ID: 2345y

Mr. Kent D. Smith
12249 S. 1565 E.
Draper, UT 84020

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in reply to your letter of January 26, l990, 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 matter 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" mirrors 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 summary, 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. l08 that supplemental lighting devices shall not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. l08 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 devices 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 lamp, 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 distract 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. l08 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 these 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.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref: 108 d:3/22/90

ID: nht95-3.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq. -- Attorney for Liphardt & Associates

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LAWRENCE A. BEYER (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 556)

TEXT: This petition for inconsequential defect or noncompliance is submitted under 49 CFR Part 558, on behalf of:

Liphardt & Associates 15 Trade Zone Drive Ronkonkoma, NY

a New York State corporation.

[Illegible Lines]

The non-compliance relates to

49 CFR Part 592.5(f) Notification of change of facility information:

49 CFR Part 592.8(e) Hold period for inspection

49 CFR Part 592.6(f) Poor compliance photography

49 CFR Part 592.6(d) Label may not have correctly identified RI

BACKGROUND:

Liphardt & Associates has been a DOT Registered Importer since 1990, concentrating in the importation of noncomplying vehicles from Europe. However in 1994, due to sudden economic conditions, importation of vehicles from the Canadian market to the US ma rket became viable, and there was significant need for Registered Importers to assist in vehicle importation and certification. The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) was also deluged with Canadian vehicle importation situations. Liphardt was ap proached by a Customs House Broker in upstate New York, and was requested to set up an additional facility for the processing (modification, documentation and holding) of [Illegible Line] this facility. It turns out that Liphardt's control over these ve hicles was lost, that the processing was handled by persons other than Liphardt authorized personnel and the inconsequential defect or noncompliance occurred. Liphardt notified OVSC of this situation in February, 1995 and conducted its own investigation . In March, 1995, Liphardt voluntarily suspended all Canadian importations, and met informally with NHTSA staff.

SAFETY COMPLIANCE

NHTSA has reviewed compliance packages submitted on these vehicles, and the vast majority have been deemed sufficient for release of compliance bond.

Canadian vehicles, for the most part, differ from US FMVSS only in the following areas:

1. Odometer may not be labeled KM;

2. Passive restraint systems for passenger cars;

Certification Labels must also be affixed to the vehicles in accordance with 49 [Illegible Word]

Many odometers are labeled KM by the original manufacturer. In any event, the odometer/speedometer is routinely changed to a miles based instrument, since the marketability of kilometer based vehicles is severely impaired. All passenger [Illegible Word ] Certification labels may have misnamed the Registered Importer. While this in unfortunate, the purpose of naming the RI on the certification label is to ensure that the responsible RI is known for subsequent defect/recalls. OVSC maintains a very accur ate computer system in which the VIN and the responsible RI are listed. Therefore, if a vehicle with the wrong name listed on the RI section of the certification label was involved in a situation where the actual RI needed to be involved, NHTSA could ea sily provide the correct RI name.

Clearly these defects and non-compliance are not significant and are inconsequential to vehicle safety. Liphardt has tried to work within the regulatory framework to advise OVSC of the situations and seeks this petition and exemption process to finalize this matter.

Liphardt has corrected the cause of the noncompliance and will continue to abide by the duties of a registered importer as defined in 49 CFR 592.

Thank you.

ID: nht68-2.39

DATE: 09/20/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: White Trucks, Division of White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 22, 1963, to Mr. David A. Fay, concerning a clarification of the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As a truck-tracter manufacturer, your responsibility with respect to the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 may be set by installing on your truck-tractors the switches, wiring and trailer electrical connectors that will, when properly mated with the wiring and electrical plugs on the trailern that are designed to be used with your particular electrical circuitry, cause the trailer tail lamps and the truck-tractor tail lamps to be illuminated when the truck-tractor headlamps are illuminated. If your truck-tractors are subsequently used to tow trailers that are not equipped with properly mated electrical plugs, connectors or circuitry, then you are not burdened with the responsibility of providing, for the resulting tractor-trailer combination, electrical circuitry that will cause the trailer tail lamps to be illuminated then the tractor headlamps are illuminated.

The trailer electrical connector that is installed on the tractor may be the 7-wire connector conforming to SAE 3560a, a 6-wire connector, or a special connector as specified by your customers. In this respect, we agree that your cannot ascertain at the time you build your truck-tractor the type of wiring system or electrical plugs that will be used on the trailer or trailer combinations that might, in the future, be tored by the truck-tractors.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht70-1.5

DATE: 02/12/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Oesterreichisch-Amerikanische

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Re: Farm Use Only Tires and Request for Interpretation of Standard No. 109

Thank you for your reply to our letter of December 11, 1969 concerning tires marked with the legend "Farm Use Only Tires".

Concerning the questions you raise in your letter relating to the DOT symbol, Standard No. 109 requires that the symbol be between the maximum section width and the bend to protect the lettering from obliteration during use. Therefore, placing the DOT symbol at the widest place on the side wall rib as illustrated in your enclosed drawing would not be permitted.

With regard to your question asking if the approved symbol and the manufacturer's code mark is necessary, the approved symbol signifies that the manufacturer certifies that the tire complies with the Standard and is, therefore, necessary. Tires exported to this country without the symbol would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The code number is only required if your company manufactures a tire with a brand name other than its own. The purpose of the code number is to identify the manufacturer of the tire.

ID: nht80-4.28

DATE: 12/12/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motors Corp. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 26, 1980, to Mr. Schwartz of my office concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

In your letter you ask whether 1981 model year vehicles produced before the effective date of the standard, September 1, 1980, need comply with the standard. It would not be a violation of Standard No. 115 to produce 1981 model year vehicles which do not comply with the standard so long as they were manufactured prior to September 1, 1980.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

November 26, 1980

Ref. 80-116-M

Frederic W. Schwartz -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This letter is in response to your telephone request concerning 1981 Datsun Models' VIN Systems (new and old).

After our plants in Japan took their summer vacation (August 9-17, 1980), Nissan produced 1981 Datsun Model Vehicles with new VIN System Numbers that have seventeen (17) characters and meet the new requirements of FMVSS No. 115, VIN which has been applied to the vehicles that have been produced on and after September 1, 1980.

However, before the summer vacation mentioned above, Nissan produced 1981 Datsun Models with old VIN System Numbers because the new machines for the New VIN Numbers were introduced into our plants during the summer vacation. There are approximately 34,430 Datsun 1981 Models with old VIN Numbers (Attachment).

Nissan has been guaranteed by the Federal Government that we are not violating the Federal Law by using the old VIN System Numbers on 1981 Model Vehicles produced before August 31, 1980.

We hope this information will be sufficient for your needs. Your taking the information mentioned above into consideration will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, Hisakazu Murakami -- Washington Representative, Safety

Attachment

VIN. FOR DATSUN '81 MODELS OLD VIN. NEW VIN. Model Starting Beginning Production Starting Beginning Production Vin. Volume Production VIN.

Date Date 210 80.07.31. LB310-077293 JN1 CB02S 7 BU 080076 HLB310-746820 80.08.20. JN1 HB02S 0 BU 450001 PLB310-547078 8,138 JN1 PB02S 9 BU 650001 WPLB310-035876 JN1 PB01S 5 BU 150001 KPLB310-220965 JN1 PB05S 9 BU 038005 80.07.02 PN10-000036 80.08.19 JN1 PN03S X BM 000888 310 2,875 JN1 PN06S 2 BM 000735 KPN10-000027 JN1 PN04S 9 BM 000668 510 80.08.01 HLA10-200031 1,542 80.08.18 JN1 HT02S 5 BT 200160 FHLA10-200031 JN1 HT03S 0 BT 200338 510 80.07.22 WHLA10-125001 594 80.08.18 JN1 HT05S 8 BX 125667 Wagon 810 80.07.14 HG910-000101 491 80.08.18 JN1 HU01S 8 BT 000596 810 80.06.27 WHD910-000001 270 80.08.18 JN1 HU05S 0 BX 000322 Wagon 200SX 80.07.31 PS110-215386 80.08.20JN1 PS06S 6 2,830 BU 400001 KPS110-038159 JN1 PS04S 6 BU 300001 280ZX 30.06.23 HS130-250021 7,170 80.08.18 JN1 HZ04S 9 BX 254601 HGS130-180040 JN1 HZ06S 0 BX 182555 Pickup 80.07.07 No. 1 Plant NO. 1 Plant M720-000012 JN6 MD01S 2 BW 002786 MG720-000011 10,520 80.08.18 JN6 MD02S X BW 001903 KM720-000021 JN6 MD06S X BW 002972 EM720-000016 JN6 MD05H 6 BW 000036 MY720-000008 JN6 MD01Y 1 BW 001424 KMY720-000004 JN6 MD06Y 0 BW 001942 NO. 2 Plant NO. 2 Plant MGY720-000001 JN6 MD02Y 8 BW 500493

Total, 34,430

ID: 18892.wkm

Mr. John L'Espoir
President
Enid Drill Systems, Inc.
4510 East Market Street
Enid, OK 73701-9686

Dear Mr. L'Espoir:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff in which you enclosed informational brochures of different models of water well drilling equipment that your company produces. You stated that your equipment is used off-road to drill water wells, and that some of your designs incorporate tandem axle and triple axle semi-trailers equipped with air brakes. You also stated that you produce buggies that are used exclusively in stone and gypsum mines and that are transported on low-boy trailers. You asked whether your well drilling equipment and buggies are subject to applicable antilock brake system (ABS) requirements as set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. The answer is no.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.), hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) of Title 49, U.S.C. defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

In reviewing the information you provided, including the informational brochures enclosed with your letter, it is our opinion that the water well drilling equipment and the buggies that you produce, as you described and as depicted in the informational material, are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition. The water well drillers are designed to be used primarily at off-road job sites and, although capable of being transported on-road from one job site to another, their on-road use is only incidental to the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. The buggies are used exclusively at stone and gypsum mines and whenever transported, are carried on low-boy trailers. This contrasts with instances in which vehicles such as cement mixer trucks and dump trucks frequently use the public roads going to and from off-road job sites, but remain there for only a limited period of time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act because their on-road use is more than merely "incidental."

In view of the above discussion, your water well drilling equipment and the buggies used in stone and gypsum mines are not motor vehicles and are therefore not required to comply with the FMVSSs, including the ABS requirements of Standard No. 121.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need further information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.4/16/99

ID: 3009yy

Mr. Bill Lewandoski
Account Manager
Kelsey Products Division
38481 Huron River Drive
Romulus, MI 48174

Dear Mr. Lewandoski:

This responds to your letter of April 30, l99l, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to the regulation of trailer stop lamp activation by Standard No. l08.

You have enclosed a photocopy of literature on the Tekonsha Voyager electronic brake control. This system incorporates a manual override side bar that manually activates the trailer brakes without a corresponding activation of the trailer stop lamps. The reason for this is the manufacturer's view that "STOPPING IS NOT THE INTENT. BY NOT DRIVING THE STOPLIGHTS DURING MANUAL ACTIVATION, THE VOYAGER ELIMINATES FALSE BRAKE LIGHT SIGNALS . . . ." The literature carries the notation that "THE VOYAGER AND VOYAGER XP MEET NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION (sic) SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (N.H.T.S.A.) REGULATIONS REGARDING TOW VEHICLE/TRAILER LIGHT APPLICATION." You have asked whether Standard No. l08 permits application of the trailer brakes without activation of the towing vehicle/trailer stop lamps.

It does not. Tekonsha misunderstands the function of a stop lamp. A stop lamp not only indicates the intent of the driver to stop, but also the intent of the driver "to diminish speed by braking." (see the definition of "stop lamp" in SAE Standard J568c, Stop Lamps, August l970, incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08). Paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." The Voyager electronic control applies the service brakes to diminish vehicle speed, and therefore the stop lamps are required to be activated.

The installation of the Voyager by a manufacturer or dealer before the initial sale of a trailer would therefore appear to be a violation of Standard No. l08 since its operation would create a noncompliance with the standard. As an aftermarket device, it is subject to the "render inoperative" prohibition of l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business installing the device after the trailer's initial sale is, in effect, rendering the trailer's stop lamps inoperative when the device is used. Civil penalties are provided for with respect to violations of either Standard No. l08, or section 1397(a)(2)(A). The statement as to compliance with NHTSA regulations is wrong.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. I am forwarding a copy of your letter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for such further action as it deems appropriate.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08#VSA d:5/23/9l

ID: 2349y

AIR MAIL

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Re: Decorative Supplemental Lighting Devices Not Specified by Standard l08 (Motorcycles)

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to two types of decorative lighting devices intended for installation "on the rear face, and at the top of optional motorcycle rear trunks respectively." I regret the delay in responding.

Type A and Type B would be installed on the same motorcycle. Type A would be installed at the top of the trunk. It consists of an elongated device, illuminated by LEDs when the taillamp is on. Type B is installed on the motorcycle itself. It is a rectangular device, illuminated by an incandescent bulb, which is mounted on the vertical centerline and is flanked by the tail and stop lamps. The distance between the center of the light sources on the two devices is 290mm. (approximately ll 1/2 inches). Both devices emit red light, and their maximum intensity is less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp.

You have asked whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the Type A and Type B accessory lamps. If the answer is affirmative, you have asked whether an LED could be used as the light source for Type B. You have also asked whether the maximum intensity of each device separately should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp, or whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 (formerly S4.1.3) permits the installation of these lamps if they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. In this instance, the question to be asked is whether the devices, activated with the taillamps, impair the effectiveness of the taillamps, or the stop lamps. The devices are, in effect, supplemental taillamps, and as such, arguably do not appear to impair the effectiveness of the taillamps required by the standard no matter what their intensity is.

The diagram of Type B indicates that the stop lamps and taillamps are in the same compartment, presumably incorporating a dual filament bulb. Although the stop lamps when activated are brighter than the taillamps, their proximity to the supplemental devices Type A and Type B, each of which are emitting a red light, leads to the possibility that the stop signal would not be as effective as it would be were there no other red lights in the vicinity, and hence impaired within the meaning of S5.1.3. A stop signal must be instantly perceived so that a following driver may determine appropriate action to take. However, we note that this configuration is similar to other stop/taillamp configurations on many vehicles in use on the highways. This would indicate that such configurations do not result in impairment. Thus, the answer to your first question is that both Types of devices are permitted under the standard.

Your second question is whether LEDs are acceptable light sources for Type B. Since there is no restriction on light sources for a lighting device not required by Standard No. l08, you may use the LEDs as light sources.

Your third question is whether the maximum intensity of Type A and Type B, separately, should be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp. Even though Type A and Type B are optional devices, in the configuration depicted where Type B is immediately flanked on both sides by a taillamp, the appearance of the three lamps would be that of a multicompartment lamp, even though they may actually be separate. To help assure that impairment of either the taillamp or stop lamp does not occur, the intensity of Type B should be identical with that of the taillamps. Otherwise, observers may assume that Type B (which you intend to have an intensity less than a taillamp) is actually the taillamp, and the actual taillamps (which you intend to have an intensity greater than Type B) might appear to be stop lamps that are continually on. This would be deemed impairment since there would be three intensity levels, increasing the possibility of confusion of the intent of the lamps.

As for Type A, its vertical separation decreases the possibility for confusion. If the light sources are LEDs, the color would be a different shade of red that the stop and taillamps. Thus, the intensity is less important. However, it functions as an auxiliary taillamp and should be within the same intensity range as the original equipment taillamps. Finally, you asked whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices would be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamps. Again, this would create three levels of intensity, and could cause confusion in understanding the intent of the lamps. As noted above, the individual intensities should be similar to the intensity of the taillamps.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:3/20/90

ID: nht90-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/90

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

TO: T. CHIKADA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: DECORATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL LIGHTING DEVICES NOT SPECIFIED BY STANDARD 108 (MOTORCYCLES)

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-21-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA, FROM T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD. ATTACHED; [OCC-3190]

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter with respect to two types of decorative lighting devices intended for installation "on the rear face, and at the top of optional motorcycle rear trunks respectively." I regret the delay in responding.

Type A and Type B would be installed on the same motorcycle. Type A would be installed at the top of the trunk. It consists of an elongated device, illuminated by LEDs when the taillamp is on. Type B is installed on the motorcycle itself. It is a rec tangular device, illuminated by an incandescent bulb, which is mounted on the vertical centerline and is flanked by the tail and stop lamps. The distance between the center of the light sources on the two devices is 290mm. (approximately 11 1/2 inches) . Both devices emit red light, and their maximum intensity is less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp.

You have asked whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the Type A and Type B accessory lamps. If the answer is affirmative, you have asked whether an LED could be used as the light source for Type B. You have also asked whether the maximum i ntensity of each device separately should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp, or whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.1.3) permits the installation of these lamps if they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the

standard. In this instance, the question to be asked is whether the devices, activated with the taillamps, impair the effectiveness of the taillamps, or the stop lamps. The devices are, in effect, supplemental taillamps, and as such, arguably do not ap pear to impair the effectiveness of the taillamps required by the standard no matter what their intensity is.

The diagram of Type B indicates that the stop lamps and taillamps are in the same compartment, presumably incorporating a dual filament bulb. Although the stop lamps when activated are brighter than the taillamps, their proximity to the supplemental dev ices Type A and Type B, each of which are emitting a red light, leads to the possibility that the stop signal would not be as effective as it would be were there no other red lights in the vicinity, and hence impaired within the meaning of S5.1.3. A sto p signal must be instantly perceived so that a following driver may determine appropriate action to take. However, we note that this configuration is similar to other stop/taillamp configurations on many vehicles in use on the highways. This would indic ate that such configurations do not result in impairment. Thus, the answer to your first question is that both Types of devices are permitted under the standard.

Your second question is whether LEDs are acceptable light sources for Type B. Since there is no restriction on light sources for a lighting device not required by Standard No. 108, you may use the LEDs as light sources.

Your third question is whether the maximum intensity of Type A and Type B, separately, should be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp. Even though Type A and Type B are optional devices, in the configuration depicted where Type B is immediate ly flanked on both sides by a taillamp, the appearance of the three lamps would be that of a multicompartment lamp, even though they may actually be separate. To help assure that impairment of either the taillamp or stop lamp does not occur, the intensi ty of Type B should be identical with that of the taillamps. Otherwise, observers may assume that Type B (which you intend to have an intensity less than a taillamp) is actually the taillamp, and the actual taillamps (which you intend to have an intensi ty greater than Type B) might appear to be stop lamps that are continually on. This would be deemed impairment since there would be three intensity levels, increasing the possibility of confusion of the intent of the lamps.

As for Type A, its vertical separation decreases the possibility for confusion. If the light sources are LEDs, the color would be a different shade of red that the stop and taillamps. Thus, the intensity is less important. However, it functions as an a uxiliary taillamp and should be within the same intensity range as the original equipment taillamps. Finally, you asked whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices would be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamps. Again, this

would create three levels of intensity, and could cause confusion in understanding the intent of the lamps. As noted above, the individual intensities should be similar to the intensity of the taillamps.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: 2905yy

Ms. Jessie M. Flautt
4405 Lafayette Street
Bellaire, TX 77401

Dear Ms. Flautt

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle.

You explained that you are under five feet, two inches and legally blind in one eye. You further explained that, due to the increased size of headrests in recent years, you are unable to locate a 1991 automobile which does not have headrests which impede your field of vision. You wish to arrange to have the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile reduced. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulation will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, 108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the headrest on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the headrest to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle. Many manufacturers are currently installing headrests in vehicles which exceed the minimum dimensions required by FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. I urge you not to have your headrest reduced below these dimensions if it is not necessary for your field of view.

If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA, 202 d:3/26/9l