Interpretation ID: nht90-3.56

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1990

FROM: Paul G. Scully -- Vice President, Peterson Manufacturing Company

TO: Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-27-90 to Paul G. Scully from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

A few days ago, one of our fleet customers telephoned our Sales Department and advised that they were notified that the Peterson reflex reflectors used on their vehicles were not legal because they did not have the SAE-A marking one them. Sergeant Harti gan of the Traffic Enforcement Division was under the impression that SAE markings were required because they are still shown as a requirement in the regulations of the Office of Motor Carrier Safety. As you know, Federal Safety Standard 108 requirement s do not mandate the use of SAE markings on any regulated products. I believe this is the third instance in the past two years (the other two occurring in Texas) where police officials have mistakenly advised our customers that our products were illegal and should be removed. The reflex reflector products in questions do have the DOT markings on them and we certify that these products are in full compliance with Federal Safety Standards for reflex reflectors. These thin, flexible reflectors are diecu t which explains why it would be somewhat difficult and costly to put the SAE impressions on this thin film; therefore, we elected not to do it even though the SAE code markings are, in fact, used on all of our other products. It is somewhat ironic that Peterson Manufacturing Company led the industry effort to require SAE markings as part of the MVSS 108 requirements. Our company initiated the petition to require code markings, but after about one year of study, we were advised that this petition had been denied, even though the majority of the departments in both the NHTSA and the Office of Motor Carrier Safety agreed with our petition. I am sure that Messrs. Felrice and Helmuth remember our many discussions concerning these markings.

These reflex reflectors are sold in large volumes both to original equipment manufacturers and as replacement products throughout the nation and, I emphasize again that they fully comply with all requirements. It is quite unfortunate that another agency of the Department of Transportation, the OMCS, still retains these marking requirements in their publication. Again, we would be pleased to have all regulated items marked as per our petition because it would avoid situations like these, as well as impe de the importation of many illegal products from the Orient which are never identified as to the source.

We would like to request that you promptly notify the Tucson Police Department that these products are not required to have SAE markings in order to be perfectly legal reflectors. I would also like to once again appeal for a uniform set of regulations b etween the two government agencies involved. We can probably expect similar misunderstandings to occur by other municipal authorities unless some action is taken.