ID: 22499

Mr. David Sample
Martinez & Turek, Inc.
300 S. Cedar Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376





Dear Mr. Sample:

This is in response to your letter of December 20, 2000, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) classify your two pole trailer dollies as non-motor vehicles. As discussed below, the agency considers your pole trailer dollies to be motor vehicles and therefore subject to safety standards administered by this agency.

NHTSA issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) defines a "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (49 U.S.C. 30101 (a)(6)).

In your letter, you describe the configuration of your pole trailer dollies as "a long rocket tank that is capable of sustaining itself as a beam between supporting connections, a tractor and a dolly." You state that your pole trailer dollies will be used to transport a rocket tank over the public roads.

Since your pole trailer dollies are "driven or drawn by mechanical power" and "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways," NHTSA considers them to be "motor vehicles." As such, your pole trailer dollies must meet all the requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In your letter, you list the following five factors you believe the agency should consider in determining whether your pole trailer dollies are motor vehicles:

1. Whether the vehicle will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.
2. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.
3. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.
4. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads.
5. Whether states or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

The agency considers those five factors when determining whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road capabilities and when there is little or no evidence regarding the extent of the vehicle's on-road use. Since your pole trailer dollies are manufactured primarily for on-road use, we need not consider these factors.

You state that your pole trailer dollies have been designed to comply with the relevant federal motor vehicle safety standards, except two requirements of Standard No. 121, "Air Brake Systems." The air brakes on your pole trailer dollies do not meet the brake actuation and brake release times required by Standard No. 121. The standard requires a brake actuation time of .60 second, but your pole trailer dollies achieve only .75 second. The standard also requires a brake release time of 1.2 second, but your pole trailer dollies achieve only 1.3 second.

Under these circumstances, you may apply for a temporary exemption under 49 CFR Part 555. This regulation allows manufacturers to obtain a temporary exemption from Federal motor vehicle safety standards on the basis of substantial economic hardship, facilitation of the development of new motor vehicle safety or low-emission engine features, or existence of an equivalent level of motor vehicle safety. You may wish to consider applying for a temporary exemption on the basis of substantial economic hardship or the existence of an equivalent level of motor vehicle safety.

If you apply for a temporary exemption, NHTSA will publish the application in the Federal Register and give the public an opportunity to comment on the application. The agency then will determine whether the application contains adequate justification, grant or deny the temporary exemption, notify you of the decision in writing, and publish the decision and the reasons for it in the Federal Register.

I note that NHTSA received a letter dated May 3, 1999, from Lockheed Martin concerning two trailers purchased from your company. In that letter, Lockheed Martin stated that the two trailers did not meet the requirements of Standard No. 121 and requested an exemption for the two trailers, which the agency denied. I have enclosed a copy of our reply to Lockheed Martin.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, you may contact Mr. Dion Casey in the Office of the Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:121
d.1/25/01

ID: MULTISTG.UPS

Mr. Thomas S. Klingman
Motor Carrier Tax Manager
United Parcel Service
55 Glenlake Parkway NE
Atlanta, GA 30328

Dear Mr. Klingman:

This is in response to your letter dated January 26, 1996, in which you requested that this office clarify which party is responsible for odometer disclosure under Federal law when the disclosure involves a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages. Your letter states that United Parcel Service (UPS) has encountered differing interpretations from several jurisdictions when it registers these vehicles.

Under the Federal odometer law, it is the person transferring ownership of a motor vehicle who is obliged to disclose the odometer reading under Federal law. 49 U.S.C. 32705; 49 CFR 580.5(c). Accordingly, the answer to your question of whether it is the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or the final-stage manufacturer that must disclose the mileage on the odometer hinges on the meaning of the terms "transferor" and "motor vehicle" as applied to the Federal odometer disclosure requirements.

Section 32702(8) of Title 49 of the United States Code states that "transfer" of a motor vehicle means "to change ownership by sale, gift, or other means." In its implementing regulations, NHTSA has defined "transferor" as "any person who transfers ownership of a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than the creation of a security interest." Under Part C of Subtitle VI of Title 49 of the United States Code, the definition of "motor vehicle" that applies to the Federal odometer law is:

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

49 U.S.C. 32101(7).

According to your letter, UPS purchases the chassis of its vehicles from various chassis manufacturers, and then the chassis is shipped to a body manufacturer, which installs the body on the chassis. The body manufacturer never obtains ownership of the chassis. Accordingly, the only transfer of ownership that takes place between the body manufacturer and UPS is the sale of the body to UPS. This is not a transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle as that term is defined for purposes of the Federal odometer law, because the body alone is not "driven or drawn by mechanical power." This interpretation is also supported by NHTSA's regulation, which exempts vehicles that are not self-propelled from the odometer disclosure requirements of 49 CAR Part 580. 49 CAR 580.6(a)(2). From the outset, NHTSA has exempted transfers of such vehicles from the odometer disclosure requirements because it determined that for this category of vehicles, odometer mileage is not used as a guide for value, because most non-self-propelled vehicles lack an odometer. 38 Fed. Reg. 2978-79 (Jan. 31, 1973).

Therefore, the states that require odometer disclosure when the chassis is transferred from the chassis manufacturer to UPS are following the correct procedure under Federal odometer law. Any state that does not require disclosure for that transfer is not following the correct procedure under Federal law. Federal law does not require any odometer disclosure at the time that the body manufacturer transfers ownership of the body to UPS. A state may on its own decide to impose this as an additional requirement to register the vehicle, but it is not a requirement of the Federal law, and such a disclosure would not have to comply with the Federal regulations governing odometer disclosure statements.

I hope this interpretation is responsive to your request. If you have further questions concerning interpretation of the Federal odometer statute and regulations, please contact

Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at the above address, or at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

ref:580

d:3/21/96

ID: nht80-2.20

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 24, 1980

Mr. James W. Lawrence White Motor Corporation 35129 Curtis Boulevard Eastlake, Ohio 44094

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This responds to your letters dated March 11, 1980, and March 21, 1980, asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

Your first question relates to the number sequentially assigned to the vehicle by the manufacturer as required by S5.5.3.3 of the standard. You wish to know whether after assigning a number to a vehicle prior to its manufacture, the number may be cancelled if the vehicle is not actually manufactured. The answer is yes. This is permissible under the standard so long as the number is not reassigned to another vehicle, thereby destroying the sequence.

You also wish to know if White may assign a vehicle identification number to glider kits which it manufactures. Section 571.7(e) and (f) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations set forth the criteria for determining whether the vehicle created from a glider kit is to be considered a new vehicle or the original vehicle. If the vehicle is considered new, it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the requirement that a new vehicle identification number be assigned (Standard No. 115). If, however, the vehicle is not considered new, the vehicle identification number originally issued for the vehicle must be the one that is assigned. (See section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended.)

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 11, 1980 Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: FMVSS-115 Request for Interpretation - S 4.5.3.3 Sequential Assignment of Serial Numbers

Dear Mr. Berndt:

White Motor Corporation sequentially assigns serial numbers by customer to enhance problem reporting, repair parts purchasing, vehicle licensing and defect recall. When a customer orders 50 vehicles, the attributes of which are identical, the 50 serial numbers will be sequential and assigned only to those vehicles. During the manufacturing process, if all or part of the order is cancelled, the serial numbers assigned to the unbuilt vehicles are cancelled and not reissued for any other vehicle. The remaining numbers as well as those in preceeding and subsequent customer orders are therefore sequential even though not every number is used.

The preamble discussion on page 36451 of the August 17, 1978 Federal Register addressing the issue of some manufacturers desiring to keep confidential the total number of vehicles manufactured is, in our opinion, a corrolary to this condition. White believes, and requests confirmation that, the requirement for sequential assignment does not also require the use of every number in the sequence.

Sincerely,

WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

James W. Lawrence, Manager Engineering Reliability & Government Standards Dept.

JWL/cjb

March 21, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: FMVSS-115 Request for Interpretation Vehicle Identification Numbers for Glider Kits

Dear Mr. Berndt:

White Motor Corporation manufactures Glider Kits which are sold through its Service Department for use in rebuilding used and wrecked vehicles. FMVSS-115 does not apply to these kits because they are not new vehicles as manufactured.

There are, however, some states which allow the rebuilt vehicle to carry the identity of the kit, rather than that of the scrapped vehicle. To facilitate the registration of these vehicles, White issues a Manufacturers' Statement of Origin and a vehicle identification number. Registration as a White also provides traceability for recall should the need arise.

White believes, and requests confirmation that, although the standard does not apply to these vehicles, the standard does not prohibit the application of VIN to a Glider Kit.

Sincerely,

WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

James W. Lawrence, Manager Engineering Reliability & Government Standards Dept.

JWL/cjb

ID: 15228.drn

Mr. Jim Griffith
Beaudry Ford, Inc.
141 Piedmont Avenue, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30303

Dear Mr. Griffith:

This responds to your May 9, 1997, request for an opinion whether your dealership must retrofit a 15- passenger Ford Club Wagon to meet the school bus standards if you wish to sell the vehicle to an organization transporting adults for medical care. The answer to your question is that NHTSA does not require a dealer to sell a school bus to a noneducational organization that will use the vehicle to transport adults. State law regulates how the adults are to be transported.

Your letter stated you wish to sell a vehicle to "Sheltering Arms." In a telephone conversation, you explained to Dorothy Nakama of my staff that "Sheltering Arms" is an Atlanta charity providing medical assistance and drug rehabilitation for adults. Sheltering Arms does not provide education of any kind.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Under 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., a "school bus" is any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary"students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125.

Since Sheltering Arms will not be transporting "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events, the 15-passenger van that your dealership wants to sell need not be a school bus. However, states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, and Georgia law may affect Sheltering Arms' use of vans. Sheltering Arms may wish to contact the Georgia state department of motor vehicles to learn about any State requirements applicable to vehicles used to transport adults that need medical care.

You also note that 15-passenger Club Wagons are used by charitable organizations, churches, and schools, and ask "are these units in violation of the law." Vehicle use (even for schools) is a matter of State law. As to whether a dealer is required to sell a school bus rather than a conventional van, the answer depends in part on whether the institution is a school. Enclosed are several interpretation letters that NHTSA has issued that define "school" in specific situations. These letters are dated: September 6, 1991, and May 29, 1991, to Ms. Vel McCaslin (after-school programs); May 30, 1995, to Ms. Barbara Bailey (camp not affiliated with a school); and October 4, 1994, to Mr. Ashpy Lowrimore (church-operated after-school program).

You also ask for our comments on a draft affidavit form that you would have purchasers sign in sales of new 15-passenger vans, affirming that the vehicle will not be used to transport students to and from school or related events. We encourage your efforts to ascertain the intended use of the vehicles. Please note, however, that having buyers fill out and sign the affidavit will not necessarily insulate a dealership from NHTSA's enforcement actions (under Federal law) for selling new vehicles that do not meet school bus standards, if, for example, a dealer knows that the affidavit is false or misleading. Also, the extent to which this document can protect you from potential liability under State law will depend on Georgia law.

We would suggest a few clarifications of the document, for your consideration. The first paragraph refers to "The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966." The Act was recodified in 1994. It may now be referred to as: "Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety." Your second paragraph basically states that 571.3 prohibits the sale or lease of any vehicle designed for 11 persons, for school transportation. It would be more accurate to state NHTSA's legal requirement as: "Title 49 of the United States Code, Section 30112(a), requires any person selling or offering for lease any new vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be used significantly to transport students to or from school or related events, to sell or lease a vehicle that meets the Federal safety standards applicable to school buses."

For your information, I am also enclosing copies of NHTSA's publications, "Dealers' Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements," and "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/16/97

ID: nht95-6.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS G. MOORE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, with respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses.

You believe that "by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, "If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a 'Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request'".

Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, one applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more.

Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inches. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On September 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted.

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

ID: nht95-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS G. MOORE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, with respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses.

You believe that "by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, "If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a 'Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request'".

Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, one applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more.

Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inche s. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On Septemb er 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted.

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

ID: 1124

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
President
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, with respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses.

You believe that "by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, "If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a `Petition for Change of FMVSS #108 Request'".

Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, one applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more.

Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inches. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for

turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On September 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:9/20/95

ID: nht95-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard L. Russell

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/15/95 letter from Rick Russell to Blane Laubis

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of November 15, 1995, to Blane Laubis of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal lighting regulations as they may affect your plans to modify your 1956 Jeep.

You wish to add two additional auxiliary lights to supplement your upper beams, and you ask whether these lights are "required to be DOT approved." The answer is no; the DOT regulation on motor vehicle lighting (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment does not prescribe requirements for lamps intended to supplement the headlamps, and thus the lamps of which you speak do not have to be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. As a matter of informa tion, your use of the words "DOT approved" reflects a common misconception. We have no authority to approve or disapprove lighting equipment. Under our statute, a lighting (or vehicle) manufacturer is required to certify that its equipment (or vehicle) meets Standard No. 108 (if it is replacement equipment included in the standard), and the use of the DOT symbol on the item is the most frequently used method of certification. This means that the "DOT approved" headlamps on your 1956 Jeep are probably replacement sealed beams with DOT markings on them.

You ask whether there is any limitation to bulb wattage for auxiliary lamps used to supplement the headlamps when used on the upper beam. There is no wattage limitation; however, if auxiliary lamps were installed by the dealer on a new vehicle before it s first sale, we would regard the vehicle manufacturer's certification as negated if the brightness and location of the auxiliary lamps were such as to affect an oncoming driver's ability to perceive the front turn signals.

Although your Jeep was manufactured long before the effective date of Standard No. 108 (January 1, 1969), we ask you to consider this safety concern when adding auxiliary lamps. We do not know the local laws on this subject, and recommend that you seek advice from the Department of California Highway Patrol.

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will answer them for you (phone 202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-7.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard L. Russell

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/15/95 letter from Rick Russell to Blane Laubis

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of November 15, 1995, to Blane Laubis of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal lighting regulations as they may affect your plans to modify your 1956 Jeep.

You wish to add two additional auxiliary lights to supplement your upper beams, and you ask whether these lights are "required to be DOT approved." The answer is no; the DOT regulation on motor vehicle lighting (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment does not prescribe requirements for lamps intended to supplement the headlamps, and thus the lamps of which you speak do not have to be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. As a matter of information, your use of the words "DOT approved" reflects a common misconception. We have no authority to approve or disapprove lighting equipment. Under our statute, a lighting (or vehicle) manufacturer is required to certify that its equipment (or vehicle) meets Standard No. 108 (if it is replacement equipment included in the standard), and the use of the DOT symbol on the item is the most frequently used method of certification. This means that the "DOT approved" headlamps on your 1956 Jeep are probably replacement sealed beams with DOT markings on them.

You ask whether there is any limitation to bulb wattage for auxiliary lamps used to supplement the headlamps when used on the upper beam. There is no wattage limitation; however, if auxiliary lamps were installed by the dealer on a new vehicle before its first sale, we would regard the vehicle manufacturer's certification as negated if the brightness and location of the auxiliary lamps were such as to affect an oncoming driver's ability to perceive the front turn signals.

Although your Jeep was manufactured long before the effective date of Standard No. 108 (January 1, 1969), we ask you to consider this safety concern when adding auxiliary lamps. We do not know the local laws on this subject, and recommend that you seek advice from the Department of California Highway Patrol.

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will answer them for you (phone 202-366-5263).

ID: 11371

Mr. Richard L. Russell
12475 Central Avenue
Suite 352
Chino, CA 91710

Dear Mr. Russell:

This responds to your FAX of November 15, 1995, to Blane Laubis of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal lighting regulations as they may affect your plans to modify your 1956 Jeep.

You wish to add two additional auxiliary lights to supplement your upper beams, and you ask whether these lights are "required to be DOT approved." The answer is no; the DOT regulation on motor vehicle lighting (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment does not prescribe requirements for lamps intended to supplement the headlamps, and thus the lamps of which you speak do not have to be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. As a matter of information, your use of the words "DOT approved" reflects a common misconception. We have no authority to approve or disapprove lighting equipment. Under our statute, a lighting (or vehicle) manufacturer is required to certify that its equipment (or vehicle) meets Standard No. 108 (if it is replacement equipment included in the standard), and the use of the DOT symbol on the item is the most frequently used method of certification. This means that the "DOT approved" headlamps on your 1956 Jeep are probably replacement sealed beams with DOT markings on them.

You ask whether there is any limitation to bulb wattage for auxiliary lamps used to supplement the headlamps when used on the upper beam. There is no wattage limitation; however, if auxiliary lamps were installed by the dealer on a new vehicle before its first sale, we would regard the vehicle manufacturer's certification as negated if the brightness and location of the auxiliary lamps were such as to affect an oncoming driver's ability to perceive the front turn signals.

Although your Jeep was manufactured long before the effective date of Standard No. 108 (January 1, 1969), we ask you to

consider this safety concern when adding auxiliary lamps. We do not know the local laws on this subject, and recommend that you seek advice from the Department of California Highway Patrol.

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will answer them for you (phone 202-366- 5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:12/22/95