Interpretation ID: 19886.ztv

David H. Coburn, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-1795

Re: Request for Clarification

Dear Mr. Coburn:

This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1999, seeking a confirmation that a previous interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 remains valid.

The interpretation is one that we sent your client, Baran Advanced Technologies, Ltd., on September 7, 1993. In that letter, we informed Baran that we did not believe that a device which activates a vehicle's hazard warning system upon sensing a sudden release of the accelerator pedal would impair the effectiveness of the stop, tail, and turn signal lamps required by Standard No. 108, assuming that the device is not activated under normal stopping conditions, that it is automatically deactivated when the brake pedal is applied, that manual deactivation is not required, and that the device would be overriden by manual activation of the turn signal lamps.

Regrettably, I cannot confirm that this interpretation remains valid. Our earlier interpretation did not consider the effect of the device upon the hazard warning signal itself. Since 1993, we have come to the conclusion that use of required lighting equipment for other than its original purpose may compromise and reduce its safety effectiveness. As we said in 1996,

It is important that the integrity of the required signal lamps be maintained, and that auxiliary signal lamps not detract attention from the messages that the required signal lamps are sending. A vehicle signaling system must be as simple and as unambiguous as possible to others who share the roadway if traffic is to proceed in a safe and orderly fashion. (61 FR 65516)

See also our Statement of Policy published in the Federal Register on November 4, 1998 (63 FR 59482, copy enclosed).

We believe that a hazard warning system should not be used for the auxiliary purpose of indicating sudden accelerator release, a signal that bears no relationship to a hazard warning signal and one which could create confusion were the hazard warning signal used for an unrelated purpose. We believe that our 1993 interpretation was superseded by our subsequent policy statement, and therefore reverse it and conclude that S5.1.3 prohibits the system as described.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref.108
d.8/6/99