ID: nht95-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 17, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Marshall S. Reagle -- Sate-Lite Mfg. Co.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/1/95 (EST.) LETTER FROM MARSHALL S. REAGLE TO PAT BOYD (OCC 10784)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reagle:

This is in reply to your recent FAX to Pat Boyd of this agency asking for a confirmation of an interpretation of certain reflex reflector requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically S5.7.2.1(b) and (c). For your future reference, requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel.

You state that Mr. Boyd informed you that "any retro-reflector would have to be made in intervals of 4 inches" with the 0 degree at the two-inch mark, and that the reflective reading would have to comply with S5.7.2.1(b) or (c). He also informed you tha t, regardless of whether the segment was 4, 8, or 12 inches in length, the agency will test in 4-inch segments.

This is correct. According to paragraph S5.7.2.2(a) and (b) of Standard No. 108, each reflector shall be installed "with the center of each reflector not more than 100 mm from the center of each adjacent reflector." As 100 mm is approximately 4 inches, this effectively limits the size of a reflector to a maximum length of 4 inches. However, this does not prohibit the mounting of two or three adjacent reflectors in "segments" of 8 or 12 inches, whether separately or in a housing. As Mr. Boyd informed you, each discrete 4-inch segment must comply with paragraph S5.7.2.1(b) or (c).

Paragraphs S5.7.2.1(b) and (c) specify reflectivity values for red and white reflex reflectors respectively "at any light entrance angle between 30 degrees left and 30 degrees right, including an entrance angle of 0 degrees," as well as "any light entran ce angle between 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right." Your drawing of a 4-inch reflector correctly depicts the 0 degree light entrance angle at the 2-inch mark, in the center of the reflector. However, SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflectors, January 19 77, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, requires the measurement of the other light entrance angles also with respect to the center of the reflector, rather than with respect to the ends as pictured in your drawing.

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

ID: nht90-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KENT D. SMITH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-26-90 TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA, FROM KENT D. SMITH, ATTACHED; [OCC-4387]

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 26, 1990, to the agency with respect to a safety lighting device. You have asked for our recommendations regarding this invention.

The problem addressed by your invention is "that vehicles need some way of signaling following drivers if the headlamps of their vehicles are blinding you." Your solution is to install a button that activates the backup lamps and extinguishes them in a m atter of a second or less. One alternative would be to operate only a single backup lamp, and another, to activate only the license plate lamp. This would provide a warning to the following driver.

The agency is concerned with glare, but its investigation of the phenomenon indicates that there are two types: discomfort glare, and disabling glare. Although it is certainly an annoyance, the glare produced by a headlamp shining into a rear view mirror is discomfort glare. In our judgment, a vehicle driver looking into the mirror will not suffer disabling glare so that he is unable to discern vehicles approaching, or pedestrians in the roadway; most vehicles are equipped with manual "day/night" mirro rs which may be easily operated in the event of discomfort. Equipment manufacturers have already addressed the problem by providing rear-view mirrors that have a photoelectric cell that dips them when a certain level of light intensity is reached. In s ummary, the agency does not believe that there is a nationwide safety problem requiring it to mandate the use of your device on motor vehicles as new vehicle equipment.

As an aftermarket item which a dealer could offer a new-car purchaser, its installation would be subject to the general prohibition in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that supplemental lighting devices shall not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. The question to be answered, therefore, is whether the device would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamps, or other rear lighting devices. The problem here is the necessity of rear lighting d evices to provide clear and unambiguous signals and

messages to following drivers. Anytime a lighting device does not provide a cue to which a following driver is accustomed, the potential for confusion arises. The driving public is unfamiliar with the sudden, though temporary, activation of the backup l amp, at normal driving speeds, or a modification in intensity of the license plate lamp. Without a substantial nationwide public education campaign, the signal imparted by your device is not likely to be understood by a following driver, and might distr act him from the signals of the other rear lighting devices. In this sense, we believe that your device might impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 does allow.

You have also noted the State prohibitions against use of backup lamps when the car is going in a forward direction. Even if the agency concluded that the device was permissible and would not cause impairment, the States are not precluded from enacting and enforcing their own standards on the use of lighting systems.

You may be interested to know that two letters to the Editor of The New York Times have appeared on this issue in the last month which suggest the use of existing lighting equipment to signal following drivers that their upper beams are on. I enclose th ese letters for your consideration.

I am sorry that we cannot be more encouraging in our remarks, but we do appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Enclosure

When the Driver Behind Is Blinding You

To the Editor:

Until we see the idea of a liquid crystal rear-view mirror, now in one Japanese luxury car, extended to side-view mirrors, as you propose in "Don't Stop There" (editorial, Jan. 18), there is a less than widely known way to dim the discomfort and dange r of bright headlights behind you.

While learning to drive in the Catskill Mountains around Monticello, N.Y., I discovered how to let the driver behind know that his or her brights are ripping out your retinas from the rear. As opposed to the signal for an oncoming driver (turning on your own brights, which is hard for an approaching motorist to miss, but useless for someone who can only see your tail lights), you deal with brights from behind by turning your lights completely off, then back on again.

Presumably, this demonstrates to the driver behind you, for a moment, that he or she is supplying enough light for both of you.

But there's a Catch-22. Drivers who know this signal are typically more experienced and rarely leave their brights on near other vehicles. The most frequent offenders are invariably ignorant of the signal.

As more drivers learn the meaning of the off-and-on signal, fewer of us, we may hope, will be blinded by the light from behind. TOM COBIN

Bayside, Queens, Jan. 18, 1990

Explaining Lights to the Driver Behind

To the Editor:

In "When the Driver Behind Is Blinding You" (letter, Feb. 3), Tom Cobin suggests turning your car headlights off and on several times to signal the driver behind that his or her bright lights are on.

But this can be dangerous. One's hands should be on the wheel when driving in traffic and not playing with the light switch. Also, driving for even a fraction of a second into an unlighted road is scary.

A safer method is to touch the brake pedal barely a time or two, to flash an alert, it is to be hoped, to the car behind that the lights are creating a problem.

The safest action is to slow down slightly and to let the offender pass, if the traffic permits. Then, a flash or two of your high beams in his or her rear view mirror might penetrate the skull of this particular thoughtless or careless driver, who i s but one representative of that large percentage at the wheel who should not be driving at all.

C. LINCOLN CHRISTENSEN Hurley, N.Y., Feb. 3, 1990

The writer is a longtime member of the Society of Automotive Engineers.

ID: nht88-1.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/88

FROM: JERRY SMITH -- MINNESOTA BODY AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY

TO: SHANON FORD -- DIRECTOR SOUTHEAST IOWA COMMUNITY ACTION ORGANIZATION, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO R.C. ROST FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 03/18/88 TO CHIEF COUNCIL -- NHTSA, FROM R & C ROST RE REQUEST THAT HEADSTART BUSES NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROOF WARNING LIGHTS IF A COL OR OTHER THAN SCHOOL BUS YELLOW IS USED, OCC-1763; LETTER DATED 12/21/77, TO JAMES TYDINGS FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN; LETTER DATED 02/11/88 TO SHANON L FOND FROM JERRY SMITH RE FEDERAL INTERPRETATION OF SCHOOL BUS USER; UNDATED BROCHURES ON SCHOOLBUS BY WAYNE CORPORATION

TEXT: As per our telephone conversation today, I am enclosing a copy of my Wayne cost sheet which reflects $ 107.75 for the warning lights which is included in my bid price for the Wayne Chaperone submitted on February 12, 1988.

As agreed, time is of the essence to maintaine a desirable delivery date and to utilize the chassis that was bid.

Therefore, please issue your purchase order at your earliest convience Upon receipt of your order, I will be able to establish a production "slot" for your bus with out further delay.

Between the time that I receive your order and actual production starts we will have approximately 60 days in which to resolve the warning Light issue.

Hopefully by working with the Head Start regional office in Kansas City, IDOT and Wayne Corporation, we can resolve the issue prior to the production start date.

Upon resolution, we will delete the warning lights from the body order, which in turn will be reflected in a reduction of $ 107.75 from the bid price.

I will continue to give this problem my close attention in an effort to obtain the light reduction and ensuing credit for you.

Please send your purchase order to my attention and as follows:

Minnesota Body & Equipment Company P.O. Box 218 Waukee, Iowa 50263

Sincerely,

30 years of treating customers FAIRLY and SERVICING What we sell.

Proud of our past!

MINNESOTA BODY & EQUIPMENT CO. 7380 HIGHWAY 101 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379

OUR Services:

Leasing/Financing Service/Parts Bid Specifications Handicapped Equipment Equipment Evaluations Customer Needs

Service Department:

PATRICK O'REILLEY, Service Manager 6 years with Minnesota Body

MARK ENDERSON, Service Technician 3 years with Minnesota Body

WESLEY MOEDING, Field Service Coordinator 7 years with Minnesota Body

An Investment in YOUR future

Customer Satisfaction -- Best Advertisement

Thirty Years of selling and servicing Quality-Built buses speaks for itself. Our customers know of our commitment to them and how we stand behind that commitment. It is not just talk, but a fact that we take great pride in and customers know they can de pend on our firm.

We hope you will join with us in celebrating our 30th year.

Let us be a part of your vehicle planning and growth, so that together we can face the 1990s.

Bob Rost, President

These people are here to serve you regarding your transportation needs.

ROBERT ROST, President 31 years experience

GARY SELANDER, New & Used Bus Sales -- Minnesota 27 years experience

ROGER BLOHM, New & Used Bus Sales -- Nationwide 11 years experience

JOHN ROBERTS, New & Used Bus Sales -- Minnesota-Wisconsin 3 years experience

JERRY SMITH, New & Used Bus Sales -- Iowa Manager 6 years experience

GRANT WELLBORN, New & Used Bus Sales -- Iowa 32 years experience

MARK ROST, New & Used Bus Sales -- Minnesota-Wisconsin 1 year experience

KIRK LARSON, Accounting & Parts 12 years experience

ID: 77-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr; NHTSA

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 20, 1977, letter asking whether your certification labels comply with Part 567, Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

As stated to you in an earlier letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not issue approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The agency has determined that the two labels that you submitted do not follow the format established in the regulations and, therefore, do not comply with the requirements. If "R" denotes radial ply and "F" denotes load range, the tire designation should be 10.00 R 20 (F).

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

July 20, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

SUBJECT: NOA-30 (RST)

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of July 19, concerning Mr. Levin's letter of July 13, 1977.

We are enclosing two new samples certification labels which have been modified from the original as submitted May 25, 1977. It is our understanding that the changes in the wording for the tire and rim size, and the deletion of the wording "maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below" will give apparent compliance with the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120.

Jerry McNeil Director of Engineering

ENCLS.

ID: nht73-4.18

DATE: 05/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 21, 1973, in which you ask how retreaded tires are to be tested to the strength requirements (plunger-energy) of Standard No. 117 (S5.1.1, incorporating by reference S4.2.2.4 of Standard No. 109). You appear to believe testing to the requirement is precluded because Standard No. 117 contains no requirement that the cord material be labeled onto the tire, and the plunger-energy requirements specify different performance levels for differing cord materials.

While Standard No. 117 does not require the generic name of the cord material to be labeled onto the retreaded tire, we expect that it will be found on most tire casings and will be available to the retreader on all post "DOT" casings, and on many pre-DOT casings as well. If a retreaded tire is not labeled with its cord material, the strength test can still be conducted. It is not necessary to know the cord material before the plunger-energy values are obtained. Once they are obtained, a sample can be removed from the tire, from which the material can be determined.

March 21, 1973

Mr. Michael Pescoe, Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We would like to forward to you a question on Federal Retread Standard 117 raised by one of the companies in the industry: "As specified in S4.2.2.4 Tire Strength, each tire shall meet the requirement for minimum breaking injuries specified in Table 2, when tested in accordance with S5.3 of Safety Standard 109. My question is, the labelling specification S6.3 has no provision for fabric identification. Without cord type the Plunger Energy test, as specified in F.M.V. S.S. 109, cannot be performed because of the different minimum force values for different types of cord. In other words the minimum force is 1650 lbs. for a Rayon tire with a cross section of 6 inches or above. While the specification is 2600 lbs. for Nylon and Polyester cord with the same cross section width. Cord identification is required for testing in compliance with M.V.S.S. 117. What do we do now?"

As soon as we receive your answer, we will forward it on to the company that requested it.

Phillip P. Priedlander, Jr. Director of Communications

ID: nht95-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Motorcycle Turn Signal Pilot Indicator Interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/3/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEFFREY D. SHETLER (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. is hereby requesting an interpretation from NHTSA regarding the applicability to motorcycles of the Turn Signal Pilot Indicator Lamp requirements within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84.

When reviewing Table III of FMVSS 108 (Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment) and its applicability to motorcycle turn signal lamps, we are referred to SAE J588, November 1984. SAE J588 not only specifies turn signal lamp requirements but also speci fies other related requirements such as the need for a turn signal pilot indicator lamp, if the turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver.

Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84 indicates the illuminated turn signal pilot indicator lamp, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow colored light.

All Kawasaki motorcycles designed for use on public roads and sold in the United States are equipped with turn signal lamps meeting the requirements of FMVSS 108. In addition, all Kawasaki motorcycles having turn signal lamps are equipped with an illumi nated pilot indicator lamp (yellow colored).

Table III within FMVSS 123; Motorcycle Controls and Displays, specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification. However, FMVSS 123 does not specify color requirements for the turn signal pilot indicator lamp.

In future model years, Kawasaki would like to change the current yellow colored light that illuminates our motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps to a green colored light. However, when reviewing SAE J588 NOV84 and FMVSS 123, we cannot determine w ith confidence if it would be allowed.

When reviewing the language within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84, it seems evident this section was written with passenger cars in mind and not motorcycles. "5.4.3.3 - If the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for exam ple on the front fenders, they should emit a yellow colored light and have a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 mm." It is our belief the color and area requirements are specified within this section to insure visibility by the driver because the l ocation of the indicator lamp would be a greater distance away from the drivers eye than a indicator lamp located inside the vehicle on the dash panel.

FMVSS 123 does not need to address distance from the drivers eye, color, or size of the turn signal pilot indicator lamp because the location of the indicator lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the drivers eye.

Motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps are, in most cases, located within the main instrument panel of the motorcycle with other instrumentation such as speedometer, tachometer, oil pressure gage or warning light, fuel level gage, and transmission neutral indicator. The main instrument panel on motorcycles is usually located between the handlebars and the headlamp. In some cases, motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps are located away from the main instrument panel on the fuel tank, or wit hin a separate panel between the motorcycles fuel tank and handlebars. When considering these locations and their distance from the drivers eye, we believe any pilot lamp light color would be acceptable.

When reviewing current FMVSS requirements (FMVSS 108 / FMVSS 123), we believe we are not limited to using only a yellow color for the lamp of our turn signal pilot indicators because FMVSS 123 does not specify color requirements for turn signal indicator lamps. However, as indicated above, we are not entirely confident our interpretation of the requirements is correct because of the yellow color requirement specified within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84. Therefore, we are requesting your assistance in resolving this matter.

Thank you in advance for your timely response to our request.

If further information is required, I can be reached at (714) 770-0400 ext 2456.

ID: nht88-3.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1988

FROM: AL CUNNINGHAM -- CHIEF ENGINEER WESTBAR CORPORATION

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL D.O.T.

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF SAE DEFINITIONS AS THEY APPLY TO FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED NOV. 3, 1988 TO AL CUNNINGHAM, CHIEF ENGINEER, WESTBAR CORPORATION, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: We are writing your office requesting official clarification of definitions referred to in SAE J588e as it applies to FMVSS 108. The definition in question is, 2.2 "Multiple Compartment Lamp" and the term used in 3.1 "Single Compartment Lamp".

With this request, we are furnishing two lamps as examples, one identified as 3504 exp. and the second as 3504. The first sample (3504 exp.) has a housing with back and four sides containing a two filament bulb with a single lens covering face of hou sing. This lamp photometrically complies to the basic requirements of a class "A" tail, stop and turn lamp. Would the sample submitted as described above be defined as a single compartment lamp?

The second sample has a housing with a back, two sides and one end, containing one #57 bulb and one #1157 (2 filament) bulb. This housing is closed with two red lenses, one on the end and one on the face with an additional clear lens on bottom side. This lamp also complies to all standards of a class "A" tail, stop and turn lamp plus side marker clearance, license plate illuminator and class "A" reflex side and rear. Would the sample, as submitted and described, be defined as single compartment la mp?

Thank you for reviewing our requests. We look forward to receiving your interpretation of these definitions as they apply to our questions and samples furnished.

Enclosures - 2 samples

ID: nht73-3.34

DATE: 02/27/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Fildew; Gilbridge; Miller & Todd

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1973, in which you asked about the responsibilities with respect to the motor vehicle safety standards of an automobile dealer who sends a new vehicle to a specialty manufacturer for modifications. You asked whether the dealer must file reports as a final-stage manufacturer, or ascertain whether the specialty manufacturer has filed reports or certified the vehicle.

The final-stage manufacturer in the case you describe is the specialty manufacturer, and all the responsibilities that pertain to that category lie with him, not the dealer. There is also no obligation for the dealer to ascertain that the specialty manufacturer has filed reports.

The answer with respect to the dealer ascertaining that the final-stage manufacturer has certified the vehicle is somewhat less clear. There is no direct responsibility for this; a failure of the final-stage manufacturer to certify would not itself bring down any penalties on the dealer. However, the certification is designed to protect the dealer, in cases of nonconformity with the standards of which the dealer does not have actual knowledge. (See sections 108(b)(2) and 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2), 1403.) To put it negatively, if the vehicle were completed in violation of applicable standards and it were not certified, a dealer might be considered to have sold a nonconforming vehicle without the exercise of due care, in violation of the Act. The question is further complicated by the fact that not all alterations would rise to the level of manufacturing (addition of trailer hitches probably would not, for example), and these minor

changes would not require additional certification by anyone. In sum, although there is no direct legal obligation for the dealer to see that there is a certification where there are major alterations, it is a very good idea, for his own protection.

The regulations on this subject are codified in Parts 567 and 568 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The October 1, 1972 edition of that title is current with respect to those parts. We do have a proposal outstanding to make some amendments regarding the certification of altered vehicles (37 FR 22800, October 25, 1972), and an amended rule may be issued in the near future.

ID: nht76-4.25

DATE: 06/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Daniel Truck, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 18, 1976, request for permission to substitute pre-121 brake components for certain components of the brake systems on trucks and trailers you own that were manufactured in conformity with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

From your description, I assume that you intend to remove portions of the brake system that were installed in satisfaction of the requirements of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits, with one exception, knowing disconnection of the antilock system by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business.

A person that does not fall into there categories is not prohibited from disconnection of the systems. Thus, it would be permissible for you to make such modifications on your own trucks and trailers. Other State or Federal requirements, such as those of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for operation in interstate commerce, may prohibit disconnection. In any case, the NHTSA urges that you not disconnect safety devices without consulting the vehicle manufacturer with regard to the safest configuration of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Daniel Truck, Inc.

June 18, 1976

Thomas Herliky Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Our firm is planning to purchase some new trucks in the near future. Since we have had difficulty with the 121 brake we would like to replace the brake with the pre-121 brake.

Please let me know as soon as possible if we will be in violation if we do this.

W. Wayne Daniel

ID: 24568.ztv

Mr. Harold Miller
Solid Solutions
Cage Code 1TQM7
311 Whispering Pines Lane
Grants Pass, OR 97527

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is in reply to your letter to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency.You asked about the applicability of Federal regulations to a product which you have described.

The product appears to be a message bar that illuminates with the word "Turning" accompanied by arrows to the right or left, depending on the direction of the turn.It connects to the stop lamp and turn signal "wires" and would be mounted "on the rear of commercial trailers," above the bumper bar and its usual supports. It is activated with the turn signal system.

With respect to the applicability of regulations that this agency enforces, the product is "motor vehicle equipment," subject to notification and remedial action if it has developed a defect related to motor vehicle safety.In that event, you as the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying owners of the product, and for instituting remedial action in the form of repair, repurchase, or replacement of the product.

This product would not be acceptable as original motor vehicle equipment.Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is our regulation that applies to vehicle lighting.It specifies requirements for certain specific items of lighting equipment. If an item of lighting equipment other than those specified is provided as original equipment, it is allowed under paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 only if it does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment.In our view, impairment of rear signals may occur if the following driver is confronted with messages and symbols that are unfamiliar in the motoring environment and have the potential to confuse.We believe that your product is prohibited by S5.1.3.

With respect to the aftermarket, 49 U.S.C. 30122 has the effect of requiring that the installation of any aftermarket vehicle accessory, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, must not "make inoperative" any element of design or device installed on a vehicle in accordance with Standard No. 108. As with original equipment, we regard an accessory lamp mounted on the rear as "making inoperative" a vehicles original rear lighting equipment if it has the potential of creating confusion as to the meaning of the lighting equipment, or detracting a following drivers attention from rear signal lights.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner. However, the accessory lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States where it will be used. Further, since your product is intended for "commercial trailers," it is subject to the lighting regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for trailers in use in interstate commerce.The FMCSAs opinions are similar to ours and would not allow use of your product on trailers under its jurisdiction.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/13/02