ID: nht94-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 16, 1994

FROM: Darlene E. Skelton, President, National Institute Of Emergency Vehicle Safety, Inc.

TO: Barry Felrice -- Asst. Administrator-NHTSA Office of Rulemaking

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO DARLENE SKELTON (A43; STD. 120; STD. 121; PART 567)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Felrice:

The National Institute of Emergency Vehicle Safety is a nonprofit organization committed to improving safety in the purchase, application, operation, and maintenance of emergency vehicles. Over the course of our work, several items have come to question .

1. We have examined vehicles that the GVW exceeds the tire rating capacity. In such cases the manufacturer places a limitation on the distance and speed the vehicle can travel.

For example, a fire truck with four rear mounted tires rated 7,000 lbs. each or a total of 28,000 lbs. are mounted on a 31,000 lb. axle. The final stage manufacturer actually acquired a letter from the tire manufacturer a. raising the air pressure from 100 to 110 or 115 psi b. placing a limit of driving no more than 55mph for a distance no greater than than seven (7) miles.

Our question is, do these practices constitute a violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)?

2. We have also examined vehicles where the axle has been re-rated.

For example, one manufacturer increased the axle rating because fire trucks do not cycle as much as tractor trailer trucks. Because there is less cycling over the highway, they decided that the same axle in a fire truck application could be increased fr om 22,000 lbs. to 24,000 lbs.

Does this re-cycling of axles constitute a violation of the FMVSS?

3. We have knowledge of some manufacturers taking air supply for horns off of the air supply for breaks.

Does this violate the FMVSS?

Any direction you can provide regarding these issues is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-3.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 20, 1994

FROM: Irene M. Thomas (Aurora, CO)

TO: Dee Fujita, NHTSA

TITLE: CarMobile

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/26/94 from John Womack to Irene M. Thomas (A42; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Thank you for your time and consideration during our phone call this morning about my "CarMobile". Enclosed please find a notarized sketch and description.

I would greatly appreciate an analysis in writing. Thank you!

The CarMobile is a device which is attached by velcro strips to the handrails located at the top of the interior rear car doors. It is made of grosgrain ribbon, with three round rings sewn on to it. Toys can be hung from the rings, so that babies and t oddlers can play with them as they dangle in front of their carseats. The children can reach the toys, but not the CarMobile itself.

The toys are not included with the CarMobile.

Inventor: Irene Thomas Dated: June 21, 1994Notarized

ID: nht94-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 21, 1994

FROM: Ralph Harpster -- Laguna Mfg, Inc., Turlock, CA

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-15-94 from John Womack to Ralph Harpster (A42; STD. 208)

TEXT: I have been referred to your office for clarification of a program that utilizes the retro-fitting of seat belts in the rear of police vehicles.

Our company manufacturers a replacement rear seat used for the transport of prisoners in police cars. Police vehicles face special needs in the equipment they use and the methods they use to transport arrestees.

As you can well imagine, a great number of persons placed in the rear of a police car, under arrest, are not co-operative, nor do they particularly wish to go to jail, therefore, it is of significant importance that they be solidly restrained and unable to get loose in the rear of the vehicle, for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately the seat belt system used by the car manufacturer, while adequate to the task in a collision, will not restrain the prisoner under transport conditions due to the inertia reel retractor system. This allows the person belted in to exercise great range of motion and thus they can extricate themselves from the belt system. They can not only cause a great deal of damage to the vehicle, themselves and the police officer in an attempt to kick out the windows and escape, but can expose themselv es to a significant risk of injury should a collision occur while they are out of the belt.

In an effort to simplify the transport process, we furnish a molded seat that accomplishes several tasks. First, the seat will hold a prisoner upright and in place due to its molded configuration. Secondly, the seat eliminates the ability of the prison er to hide contraband, i.e. drugs, weapons etc. Thirdly the molded seat can be washed or disinfected thus helping a police dept. in its policy to overcome the problems associated with blood borne pathogens. Our query lies in the first task enumerated a bove. We retrofit the car with a seat belt system that overcomes the problem associated with the inertia reel retractor system. In our system we utilize a belt that pulls snugly, in a positive restraint mode and does not use a retractor. When the offi cer places the prisoner in the seat, the belt system is latched in place just as any seat belt would be, then the belt is manually pulled tight and remains in that position until manually released. We use a shoulder lap combination belt for meeting the 3 point fastening criteria, and we use only belts certified to meet M.V.S.S. 209-302. Additionally we use factory seat belt mounting locations. We desire that you review our stated use and render an opinion regarding the use of this system and, if in y our opinion, it fits the criteria established for retrofitting.

I would also, separately, like an opinion if a single shoulder belt could possibly meet any of the requirements. I realize that, like many agencies today, you have to deal with an increasingly heavy workload, but I would be extremely grateful if your of fices could give this the earliest possible consideration as we are trying very hard to do things in the most straight forward and compliant manner that we can.

I will take the liberty of thanking you in advance for any courtesy and consideration you can tender us.

ID: nht94-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 23, 1994

FROM: John G. Klinge -- Executive Vice President, Lightman

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/12/94: Letter from John Womack to John Rlinge (Std. 125)

TEXT: After speaking with your associate Jim Gilkey, it was determined that I should contact you directly with my company's request. Visibility Systems Company has designed (patent pending), and now markets to consumers and law enforcement agencies across the USA, the LIGHTMAN product which is enclosed. Our intention is to also market this product as a warning light source for use by over the road truck fleets and commercial auto fleets. Lightman would augment or replace the need for flares and reflectiv e triangles.

Before attempting to market Lightman for truck and auto fleets, we need to know if we are in compliance with Federal standards (perhaps # 125). Would you please have your staff review Lightman's capabilities as a battery powered light source given ou r plans.

Lightman comes with domes in five colors (clear, red, amber, blue and green). It is powered by two AA batteries and will operate continuously for over three hours. Visibility Systems plans to market a 3-pack to fleets containing three light units, mu ltiple domes (do you have required colors?), attachment devices and 2 heavy duty lithium batteries.

Thanks in advance for your assistance. Should you need more samples or have any questions, please contact me directly. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

cc: James Gilkey

ID: nht94-3.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 25, 1994 Est

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John A. Boehner -- Member, United State House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/7/94 from John A. Boehner to Jackie Lowey, and letter dated 3/25/94 from James Ackley, Carol Baumhauer and Krista D. Subler to John A. Boehner

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 7, 1994, to the, Department of Transportation (DOT) on behalf of your constituents, John Cail Sr. and James Lipps of Eaton.

Messrs. Cail and Lipps have requested your assistance in obtaining DOT "approval and color code designation" for their "Life Lites" system. This is a stop lamp system consisting of two 18-inch long 1/2-inch wide devices intended to be mounted on the fron t of a vehicle alongside the windshield pillars, to emit a light of either purple or coral. The system is activated with the rear stop lamps when the brakes are applied, and it is intended to warn observers to the front of a vehicle that the vehicle is b raking. It "could be mounted to most existing vehicles and could be readily incorporated into new car designs."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that is responsible for motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act does not authorize NHTSA to "approve" or disapprove safety in ventions such as Life Lites. We do advise, however, whether such inventions are permitted under the Act and applicable regulations such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The fact that a device may be permitted under NHTSA laws must not be in terpreted as our approval or endorsement of it.

The standard that applies to motor vehicle lighting is Standard No. 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. Life Lites emitting either color may be installed as original equipment by the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the frontal lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 such as headlamps and turn signals. The materials you enclosed show a color closeup newspaper photo of a Life Lite in operation; its relatively low output does not appear sufficient to impair headlamp effectiveness. There would be concern, however, if it were to distract attention from an operating turn signal and, in this sense, impair its effe ctiveness. However, the responsibility for determining whether supplemental original lighting equipment impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment rests with the installer, and NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appear s clearly erroneous.

Life Lites that are sold in the aftermarket and intended for vehicles in use, are prohibited by the Act if their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business "knowingly renders

inoperative, in whole or part" the required motor vehicle lighting equipment. Though the words are different between the Act and Standard No. 108, in this instance we would equate partial inoperability with impairment of effectiveness and the same consid erations would apply.

However, the Act does not prohibit vehicle owners under any circumstances from installing Life Lites themselves if they are able to do so. But the legality of Life Lites of either color and under any scenario remains subject to the laws of any State in w hich the device is operated. We are unable to advise your constituents of the laws of the individual States, and suggest that they write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 2220 3.

ID: nht94-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Saburo Inui -- Vice President, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/12/93 from Saburo Inui to Robert Hellmuth (9205)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the test conditions for the dynamic side impact test of Standard No. 214, "Side Impact Protection." I apologize for the delay in responding.

The test conditions are set forth in S6 of the standard. S6.1 explains how to achieve "test weight:"

Test Weight. Each passenger car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity, secured in the luggage area, plus the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added test equipment is located away fr om the impact areas in secured places in the vehicle. * * *

You first ask whether the weight of the added test equipment inside the vehicle is added to the test weight, or whether parts of the vehicle (weighing the same as the "added test equipment") are removed to keep the vehicle weight at the "test weight." Th e answer is that parts of the vehicle may be removed, but only as a last resort. A brief explanation of how NHTSA calculates test weight follows.

Under S6.1, "test weight" is comprised of the combined weight of the vehicle with all fluids, the cargo and luggage weight, the test dummies, and nothing more. The cargo and luggage weight is derived by subtracting from the gross vehicle weight rating s pecified by the manufacturer the combined weight of the vehicle, fluids, and 150 pounds for each seating position.

There are subtractions and additions to the vehicle weight in preparation for the test. The fuel is replaced with Stoddard solvent, but only to approximately 93 percent of capacity, and all other fluids (oil, washer fluid, etc.) are drained. Thus, the vehicle is lightened by the weight of 7 percent of the

2

fuel and all of the other fluids. However, the added weight of cameras and any other necessary (non-dummy) test equipment usually more than compensates for the fluid weight loss, and the vehicle generally is slightly heavier than the test weight. There fore, other weight must be removed until the test weight is reestablished.

Please note that NHTSA will remove parts of the vehicle to compensate for the weight of the test equipment only as a last resort. The agency will first remove cargo or luggage ballast. If still more weight must be removed (i.e., in the unlikely event t hat the weight of the test equipment exceeds the weight of the removable cargo and luggage) the agency will remove parts of the vehicle. This is only likely to occur in vehicles with very small cargo capacities, such as sports cars. In this event, NHTSA would remove only parts of the car that play no part in the side impact test (e.g. bumpers).

You next ask about the "vehicle test attitude" specifications of S6.2. By way of background, NHTSA determines the attitude of the vehicle in its "as delivered" condition (i.e., the vehicle as received at the test site, filled to 100 percent of all fluid capacities and with all tires inflated to the manufacturer's specifications) and in its "fully loaded condition," under the vehicle test attitude specification of S6.2. Under S6.2, the vehicle's pretest attitude is equal to either the as delivered or t he "fully loaded attitude" or between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude.

You ask whether the term "fully loaded attitude" means the attitude of the vehicle in the "fully loaded condition." The answer is yes. Moreover, S6.2 specifies that "[t]he 'fully loaded condition' is the test vehicle loaded in accordance with S6.1." As mentioned in our response to your first question, S6.1 explains how to load the vehicle to achieve the test weight.

You also ask whether the "as delivered" left-to-right attitude must be maintained when adding test equipment. The answer is also found in S6.2's specification that "[t]he pretest vehicle attitude is equal to either the as delivered or fully loaded attit ude, or between the as delivered attitude and the fully loaded attitude." This language describes a range of attitudes, including the left-to-right attitude, which the vehicle may be in at the time of the test. The vehicle must be capable of passing the test anywhere within the prescribed range. Therefore, when NHTSA tests a vehicle, the agency has leeway in maintaining the as delivered left-to-right attitude when adding test equipment. As long as the left-to-right attitude after adding equipment is so mewhere between the attitude in the as delivered condition and the fully loaded

3

condition, an acceptable pretest vehicle attitude will be achieved.

Finally, I would like to note that NHTSA's Enforcement Office prepares updates to its laboratory test procedures on an as required basis. The updates include rule changes and maintenance revisions. We project a maintenance update to the side impact tes t procedures (TP-214D-03) will be published within the next six months. During this update, issues addressed in this letter will be considered.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Spectrum Engineering Group

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/22/94 from Robin L. Fennimore to NHTSA Office of Chief Council (OCC-9759)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to this office regarding your reconstruction of an accident involving a 16-passenger school bus. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You stated in your letter that the original latch/hinge mechanism of the right front entrance door of the bus in question was disabled by removal of the striker plate and equipped instead with a remote door opening/closing appartus and latching mechanism . The bus was involved in an accident in which the driver was ejected through that door. You then asked a series of questions concerning the classification of the vehicle and the Federal safety standards pertaining to the door in question.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to ne w motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for certifying that the vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the da te of manufacture. Once the vehicle or equipment has been sold to the first customer for purposes other than resale, Federal jurisdiction over the manufacture and sale of the vehicle or equipment generally terminates and use of the vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

You first asked, "Would this vehicle be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, a bus, or a school bus?"

The answer to your question is that each manufacturer classifies its vehicles in accordance with the definitions set

2

forth in the Safety Act and in NHTSA's regulations. The Safety Act defines a "school bus" as

[A] passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school stude nts to or from such schools or events related to such schools. 15 U.S.C. 1391(14).

Our regulations define a "bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further define a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school and related activities, but does not include a bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR @ 571.3.

Thus, whether a vehicle is a school bus under our regulations depends on the purpose for which it was originally sold. Although you did not indicate who purchased the bus originally and for what purpose, you referred to the vehicle in your letter as a " mini school bus," you stated that the body was manufactured by Mid Bus, a school bus manufacturer, and the descriptive literature you enclosed with your letter depicts different models of small school buses manufactured by Mid Bus. Accordingly, it appea rs the vehicle in question would have been classified as a school bus under 49 CFR @ 571.3. Our regulations require the vehicle manufacturer to state the vehicle type classification on the vehicle's certification label. The certification label of the v ehicle in question should have that information.

Your second question asks, "Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?"

With respect to FMVSS 206, Door locks and door retention components, the answer is no. Standard 206 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. The standard does not apply to buses.

With respect to FMVSS 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the standard specifies requirements for window retention other than windshields in buses, except buses designed to transport persons under restraint, and establishes operati ng forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits. The glazing requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 217 would apply to the right front entrance door, and if the door was also used as an emergency exit, it must also have complied when new with the emergency exit requirements of S5.2.3, S5.3, S5.4.2, and S5.5.3 of the standard.

3

Your third question asked, "Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door (particularly its loading requirements)?"

The answer is that apart from the provisions of FMVSS 217 discussed in our answer to your second question, there was no FMVSS in 1988 that specified performance standards for the right front entrance doors of buses. Effective September 1, 1993, however, the side door strength requirements of FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, will apply to 90 percent of the buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less produced after that date, and all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or le ss produced on and after September 1, 1994, must comply with those requirements.

I would like to make the following observation about the modification of the door in question. Modifications of new and used vehicles by commercial parties are subject to @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibit s any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In this case, your letter d id not indicate who disabled the original latch mechanism on the vehicle or who installed the remote door latch mechanism. If the work was done by a party listed in @ 108(a)(2)(A), the person modifying the vehicle was responsible for not degrading the p erformance of the door with regard to FMVSS 217.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, vehicle owners can modify the vehicle in any manner he/she chooses without violating any Federal requirements.

I hope this information answers your questions. We have enclosed copies of FMVSS 206 and 217 that were effective in 1988, photocopied from the October 1, 1987 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, as you requested. Should you have other questions , please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosures

ID: nht94-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: William R. Willen -- Managing Counsel, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Honda Electric Vehicles in Accordance with FMVSS @ 555.6(c)

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 7/25/94: Letter from John Womack to William Willen (Part 555 & 591)

TEXT: This petition is being sought by American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 1919 Torrance Blvd, Torrance, CA, 90501, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Honda." Honda plans to field test no more than twenty (20) electric vehicles ("HONDA-EV") over a three (3) year period, in order to gather field information. These HONDA-EV's will not be sold, however; they will be driven by various drivers, including, but not limited to: electric utilities, media Honda employees, commercial fleet drivers and, po ssibly, consumers. The field test is necessary to obtain "real world" usage patterns as well as overall field experience with electric vehicles. The technical and qualitative feedback from these field tests will enable Honda to develop and market a bet ter electric vehicle.

In accordance with FMVSS @ 555.6(c), the basis for this petition includes: "the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle." The HONDA-EV for which Honda seeks an exemption meets all applicable regulations except the following FMVSS standards:

FMVSS Description Impact 103 As described in Attachment 1, a Operator instructions will make limited area on each side of clear the need to wait until the the windshield is only 87.5% clear, front glass is adequately compared to a standard of 95% defrosted prior to vehicle operation. The vehicles will clear, within the specified 40 be minute start period. This is operated mainly in California primarily due to the electrical where the milder weather should consumption requirements. minimize this concern. Additionally, vehicle parking is primarily indoors due to recharging requirements, where defrosting is even less of a concern. While these eight components do 302 PP plastic was used for several not prototype parts in order to meet the standard, all other minimize the tooling costs needed vehicle components do meet the to produce these few vehicles. PP standard, and the overall risk does not meet the fire-retardant of fire is not significantly increased. Additionally, the standard set forth in 302. risk of fuel-fed fire is greatly These components are described reduced in Attachment 2, and include: since there is no on-board gasoline or diesel fuel with Cover, Right Front Door; Cover, which Left Front Door; Console, Front; to contend. Lining, Rear Panel; Lining, Right Side, Lining, Left Side; Lining, Right Cowl Side; Lining, Left Cowl Side

These minor "non-compliances" will have no significant adverse affect on vehicle safety.

By providing this temporary exemption, field testing and evaluation will proceed rapidly. In addition, the full production version of this vehicle, currently scheduled for the 1998 model year, is planned to fully meet all FMVSS requirements, including t he above standards.

Enclosed: Attachment 1 (1 page) Attachment 2 (6 pages)

ID: nht94-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: JE, C. H. -- Doosan Corporation, Pusan Branch (Korea)

TO: Vehicle Safety Standards

TITLE: MSG NO: BSI-940606

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/12/94 Letter From Philip R. Recht To C. H. JE (A42; STD. 208)

TEXT: We are one of the well-recognized Korean trading companies. This time we desire to sell automobile air bags to the states.

At the same time we find out that we need a certain permission [ILLEGIBLE WORDS], for example, FMVCSS 208 from the department of transportation in the states.

The highly be appreciated if you tell us what kind of standard and what other things, if necessary, are required in exporting automobile airbags in your country.

We are just ready to be on the any kinds of tests required. Your prompt reply would so much be appreciated.

ID: nht94-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R.H. Goble -- President, Goble Enterprises

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/16/94 from R.H. Goble to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC-10031)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 16, 1994, with respect to two motor vehicle lighting systems that you have developed, and your question about the regulations that may apply to each.

As we understand the first system, when the brake pedal is applied, the front turn signal lamps and front side marker lamps are simultaneously activated to indicate to observers from the front and side that the vehicle is braking. It appears that this a ctivation is in a steady burning state which continues unless and until the turn signal lamps are activated in either the flashing turn signal or hazard warning signal more. You have also developed a "Wheel Well lighting system", which "will provide lig ht indicators all around (brake, clearance, turn signal, emergency flashers)" through amber lamps mounted in the well at the top of each front and rear wheel opening. As we understand this system, these supplementary lamps will be activated simultaneous ly when the four named lamp systems are activated.

The regulation governing the lighting on new motor vehicles (i.e., requirements that must be met when a new vehicle is delivered to its first purchaser) is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. With respect to optional equipment such as your sy stems, Standard No. 108 allows each, provided that each does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The law governing the lighting on motor vehicles after their first sale is the National Traffic and Motor Vehic le Safety Act. In essence, it allows installation of each of your systems by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as long as the system does not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of d esign installed in accordance with" Standard No. 108.

We regard any supplemental lighting system with the potential of creating confusion in the eye of the beholder as one that impairs the effectiveness of other lamps on the vehicle, and

2

one that renders inoperative, in part at least, other lamps by compromising their effectiveness. This is especially true when existing vehicle lamps are used to convey messages that are different from the purpose of those lamps. We believe it especiall y important to motor vehicle safety that signal lamps convey their message unmistakably and without ambiguity. We see no real problem that might be occasioned by the activation of the front turn signal lamps in a steady burning mode, although this might cause initial puzzlement in the eye of an oncoming driver unfamiliar with the system. While confusion is more likely when the turn signal is operating on one side while the other side remains steady burning, we believe that the flashing of the turn sig nal will continue to be interpreted as an intention to turn. Of course, when the hazard warning system is activated and completely overrides the steady burning front stop lamp, there would be no confusion as to signal message. Therefore, in our opinion , Federal law permits use of your front stop lamp system.

Your second system does not operate through existing vehicle lamps but consists of additional lamps mounted in the wheel wells. These lamps would appear not to have the potential of confusion since they supplement existing lamps and operate in conjuncti on with them to convey the same message. Thus, Federal law, in our view, does not preclude use of your second system either.

However, even if a supplementary lighting system is permissible under Federal law, it is subject to regulation by any State in which it is operated. We are not able to advise you with respect to State law, and suggest that you write for an opinion to th e American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.