsequentiality petition.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

May 26, 1983

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C.

Dear Administrator:

Able Body Company, P.O. Box 1868, Joplin, Missouri, a corporation chartered in and under the laws of the state of Missouri, wishes to petition the NHTSA for exemption from notification and remedy requirements on the grounds of an inconsequential noncompliance to FMVSS 302.

Able Body Company manufactures sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks. During a routine update of testing for compliance with FMVSS 302 on April 8, 1983, a specimen of the speaker grill mesh from a Motorola speaker grill (Motorola Part Number RV 1001) failed the burn test. The specimen burned at a rate of 6.48 in/min. Motorola was contacted and further samples were tested. As a result, on May 3, 1983, it was determined that all of the Motorola grills that had been installed by Able Body Company were out of compliance. The speaker grills were installed in pairs in 1371 sleeper berths made between May 1977 and May 1983.

Able Body Company feels that the noncompliance in this case is inconsequential for the following reasons:

1.) The grills in question measure 6 inches by 6 inches. This represents 0.5% of the surface area of the passenger compartment of a sleeper berth. Since the speaker grills are such a small area, the probability of their involvement in a fire is correspondingly small.

2.) The grills in question weigh one ounce each. This represents 0.19% of the total lining material available to burn. If a fire did occur and if it involved the grills, they would be consumed in approximately one minute each and be of no further support for combustion.

3.) The grills are located 27 inches above the mattress. This location is above the most likely risk area, from reclining smokers.

4.) Since the most likely source of fire is from a passenger who smokes, a test was made to try to ignite a grill with the coal of a cigarette. While the coal melted a hole in the mesh it did not ignite the grill. Since the grill will only readily ignite from an open flame, the probability of involvement is futher reduced..

5.) The Motorola RV 1001 grills were installed in 1371 Able Body sleeper berths. This represents a small number compared to the total number of berths. During the same period (1977-1983), Able Body manufactured 2158 other sleeper berths that did not include the Motorola grill.

Able Body Company feels that the above reasons are sufficient and therefore make this petition. If there are any questions regarding this matter, please notify us at once.

Respectfully submitted. Jim Cowen, Manager

ID: 1983-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ezon Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Louis Gaia V.P. Purchasing Ezon Products, Inc. P.O. Box 18134 Memphis, Tennessee 38118

Dear Mr. Gaia:

In your letter of June 2, 1983, to the Office of Chief Counsel, you asked if there were "any D.O.T. requirements on miniature bulbs?"

We understand your question to refer to bulbs used in lighting devices other than headlamps. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, imposes no performance requirements on individual bulbs used in lighting devices other than those used in replaceable bulb headlamps (an option permissible as of July 1, 1983). Other lighting devices must meet the photometric requirements of the standard with the bulb, chosen by the lighting device manufacturer, installed.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 2, 1983

National Hwy. Traffic Agency Office of Chief Councel 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

We were advised by Mr. Al Kazmierzak from the D.O.T. to write you concerning the following.

Are there any D.O.T. requirements on automotive miniature bulbs?

Please advise.

Awaiting your reply,

EZON PRODUCTS, INC.

Louis Gaia V.P. Purchasing

LG/dd

ID: 1983-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard London

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard London Ferme de la Ferrage 06620 Gourdon France

Dear Mr. London:

We understand that you recently asked the agency about the permissibility of importing a used motor vehicle, such as a Mercedes 280SL, which would be trailered to various auto meets, and which would not be licensed for use or used on the public roads. You have asked whether the vehicle would qualify, under these facts, as one imported "solely for the purpose of show...." within the meaning of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii).

The agency considers several factors in determining whether to accept a declaration that a vehicle is imported solely for "show". One of these is the nature of the vehicle itself. If it is a unique machine generally considered to be of technological or historical significance, it is more likely to be admitted under the exception than if it were a mass-produced vehicle similar to many that were manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The smaller the production run, the greater the likelihood that it will be considered to be unique. Mechanical components that differ substantially from those commonly in use at the time of manufacture are evidence of its technological significance. Association with historical personages that would create a desire in the public to see the car is also considered relevant in the agency's interpretation of the word "show".

Another factor is the nature of "show". If the vehicle is intended for display as part of a collection of vehicles open to the public on a continuing basis, it is more likely to be admitted than if it were the importer's sole vehicle and garaged. The fact that an importer intends to transport a vehicle by trailer to display sites is consistent with the general declaration that the car is imported for purposes of show and will not be operated on the public roads.

In interpreting the word "show" and thereby exercising its discretion whether to allow importation of nonconforming motor vehicles for this purpose, the agency must balance the harm to the public likely to occur through use of the vehicle on the public roads, with the benefit to the public of importation of a nonconforming vehicle for show purposes. The agency has no control over disposition or use of a nonconforming vehicle once it has been imported for "show", and NHTSA's intent is to assure itself that a "show" vehicle is unlikely to be sold at some time in the future for use on the public roads. Therefore, the statement by the importer that he does not intend to use it on the roads is not necessarily dispositive of the matter because there is no assurance that a subsequent owner would have the same intent. Thus, the agency believes it is less likely that a rare or unique vehicle, part of a collection available to the public will be sold for use on the public roads than a vehicle such as the 1968-72 Mercedes 280SL that has been imported in numerous quantities as a conforming motor vehicle. Of course, any vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1968, such as the Mercedes 230 SL or 250 SL need not meet any Federal safety or emission requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

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: 1983-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Leo J. Landry; Esq.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Leo J. Landry, Esq. 5959 West Loop South Suite 464 Bellaire, Texas 77401

Dear Mr. Landry:

This is in reply to your letter of June 2, 1983, asking "whether the importation of automobiles directly into a foreign trade zone would eliminate the requirement for a bond imposed by the Department of Transportation." You have informed us that "Customs requirements for a foreign trade zone would insure that no automobile would leave the zone until conformity with Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation requirements are met."

The bond you reference is not imposed by the Department of Transportation, but is a bond required by Customs, one purpose of which is to insure that the importer produce a statement that a nonconforming vehicle has been brought into compliance with Department of Transportation safety standards. Under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) the bond is required whenever a vehicle enters the United States which was not originally manufactured to meet the safety standards and which is conformed before importation. The compliance documentation submitted at the time of importation, when the vehicle enters under bond, is forwarded to the Department of Transportation for its review. If the documentation is inadequate, the importer is notified and afforded an opportunity to complete the compliance work. Upon completion of the work and the submission of adequate documentation, the vehicle is released from bond.

Therefore, in answer to your question, the bond would still be required but would be deferred until the time the vehicle left the foreign trade zone and entered the United States.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel June 2, 1983

Administrator Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

I represent Jack's Conversion, a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. The corporation is in the business of modifying imported automobile to conform to EPA emission control standards and DOT safety standards.

My client is contemplating participating in a foreign trade zone to be established in Houston in the near future. My purpose in writing this letter is to obtain a determination from your agency as to whether the importation of automobiles directly into a foreign trade zone would eliminate the requirement for a bond imposed by DOT. Customs requirements for a foreign trade zone would insure that no automobile would leave the zone until conformity with EPA and DOT standards is met.

After you have reviewed this letter, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter with appropriate agency personnel in greater. I would appreciate a response from your agency at the earliest possible convenience.

Very truly yours,

Leo J. Landry

LL/jd

ID: 1983-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J-B Purchasing Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 25 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Charles Jayne Tire Manager J-B Purchasing Corporation P.O. Box 692 Auburn, New York 13021

Dear Mr. Jayne:

This responds to your recent letter asking about the require-ments of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. You noted that your company currently retreads tires for its own use, and that you soon plan to retread tires for sale to others. You asked if the tires you retread for your own use need to be identified with a tire identification number. The answer is no.

Section 574.5 of the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulation provides, in part, that, "Each tire retreader, except tire retreaders who retread tires for their own use, shall conspicuously label one sidewall of each tire he retreads by permanently molding or branding into or onto the sidewall, ...a tire identification number...." Your question concerns a situation in which a tire retreader retreads some tires for his own use and some tires for sale or lease to others. To answer your question, it is helpful to examine the purpose of the identification requirement.

The purpose of having the tire identification number labeled on the sidewall of retreaded tires is twofold. First, it enables this agency and the user of the retreaded tire to identify the retreader of the tire in the event of some safety problem with the tire. Second, it enables the tire retreader to accurately identify the retreaded tires it may have to recall. In the case of tires offered for sale or use outside your company, it is plain that both these purposes would be served by haviny the tire identification number on the sidewall. Therefore, part 574 requires that each such tire have a tire identification number on one sidewall.

However, with respect to tires retreaded for the retreaders own use, it is obvious who retreaded the tire, whether or not a tire identification number appears on the sidewall. Hence, the first purpose listed above would not be served by having the tire identification number on the sidewall of these tires. Further, the retreader can inspect all of the retreaded tires it uses to determine if any are subject to its recall, and assure adequate remedy for those which are within the recall, and without publicizing the identification numbers of those tires. Thus, the second purpose set forth above also would not be furthered by having the tire identification number on the sidewall of these tires. Please note, however, that any tire not marked with a tire identification number can never legally be sold or otherwise offered for use outside of your company.

Should you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 6, 1983

Office of Chief Council Mr. Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

J-B Purchasing Corporation is a corporation owned by the sole owner of Red Star Express of Auburn, New York.

J-B Purchasing was formed about 15 years ago for purchasing of parts and tires for the Red Star System. Because in many cases a supplier cannot sell direct to a user, internally J-B Purchasing sells the tires and parts back to Red Star.

Currently everything we are recapping is for our own use. However, in the very near future, we plan to sell on the outside.

My question is this, do the tires recapped by J-B Purchasing and used within our own system need to be identified with the DOT identification?

Very truly yours,

J-B PURCHASING CORPORATION Charles Jayne Tire Manager CJ/rb

cc: Mr. Frank Armstrong Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

ID: 1983-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: David I. Fallk; Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

David I. Fallk, Esq. Robert W. Munley, P.C. Floor Eight, Penn Security Bank Building P.O. Box 1066 Scranton, PA 18503

Dear Mr. Fallk:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1983, concerning Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and the PACCAR case. The answers to your questions are as follows.

Your first question was whether, following PACCAR, a manufacturer was required to comply with the applicable 121 standard for trucks which had been assembled but not delivered. The answer to that question is no, for the portions of the standard that were invalidated by the court. As noted in an enclosed letter (dated March 4, 1980), NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances had been invalidated from the effective date of the standard. Therefore, after PACCAR, no manufacturer was required to comply with those invalidated portions of the standard, whether or not a vehicle had already been assembled.

Your second question concerned whether a manufacturer or anyone else if properly informed was prevented from disabling the anti-lock system, before it was put into service. The answer to that question is no. That issue is fully explained in two enclosed letters (dated September 11, 1979, and March 4, 1980). These letters explain the relationship of what your letter refers to as the section of the vehicle safety act to prevent disabling and Standard No. 121, in light of the PACCAR case.

I have also enclosed a letter (dated November 29, 1979), which discusses the nature of Standard No. 121 as a performance standard. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

July 11, 1983

Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 ATTENTION: Ed Glancy

Dear Mr. Glancy:

I am in need of certain information that I am told your office can supply. I represent a party who was severely injured in accident involving 121 air brake anti-lock failure. We have initiated a suit against the manufacturer and the Chief Judge of the District Court has continued the case, pending certain information being gathered.

The accident involves a truck which was ordered and assembled prior to the Paccar decision, but not delivered until six months after Paccar. At the time of delivery, the anti-lock system was intact and no warnings or information concerning Paccar was made available to the purchaser. It has been asserted that the manufacturer was compelled by government regulation to install the system and could do nothing, even after Paccar about it. My questions are therefore as follows:

1. Following Paccar was a manufacturer required to comply with the applicable 121 standard for trucks which had been assembled but not delivered?

2. Was the manufacturer or anyone else if properly informed prevented from disabling the anti-lock system, before it was put into service?

It is my understanding that there was a memorandum or Opinion offered to the effect that the applicable section of the vehicle safety act to prevent disabling did not apply to the air brake standards. I would like to have a copy of that document and any other opinion or document which would relate to my above questions.

As indicated above, I am under direction of the District Court and a constraint of time is upon me. Therefore, prompt attention to my request would be greatly appreciated.

If there are any questions, please do not hesistate to telephone me.

Very truly yours,

DAVID I. FALLK

DIF/rpc

ID: 1983-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Stephen D. Aarons Captain, JAGC Legal Assistance Officer Department of the Army United States Field Station Augsburg APO New York 09458

Dear Captain Aarons:

This responds to your recent letter concerning an Army jeep which was not equipped with safety belts. You ask whether Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, applies to U.S. government vehicles.

Safety Standard No. 208, effective January 1, 1968, requires all passenger vehicles to be equipped with safety belts. This standard applies to government motor vehicles, generally. However, 49 CFR 571.7(c) specifically provides the following exception:

"(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications."

This means that Safety Standard No. 208 would not be applicable to an Army jeep if the Army contract with the vehicle manufacturer did not specify that the vehicle was to be equipped with safety belts.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

LAEJA 6 June 1983

SUBJECT: Government Vehicles without Seatbelts

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Dear NHTSA

This inquiry has been written on behalf of an emergency ward nurse stationed at Fort Gordon Georgia, not to represent US government interests.

When examining a patient involved in an accident while inside a government jeep, she discovered that no seat belts had ever been installed in the vehicle. The victim's commander further alleged that his situation is not at all uncommon in the Army, Standard 208 (effective 1 July 1971), as you know, requires restraint belts for passenger vehicles. How does current guidelines effect previously manufactured vehicles, and what regulations if any, apply to US government motor vehicles?

We appreciate your guidance on the rules which apply to this dangerous condition.

STEPHEN D. AARONS Captain, JAGC Legal Assistance Officer

CF:

Director, Automotive Consumer Action Program 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, Virginia 22102

Center for Auto Safety 1233 Dupont Circle Bldg Washington, DC 20036

ID: 1983-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/27/83

FROM: PEKKA SUURONEN -- RACEMARK INTERNATIONAL INC

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/17/83 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO PEKKA SUURONEN, REDBOOK A25, STANDARD 108, NOA 30

TEXT: Gentlemen:

On behalf of our principal "Hella" (Germany), I am writing to you to find out about headlamp legality.

(1) Is a sealed headlamp with replaceable European H4 bulb considered legal (like Cibie BOBI), provided it meets with all the applicable SAE standards?

(2) As above, but with the new "Ford" bulb (6 standard sizes)?

I am looking forward to your reply.

Yours truly,

ID: 1983-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/27/83

FROM: SENATE

TITLE: SENATE BILL NO. 684; CHAPTER 410

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/28/89 FROM STEPHEN P WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM E. ALKIRE -- BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 08/24/89 FROM WILLIAM E. ALKIRE TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA, OCC 3876; SENATE BILL NO 1317, AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 8, 1982; INTRODUCED BY SENATOR JOHNSON ON 01/07/1982

TEXT: An act to amend Sections 25251, 25251.3, and 25251.5 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.

[Approved by Governor July 26, 1983. Filed with Secretary of State July 27, 1983.]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 684, Seymour. Vehicle: lighting.

(1) Existing law regulates the use of flashing lights for vehicles, but does not contain a special authorization for funeral processions.

This bill would authorize vehicles in a funeral procession to simultaneously flash turn signal lamps on both sides of the vehicle to warn other motorists of the procession. No civil liability would attach for the use or nonuse of that warning method.

(2) Under existing law, it is unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or use any device which is intended to modify the original performance of vehicle lighting equipment, unless the device has been tested and complies with requirements of the California Highway Patrol.

This bill would expressly authorize the use of stoplamps and supplemental stoplamps equipped to flash not more than 4 times within the first 4 seconds after actuation by application of the brakes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 25251 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

25251. (a) Flashing lights are permitted on vehicles as follows:

(1) To indicate an intention to turn or move to the right or left upon a roadway, turn signal lamps and turn signal exterior pilot indicator lamps and side lamps permitted under Section 25106 may be flashed on the side of a vehicle toward which the turn or movement is to be made.

(2) When disabled upon the roadway or when disabled or parked off the roadway but within 10 feet thereof, turn signal lamps may be flashed as warning lights if the front turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously and the rear turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously.

(3) To warn other motorists of accidents or hazards on a roadway, turn signal lamps may be flashed as warning lights while the vehicle is approaching, overtaking, or passing the accident or hazard on the roadway if the front turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously and the rear turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously.

(4) For use on authorized emergency vehicles.

2

(5) To warn other motorists of a funeral procession, turn signal lamps may be flashed as warning lights on all vehicles actually engaged in a funeral procession, if the front turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously and the rear turn signal lamps at each side are being flashed simultaneously.

(b) Side lamps permitted under Section 25106 and used in conjunction with turn signal lamps may be flashed with the turn signal lamps as part of the warning light system, as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a).

(c) Required or permitted lamps on a trailer or semitrailer may flash when the trailer or semitrailer has broken away from the towing vehicle and the connection between the vehicles is broken.

SEC. 2. Section 25251.3 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

25251.3. No civil liability shall attach to any person for the use or nonuse of turn signal lamps in the manner permitted by paragraph (3) or (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 25251, except for such civil liability as would attach for the use or nonuse of any other device required by this article or Article 8 (commencing with Section 25300).

SEC. 3. Section 25251.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

25251.5. (a) Any motor vehicle may also be equipped with a system in which an amber light is center mounted on the rear of a vehicle to communicate a component of deceleration of the vehicle, and which light pulses in a controlled fashion at a rate which varies exponentially with a component of deceleration.

(b) Any motor vehicle may be equipped with two amber lamps on the rear of the vehicle which operate simultaneously with not more than four flashes within four seconds after the accelerator pedal is in the deceleration position and which are not lighted at any other time. The lamps shall be mounted at the same height, with one lamp located on each side of the vertical centerline of the vehicle, not higher than the bottom of the rear window, or if the vehicle has no rear window, not higher than 60 inches. The light output from each of the lamps shall not exceed 200 candlepower at any angle horizontal or above. The amber lamps may be used either separately or in combination with another lamp.

(c) Any stoplamp or supplemental stoplamp required or permitted by Section 24603 may be equipped so as to flash not more than four times within the first four seconds after actuation by application of the brakes.