ID: 007901.jeg

Chris Tinto, Director
Toyota North America, Inc.
1850 M Street
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036




Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, with regards to adjusting the seat back angle for the low risk deployment tests for the driver. You asked about the order of the seat adjustments for the chin on module test (S26.2) and the chin on rim test (S26.3).

As you noted in your letter, the same seat adjustment procedure is specified for both tests. S26.2.3 and S26.3.1 read as follows:

Place the seat and seat cushion in the position achieved in S16.2.10.3.1. If the seat or seat cushion is adjustable in the vertical direction by adjustments other than that which primarily moves the seat or seat cushion fore-aft, determine the maximum and minimum heights of the SCRP at this position, while maintaining the seat cushion reference line angle as closely as possible.Place the SCRP in the mid-height position. If the seat back is adjustable independent of the seat, place the seat back at the manufacturer's nominal design seat back angle for a 50th percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.Position any adjustable parts of the seat that provide additional support so that they are in the lowest or most open adjustment position.Position an adjustable head restraint in the lowest and most forward position. (Emphasis added.)

In your letter, you indicated that the seat back angle may vary depending on when it is adjusted during this procedure.You stated your belief that the adjustment of the seat back angle specified in the fourth (underlined) sentence of this paragraph is conducted after the adjustments specified in the previous sentences, and asked us to confirm that view.

It is our opinion that the various seat adjustments specified in S26.2.3 and S26.3.1 are to be made in the order specified in those paragraphs.Accordingly, we agree that the adjustment of the seat back angle specified in the fourth (underlined) sentence of this paragraph is conducted after the adjustments specified in the previous sentences.

I hope this information is helpful.If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.1/1/05

ID: 008052_Kiser_flammability_preemption

Mr. Randy Kiser
Evenflo Company, Inc.
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, OH 45377

Dear Mr. Kiser:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, "preempts Californias ability to require an additional specification for manufacturers."You ask about both a flammability requirement for filling materials and a requirement that a tag must be attached to the product indicating its compliance with the State standard.

We are authorized by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 ("the Safety Act") to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213). Chapter 301 contains the following preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 30103(b)):

When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter....

Flammability Resistance Standard

FMVSS No. 213 sets forth flammability resistance requirements for child restraints. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), California could not establish a standard that applied to the manufacture or sale of new child restraints in California on the flammability resistance of the restraints unless the State standard is identical to the requirements of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213.

Additional Tag

You also ask whether California may require child restraints to have a tag indicating compliance with the States flammability resistance requirement (assuming that the States flammability resistance standard is not preempted). We assume that since the State flammability requirement itself is preempted, the tag would not be required. Further, because the State flammability resistance requirement is preempted, a State could not indirectly require child restraints to meet the States flammability resistance requirement by way of requiring the tag.

If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.3/18/04

ID: 008062.rbm

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Volkswagen
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Mail Code 3C02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter requesting clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. Specifically, you have asked whether the back door requirements apply to latch systems on a hinged window that is integrated into the back door. For the system described in your letter, the answer is no. This system is not subject to FMVSS No. 206s back door requirements because the standard is designed to address latch systems on doors rather than windows.

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

FMVSS No. 206 specifies certain performance requirements for door retention components, including those on back doors. The definition of a back door, contained in S3 of the standard, states:

Back door means a door or door system on the back end of a motor vehicle through which passengers can enter or depart the vehicle, or cargo can be loaded or unloaded; but does not include:


(a) a trunk lid; or
(b) a door or window that is composed entirely of glazing material and whose latches and/or hinges are attached directly to the glazing material.

Your question relates specifically to a system consisting of a back door that would fully comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 206, but which has a window integrated into the door that rotates away from the vehicle when opened. The window would be supported by a thin metal or plastic frame and have hinges or latches that are attached to either the thin frame or directly to the piece of glazing.

You are concerned that because the window would incorporate a latch/hinge design, it would be considered a back door under the standard, and the latch would be regulated by FMVSS No. 206 unless exempt under subpart (b) of the back door definition. As explained more fully below, based on the information you have provided, it appears that the window would not be considered a back door.

In excluding doors and windows "composed entirely of glazing material" NHTSA was referring to large pieces of glazing that act as a back door, not window glazing that is mounted in and framed by a metal door (see letter of interpretation to General Motors Corporation, dated May 6, 1996). NHTSA decided to exempt windows composed entirely of glazing because many back doors incorporate a design whereby the back door system consists of a lower, metal tailgate and an upper piece of glazing that is not surrounded by a metal frame sufficiently strong to retain a door latch or hinge component in a crash. The piece of glazing is joined directly to the vehicle structure via a set of hinges and the latch is married to a striker positioned in the tailgate or the frame of the vehicle. As originally proposed, such a design would have required each piece of attachment hardware to meet the newly proposed back door requirements (59 FR 44691, August 30, 1994). In response to industry comments, NHTSA acknowledged that it was unreasonable to expect retention hardware to meet the requirements of the standard when the glazing surrounding such hardware could not reasonably be expected to restrain an occupant in a crash. Thus, the exemption for doors or windows consisting entirely of glazing was crafted.

As discussed in the May 1996 letter of interpretation to General Motors referenced above, the relevant criterion in determining whether the latches or hinges are directly attached to glazing is if the glazing constitutes the principal structural component of the door or window. Based on the information provided in your letter, we believe the design you have presented is entirely glazing material with a small frame added solely for structural support fro the glazing. Because the thin metal or plastic frame described in your letter would not be the principal structural component of the door or window, the latches and/or hinges would be considered directly attached to the glazing structure. Thus, the latch of this design is not subject to the standard.

Because the window system discussed in your letter would not qualify as a type of glazing considered by NHTSA to constitute a door, there is no need to further evaluate whether the window could be used to load or unload cargo, or whether the attachment hardware is attached directly to the piece of glazing. However, I caution you that the standard does not speak to doors that are typically used to load cargo, as indicated in your letter, but rather to doors through which cargo "can be loaded or unloaded".

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.2/12/04

ID: 008315drn

Mr. Thomas V. Kazyaka
Chief Executive Officer
T.V.K. Industries, Inc.
P. O. Box 1161
Gualala, CA 95445

Dear Mr. Kazyaka:

This responds to your letter asking for reconsideration of our October 15, 2003, interpretation letter to you. In that letter, we concluded that manual transmission shift levers need not be backlit or display the gear engaged in order to comply with S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.

In your new letter, you stated again that manual transmission shift levers may not be visible in a low light environment. After reviewing your letter, we have concluded it does not provide a basis for us to change our opinion.

As we stated earlier, S3.2 of FMVSS No. 102 specifies the following requirements for vehicles with manual transmissions:

Manual transmissions. Identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, except three forward speed manual transmissions having the standard "H" pattern, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the drivers seating position.

While this paragraph requires identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, we affirm that it neither requires identification of the gear engaged nor backlighting. We also note that no other FMVSS requires vehicles with only manual transmission shift levers to identify the gear engaged or to have backlighting.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:102
d.12/9/03

ID: 008437

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM87502-3078




Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your October 21, 2005, letter in which you request an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you asked whether a manufacturer of a vehicle without a back seat may modify the pictogram depicted in Figure 11 of FMVSS No. 208 to show only one row of seats. As explained below, modification of the pictogram is not permitted.

S4.5.1(b)(3) of FMVSS No. 208 requires vehicle manufacturers to permanently affix an air bag warning label to the sun visor at each front outboard seating position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint. The air bag warning label is intended to provide information on the potential hazards of air bags. In order to ensure uniformity of design, S4.5.1(b) specifies that the warning label must "conform in content to the label shown in Figure 11".

As you have correctly noted, S4.5.1(b)(3)(iv) and (v) permit manufacturers to omit the text relating to back seats for vehicles that have no back seat. These provisions were adopted in response to comments from vehicle manufacturers questioning the appropriateness of the "back seat" text for vehicles that do not have a back seat. While the text of the label may be modified, there is no similar provision that permits manufacturers to modify the pictogram. Thus, a vehicle manufacturer may not modify the pictogram.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Larry Prange of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.12/21/05

ID: 008938drn

Randy Dukek, Coordinator of Transportation
Department of Transportation
Independent School District 196
15180 Canada Avenue
Rosemount, MN 55068-1758

Dear Mr. Dukek:

This responds to your November 20, 2003, letter and subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask whether a school bus that provides more emergency exits than those required by FMVSS No. 217 can be modified to provide just the exits required by the Federal standard. Our answer is such modification is not prohibited by our requirements.

You state a concern about buses that have removable seating to accommodate wheel chairs. When placed in certain positions, a wheelchair may block a window exit. To avoid blocking a window exit in school buses that have more window emergency exits than are required by FMVSS No. 217, you wish to know whether your school district can replace the optional extra emergency exit windows with non-emergency exit windows and remove all "exit" markings. [1]

The relevant National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) statutory provision is 49 U.S.C. Section 30122, "Making safety devices and elements inoperative," which states in part:

(b) Prohibition. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business [2] may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard .

Section 30122 prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing or making inoperative a window emergency exit that was installed to assure compliance with FMVSS No. 217. Because the emergency exits you want to remove were not installed to enable the vehicles to meet FMVSS No. 217, an entity listed in Section 30122 is not prohibited from removing them, provided that the school buses continue to meet FMVSS No. 217 after the modification.

You informed Ms. Nakama that the school district itself might be modifying its own vehicles. The make inoperative provision does not apply to vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. However, we encourage your school district to ensure that after any changes, the school buses continue to meet all school bus FMVSSs.

We recommend that you check with State officials as to whether there are any Minnesota state requirements applying to the modification of the school buses. For further information, we suggest you contact Minnesotas State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Captain Ken Urquhart
Minnesota State Director of Pupil Transportation
Department of Public Safety
1110 Centere Pointe Curve, Suite 410
Mondota Heights, MN 55120
Telephone: (651) 405-6180.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:217
d.1/22/04





---

[1] On April 19, 2002 (67 FR 19343, DOT Docket No. NHTSA-99-5157), NHTSA published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 217 that, among other matters, specifies a "DO NOT BLOCK" label to be placed directly above or beneath each emergency door or emergency exit (including windows). The final rule is slated to take effect on April 21, 2004. The agency is considering three petitions for reconsideration of this final rule.

[2] Defined at 49 U.S.C. Section 30122(a) as "a person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment."

ID: 009070rbm

Mr. Michael J. Martin
School Bus Information Council
1840 Western Avenue
Albany, NY 12203

Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to your correspondence seeking clarification of whether school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds will be included in any final rule resulting from an August 6, 2003, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (68 Federal Register 46546) issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In that NPRM, NHTSA proposed requiring lap/shoulder belts for all forward-facing designated seating positions other than the front center seat for most vehicles with a GVWR below 10,000 pounds. School buses are not among the vehicles contemplated in the NPRM and will not be included in any final rule issued as a result of that notice.

Footnote 5 of the NPRM stated the following: "The rule, if adopted, would include school buses under 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.). However, the agency is currently working on a separate rulemaking regarding seat belts in school buses. Accordingly, this document will not further discuss potential requirements for lap/shoulder belts on school buses with a GVWR under 10,000 lb."68 FR at 46549. The footnote indicated that, while not discussed in the preamble, these buses would be addressed by a final rule based on the NPRM. This is not the case.

Unfortunately, the footnote contains a typographical error. The word "not" was mistakenly left out of the first sentence of the footnote. The sentence should have read, "The rule, if adopted, would not include school buses under 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)."Should NHTSA decide it may be appropriate to require safety belts in school buses, it will publish a separate NPRM discussing the benefits and disbenefits associated with such a requirement.

I hope this addresses your concerns. Should you have any additional questions, feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992 or the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc: Charles L. Gauthier


School Bus Information Council
1840 Western Avenue
Albany, NY 12203

ref:208
d.2/9/04

ID: 00946.ztv

James T. Pitts, Esq.
Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP
1201 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20005-3917

Dear Mr. Pitts:




This is in reply to your letter of October 1, 2002, to Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.You wrote on behalf of your client, TBC Corporation ("TBC"), whose Director of Engineering and Quality Assurance, L. M. Hardy, was notified by Claude Harris, Director of Crash Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, on September 4, 2002, that its petition for an inconsequentiality determination was moot.The basis for this conclusion was that all the noncomplying tires covered by the petition remained in the possession of the company, and had not been distributed or sold.You have asked us to reconsider our position on the basis of alternative arguments that you presented.

By way of background, paragraph S6.4 Treadwear indicators of 49 CFR 571.119, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, "New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars," specifies that each tire to which the standard applies "shall have at least six treadwear indicators . . . ." TBC determined that certain of its tires had only five treadwear indicators.It then properly determined that this was a failure to comply with Standard No. 119, notified NHTSA as required by 49 CFR Part 573, and petitioned for a determination that the noncompliance was inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.As noted in the first paragraph, we considered the petition to be moot and further informed TBC that its noncompliant tires could not be legally sold (letter of Claude Harris, attached).

In your first argument, you analogized to a 1979 case involving Vespa of America Corporation which had failed to provide a turn signal indicator on its motorcycles.We concurred with the company's argument that the rapid flashing of the front turn signal lamps to indicate a failure of the rear turn signal lamps was a functional equivalent of a turn signal indicator which would indicate a failure in the turn signal system (letter of Chief Counsel Frank Berndt, March 16, 1979).You have asked us to make a similar decision with respect to TBC's noncompliance.

We have reviewed Mr. Berndt's letter.Significantly, Mr. Berndt stated that "we have determined that there is no failure to comply with the standard and your petition is moot." NHTSA's determination that there was no failure to comply with Standard No. 108 permitted Vespa to sell its complying motorcycles.With respect to TBC, we cannot make a determination that there was no failure to comply with Standard No. 119 on the basis of functional equivalence.The standard requires a minimum of six treadwear indicators.We cannot interpret this as meaning five treadwear indicators are the functional equivalent of "at least six treadwear indicators."

In the alternative, you have presented your interpretations of 49 U.S.C. Sections 30112, 30118, and 30120.You asserted that "there is nothing in Section 30118(d)" or Section 30120. . . that requires that there be 'owners, purchasers, and dealers' as a prerequisite to an inconsequentiality determination." You concluded that "it is clear that NHTSA can make an 'inconsequential to safety determination' at a time when the noncomplying equipment is still in the hands of the manufacturer."You next argued that "The ability of the manufacturers to then sell that equipment turns on the language in section 30112(b)(2)(A), which excludes certain persons and equipment from the prohibitions in section 30112(a) relating to the sale of non-complying equipment." Specifically, you asserted that subsection (b)(2)(A) excludes persons exercising reasonable care who had no reason to know that the equipment "does not comply." You argued that "The exclusion, written in the present tense, does not assume that any of the actions prohibited in subsection (a) have already taken place. Otherwise, the exclusion would reference the lack of knowledge regarding the noncompliance of the equipment at the time the equipment was imported or sold, i.e., a past action, and not a present condition."You concluded that "TBC imported the tires in questions (sic) and had no reason to know then of their noncompliance.The equipment does not comply with an applicable standard.The exclusion from the flat prohibition of sale is thus satisfied and the tires can be sold without penalty if, and only if, NHTSA determines that the noncompliance is inconsequential to safety."

The Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to add Section 157, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Failure to Comply (the Safety Act was recodified in 1994 and the provisions of Section 157 were divided between Section 30118(d), regarding notice, and Section 30120(h), regarding remedy.The 1974 Amendments required manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to remedy noncompliances and safety-related defects without charge.The obligation was absolute and Section 157 was added as a means of relieving manufacturers of the need to notify and remedy where noncompliances, such as those involving labels, and defects were inconsequential as they related to motor vehicle safety.The legislative history clearly indicates that this was the purpose of the inconsequentiality provisions:

This section [157] enables a manufacturer to apply to the Secretary for an exemption from the obligation to give notice with respect to, or to remedy, a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, which contains a defect relating to motor vehicle safety or which fails to comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. * * * Your Committee believes that this provision is a reasonable corollary to the new statutory obligation for manufacturer to remedy without charge. [H. Rep. 93-1191. 93d Cong. 2d Sess. 31 (1974)]

We disagree with your analysis of Section 30112.Significantly, Section 157 referred only to relief from the notice and remedy provisions.It did not alter what is now Section 30112(a).Under Section 30112(a), sale of the noncomplying tires remains unlawful. We further read Section 30112 in context with Section 30165(a)(1).That section authorizes civil penalties for a person that violates Section 30112 (and other statutory provisions).TBC's importation of non-complying tires into the United States is a prima facie violation of Section 30112(a).However, if TBC can establish that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it did not know of the noncompliance at the time of importation, it will not be held to have violated Section 30112(a) for purposes of civil penalties.The existence of a reasonable care defense does not alter the fact that non-complying tires have been imported. If TBC then proceeds to engage in further violations of Section 30112(a), i.e., to "sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce" the defense of Section 30112(b)(2)(A) will no longer be available to it, and it will be liable for civil penalties under Section 30165.A determination that a noncompliance is inconsequential does not bring a noncompliant product into compliance, and such a determination is immaterial for purposes of knowing violations of Section 30112(a) (but an inconsequentiality determination would be relevant for the agency to weigh in determining the amount of a civil penalty for a violation of Section 30112(a), because the agency is required to consider the gravity of the violation that has occurred.See Section 30165(c)).

For NHTSA to relieve a manufacturer of the obligation to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers when none of the noncomplying products have been delivered to them would be a meaningless exercise; under these circumstances the obligation does not arise in the first instance and the petition is moot. Similarly, the obligation to remedy under Section 30120 arises only when notification of a defect is required under Section 30118(c), and if this obligation is moot, so is the obligation to remedy.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:591
d.11/1/02

ID: 0133

Mr. Rick Rogers
9624 Davis Road
Tampa, FL 33637-5004

Dear Mr. Davis:

Robert Hellmuth of this agency has sent us for reply your letter of June 8, 1994, commenting that "a car's brake lights should go on not only when the brake pedal is pressed, but should also go on when the gas pedal is released."

The enclosed copy of a letter dated January 25, 1990, to Larry Snowhite, Esq., represents the agency's views on this matter, now as then.

We appreciate the concern for safety that prompted you to get in touch with us.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108 d:7/21/94

ID: 0160

Samson Helfgott, Esq.
Helfgott & Karas, P.C.
60th Floor
Empire State Building
New York, NY 10118-6098

Re: Your Ref. No.: 12.065

Dear Mr. Helfgott:

We have received your letter of July 1, 1994, to Paul Jackson Rice, former chief counsel of this agency, on behalf of your client Harold Caine, with respect to whether a certain supplementary lighting system would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed copies of two previous letters that this Office has sent you on other supplementary lighting systems developed by Mr. Caine.

You state that "Mr. Caine is considering the possibility of utilizing [a] combination of red and amber lighting arrangement to be placed along the side of trucks and other vehicles." Since you later ask "whether the presence of the red and amber lights on the sides of the vehicle would be permissible under Standard No. 108", we interpret this as meaning that the red and amber lamps would be in addition to those red and amber lamps that are presently required on the sides of vehicles (the side marker lamps) by Standard No. 108. However, your letter fails to state the number and candela of the lamps, and how they would be arrayed along the side of the vehicle.

As we understand it, during normal vehicle operation, the amber side lamps of the system would be activated. When the brake pedal is applied, the amber lamps are extinguished and the required stop lamps and red side lamps of the system would be activated. As you know from previous correspondence, supplementary lighting equipment is prohibited only if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 specifies that front and intermediate side marker lamps (those at or near the midpoint of the length) shall be amber, and that rear ones shall be red. If, in the Caine system, the amber supplementary lamps are mounted to the front of the vehicle side and the red supplementary lamps to the rear of the

vehicle side (i.e., amber from front to and including the midpoint; red, after the midpoint to the rear), we do not see that the supplementary system would have an impairing effect upon the stop lamps or rear side marker lamps and reflectors. If, however, the system consists of alternating red and amber lamps displayed along the side of the vehicle, then the potential for confusion as to orientation of the trailer could result, impairing the effectiveness of the color code of the required side marker lamps. We assume that the candela of the lamps in the Caine system is no greater than that permitted for the side marker lamps that are required by Standard No 108, but if the candela is greater, that would also create the potential for impairment if the array alternates red and amber lamps.

You have also asked "whether there are any prohibitions that might prevent utilization of this structure on the sides of the vehicles." We know of none, however, it is possible that some States might have laws that would affect this. As we are unable to advise you on State law, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:7/20/94