ID: nht90-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

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

TO: JERRY W. MOONEY -- RESIDENT IN CHARGE, DEPT. OF THE TREASURY, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE TITLE: FILE SV08PLOSV001

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-29-90 TO STEVEN WOOD FROM JERRY W. MOONEY; (OCC 4612) TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1990, with respect to your investigation of the importation of 17 M151A2 military jeeps from Canada. The jeeps were imported as "parts" rather than as vehicles, shipped intact inside containers "and covered w ith parts."

You have asked three questions:

1. "We are of the understanding that a list does not exist naming certain vehicles as being noncomplying. If not, what is the procedure to determine if a vehicle complies to DOT standards?"

Your understanding is correct; no list of nonconforming vehicles exists. No procedure per se exists to determine if a vehicle meets DOT standards. However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each motor vehicle must bear the permanen tly-affixed certification of its manufacturer that it complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied to it on its date of manufacture. The presence of the certification label gives rise to, the presumption that the vehicle meets D OT Standards, and vehicles offered for importation bearing the certification label are admitted into the United states as complying vehicles.

2. "We are of the understanding that the M151A2 does not comply to DOT standards. What makes it a noncomplying vehicle?"

The M151A2 jeep was not certified as conforming to Federal standards. The lack of certification raises a presumption of nonconformance with all standards. Whether it did, in fact, meet some or all of those standards is a question to which we do not have the answer.

3. Does the fact that the M151A2 was manufactured for DOD make it a noncomplying vehicle?

No. Under the regulations of this agency, no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in compliance with contractual specifications. Although this relieves the manufacturer of the legal obligation of compliance, he may nevertheless choose to manufacture his vehicle in conformance with one or more standards. As I said in response to your second question, we have no knowledge as to the M151A2's state of com pliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions. Although the importation of these vehicles appears to be a violation of the regulations of this agency (the failure to file a declaration), it is only a technical one, since no Federal motor vehicle safe ty standard applied to the jeeps at the time of their manufacture. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the safety implications of this importation.

For many years, the Department of Defense, with the encouragement of this agency, has maintained the policy that all M151 vehicles must be scrapped at the end of their useful military life in a manner such that they cannot be reassembled for use on the p ublic roads. Over the years, these vehicles have exhibited a tendency to roll over, even when operated by drivers specifically trained in their correct usage. Consequently, it has been deemed in the interests of safety to ensure that they will not be o perated by untrained drivers on the public roads. While exportation of unscrapped M151s to Canada initially removed the threat to safety in the United States, their importation into this country renews that threat. Thus, we support your investigative e fforts. We understand that, under Customs procedures, merchandise entered fraudulently may be redelivered for export, or seized by Customs. If the vehicles are seized, we recommend their export or destruction, rather than disposal by sale at auction or by use by Customs personnel in the performance of their duties.

ID: nht90-2.28

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Richard L. Martinez -- Santa Fe Insurance Agency , Inc.

TITLE: Europa International, Inc

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated March 9, 1990 To Talyor Vinson and From Richard L. Martinez (OCC 4529)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of March 9, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to "the $2,000 liability policy, that you discussed with him. You have asked four questions with respect to this subject on behalf of a client who intends to apply for recognition as a registered importer by this agency, and as an independent commercial importer (ICI) under EPA regulations. Initially, let me provide you with some background information. under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, specifically Title 15, United States Code, Section 1397(c)(3)(d) (ii), the Department of Transportation is required to prescribe by regulation "provisions for ensuring that the [registered] importer (or any successor in interest) will be able technically and financially to carry out the importer's responsibilities under part B of this title (relating to discovery, notification, and remedy of defects)." These responsibilities primarily are to notify vehicle owners in the event that either a safety related defect or a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist in the owner's vehicle, and to remedy the situation.

In developing a regulation to implement the statutory requirement, the agency examined the regulations of the EPA pertaining to ICIs. In a final rule published on September 25, 1987 (52 FR 36136), EPA required ICIs to provide to vehicle or engine owners warranties, and to ensure that the warranties "are insured by a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance company", and "are transferable to each successive owner . . . ." (40 CFR 85.1510(b)(2)). In commenting on EPA'S proposed regulation, the State of California had noted that CARB's own new regulation addressing non-conforming vehicles required modifiers to post a prepaid surety bond in the amount of $1,000 per vehicle to cover its obligation to perform recalls, or alternatively, to purchase insurance which will cover the modifier's recall obligation. The Department of Transportation, wishing to conform as closely as possible to procedures already in practice for grey market importers who were ICIs, proposed and adopted 49 CFR 592.6(h), requiring registered importers to "maintain in effect a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance complany as a guarantor of its performance under paragraph (f) of this section." (which relates to notification and remedy).

With this background in mind, I shall reply to your four questions: "1. Is it required that the term of the policy be for eight years from the date of purchase/sale?" In essence, yes. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers are required to provide remedy without charge for a period of 8 years following the first purchase of a vehicle (however, there is no limit on the time for notification). The general requirement for registered importers, established by Section 592.6(f)(2)(i), is that the obligation to provide remedy without charge shall not apply if the noncompliance or safety related defect exists in a motor vehicle whose first sale after importation occurred more than 8 calendar years before notification respecting the failure to comply is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners. However, during the 8-year period following sale after importation, the registered importer is not obligated to provide repair without charge if two factors are present. The first is that tbe condition is a safety related defect that is attributable solely to the original manufacturer of the vehicle, and not to the registered importer. The second is that the date of the original first purchase of the vehicle, if known, or, if not known, the date of manufacture, as determined by the Department of Transportation, is more than 8 years from the date on which notification is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners. "2. The limit is $2,000. Would that apply annually or would it be for the entire eight-year period? The reason for this question is that the companies are wondering whether or not this is a cumulative limit, e.g., $2,000 x eight years = $16,000."

The purpose of the policy is to ensure that any noncompliance or safety related defect that is determined to exist in a vehicle may be remedied without charge to the vehicle owner. If the registered importer is financially unable to effect remedy, then the policy is intended to cover the cost of remedy. The most usual form of remedy is repair. Pursuant to comments received during the course of rulemaking that $2,000 appeared to be the uppermost sum necessary to repair a single noncompliance or safety related defect, the agency adopted section 592.5(a)(8) stating that the policy is in an amount that equals $2,000 for each motor vehicle . . . ." The answer to your question can be expressed in the following example. If a registered importer becomes insolvent in the second year following sale of the vehicle, for the next 6 years the policy should be available to any owner of the vehicle to cover the costs of repairing any safety related defect or noncompliance determined to exist in the vehicle, with a limit of $2,000 on the cost of correcting any such defect or noncompliance covered by a single campaign. 3 Records of past remedial campaigns are available if insurance companies wish to study the types of noncompliances and safety related defects that have occurred over the years, as well as the model and model years involved. In our judgment, the cost of each repair has been far less than $2,000. If repair is impossible, alternative forms of remedy established by statute are replacement with a vehicle of equivalent value, or repurchase of a vehicle. Obviously this form of remedy cannot occur if the registered importer has gone out of business. "3. You mentioned that the policy was to cover non-compliance or safety defect situations. What are areas to be covered: emissions controls, latent defects, brake problems, warranty situations such as drive train, etc.?" Each system, part, or component of a motor vehicle is covered by the remedial authority. If a component is part of a system necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and the vehicle does not comply with that standard because of the design or manufacture of that component, replacement of the component with a satisfactory one would be the object of a remedial campaign. For example, if a vehicle could not meet the stopping distance requirement of Standard No. 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, and that failure was due to the inadequacy of the brake lining the object of the campaign would be to recall all affected vehicles and replace the brake lining with one by which the vehicle would comply. The statute defines a defect as one that is inclusive of any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials in motor veicles or motor vehicle equipment. But only defects that are determined to be safety related require correction. The question of whether a defect is safety related depends upon the facts of the individual case. Generally, defects in emission controls are not safety related, nor are "warranty situations such as drive trains". Determinations of the existence of noncompliances or safety related defects are made by the registered importer, the Department of Transportation, or the original manufacturer of the vehicle. "4. Europa is looking into whether or not MBNA would provide a warranty policy (for tbe G-wagon multipurpose passenger vehicle not sold in the United states) as they currently do for their private passenger vehicles. The present warranty covers for a 12/12 plan. If they were to extend this, is it possible that that could be acceptable as an alternative to the $2,000 limit? We doubt that MBNA would be willing to extend any type of warranty to a vehicle that is not originally manufactured by its parent company to comply with Federal safety standards, that it does not import, and that is not sold through its dealers. Further, such a vehicle could not be imported into the United States unless the Department of Transportation had determined that it was capable conformance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 4 However, assuming that the G-wagon is deemed eligible for entry and that MBNA is willing to extend a warranty to it, there is no legal reason why MBNA could not assume responsibility for remedial work without charge in the event the registered importer were unable to provide it, whether in the form of an express warranty, or other document. I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht90-2.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel.,NHTSA

TO: Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-21-90 To Taylor Vinson and From Dipl.- H. Westermann; (OCC 4484); Also attached to letter dated 2- 7-90 To Richard van Iderstine and From Dipl.- H. Westermann.

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 21, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety standard No. 108 with respect to whether two designs for center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) you enclosed are permissible. You wish to know whether tbe ECE definition of "lamp unity" can be applied, and whether the designs form a CHMSL unity in the sense of Standard NO. 108. The question, as we see it, is not whether the ECE definition can be applied, but whether the two designs you submitted would meet the clearly expressed requirements of standard No. 108. The standard requires that there be a single lamp, that it have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, that its signal be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and that it provide specified minimum photometric values at 13 specific test points. The design represented in Enclosure 1 appears to pass through the center of the lamp, at the H-V test point, thus affecting compliance of the lamp. Measurement at test points can only be determined by photometric testing. The design represented in Enclosure 2 would not comply with the standard. It is, in effect, two lamps mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline. standard No. 108 requires a single lamp, to be mounted on the vertical centerline.

ID: nht90-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

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

TO: HERBERT E. STOEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-1-90 TO JOHN WOMACK FROM HERBERT E. STOEL ATTACHED; (OCC-4406). ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED 12-30-87 TO KEN SIKKEMA FROM HERBERT E. STOEL. TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to John Womack of this office, suggesting that the color of taillamps on motor vehicles be green.

The agency is concerned about methods to effectively improve rear lighting and signaling. The issues involved include lamp size, location, operation, combinations and separation, and color. We are learning that changes in lamp function, operation, and c olor should be approached in a conservative fashion, so as not to confuse the operators of other vehicles.

With specific respect to use of the color green on rear lighting equipment, we are aware that some research suggests a green/red color scheme may enhance driver performance. In such systems, a green lamp indicates that the accelerator pedal is applied, amber that the foot has been lifted from the accelerator pedal, and red, that the brake is being applied. Some years ago, an experiment was conducted with such a system using transit buses in the D.C. area. The results were inconclusive. Although some research suggests a possible improvement in driver performance with green/red lamps, there are no data addressing the possible driver confusion that might arise from multiple color lighting arrays.

Thank you for your suggestion to enhance motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht90-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/25/90

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

TO: LARRY F. WORT -- BUREAU OF SAFETY PROGRAMS DIVISION OF TRAFFIC SAFETY ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/27/90 FROM LARRY F. WORT -- ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO TAYLOR VINSON -- DOT; OCC 4613; FORD RATIONALE FOR FMVSS 108 COMPLIANCE BY CLARKS GORTA -- FORD DATED 03/19/90

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to Federal requirements for front side marker lamps on trucks. The Ford C-CT Series Cab is equipped with a reflex reflector (apparently mounted on the door, to judge by the Exhibit A that you enclosed), but does not have a separate front side marker lamp. Ford states that it uses "the roof mounted corner marker lamps to satisfy the side marker lamp requirements", and that they satisfy photometry and all oth er Federal requirements. You have asked whether "the top of the cab clearance light [may] be used to fulfill the requirements for front side market lights. . . on cab over engine vehicles."

The answer is yes. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not prohibit combining the front side marker lamp with any other lamp, and prohibits a front clearance lamp only from being optic ally combined with a front identification lamp (section S5.4, formerly S4.4). Although, under Table II of Standard No. 108, Location of Required Equipment, a front side marker reflector may not be mounted higher than 60 inches from the road surface, the re is no corresponding limitation on the mounting height of front side marker lamps, which would preclude it from being located on top of the cab. The marker lamp must be located "as far to the front as practicable", and the agency generally defers to t he manufacturer's discretion in determining whether a location is practicable, unless it is clearly erroneous. Judging by the location of the combination clearance-side marker lamp shown in Exhibit A that you enclosed, we have no reason to question Ford 's decision to locate the lamp there.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht90-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/25/90

FROM: RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH -- PRESIDENT SAFETY PREMIUMS

TO: JOHN MESSERA -- NHTSA

TITLE: AUTOMOBILE TRIANGLE DEVICE AUTOMOBILE TRIANGLE DEVICE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/05/90 FROM STEPHEN WOOD -- NHTSA TO RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH -- SAFETY PREMIUMS, ON A 35, STD 125

TEXT: One of your associates provided us with a copy of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #125 while you were away from the office.

The standard was called to our attention since we have marketed for years a Signal Glo Car Mirror warning device, as described in the enclosed literature. Included in those products were two different triangle shapes.

One of our customers, who is in the retail automotive trade, has asked us to develop a larger size warning triangle for mounting on a car mirror for possible retail sales.

As our triangle gets larger, we wish to make sure that it is not confused with the roadside truck version described in the Standard #125. In addition, we would like to make sure that our instructions for use are clear and in no way conflict with the sta ndard.

A sample of our earliest Signal Glo triangle, and our prototype new larger size "Light at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle are enclosed for your information.

We would appreciate any comments or assistance you may be able to give us.

[BROCHURE OMITTED]

ID: nht90-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1990

FROM: Peter K. Brown -- President, KC HiLites, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-2-90 to Peter Brown from Paul J. Rice; (A35; Std. 108) TEXT:

I am writing for your comments and approval regarding an Automotive Lighting product that our company intends to market.

The headlight systems on many late model vehicles operate differently than in the past. The low beams are extinguished when the high beam units are in use. This was done to reduce the foreground light of the low beams when the high beams are in use. I n actual use, having both systems operating in the high beam mode is superior.

With this in mind, I have studied paragraph 5.5.8 of the Federal Register Volume 54, No. 88 dated May 9, 1989. I interpret this to mean that headlights of a specific type, when used in a 4 headlight system, can all be illuminated at the same time on Hig h Beam.

The intended packaging, product and retail header card are enclosed for your inspection. I welcome any suggestions or comments that you may have. As these are prototype packages, will you please return them with your comments.

Our product catalog is enclosed to give you some idea of our company and products. Thanks for your help.

ID: nht90-2.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 26, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Joan E. Fogelman -- Lund & Pollara, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-2-90 To Taylor Vinson and From Stephen P. Wood; (OCC 4602)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of April 2, 1990, to Taylor vinson of this Office, with reference to a 1985 Mercedes-Benz 280SE sedan being imported from the Bahamas temporarily, for the purpose of repair. You have stated that "U.S. Customs wants a reassura nce that they will not be held accountable if for some unforseen happening, this vehicle is not properly exported."

Although the new DOT vehicle importation regulations effective January 31, 1990, make no specific provision for temporary importation of a nonconforming motor vehicle for repairs, when such a vehicle is owned by a nonresident of the United States and reg istered in a country other than the U.S., it is acceptable to this agency for the nonresident owner to enter it under the provisions of 49 CFR 591.5(d), the declaration by an importer who provides his passport number and country of issue that he is a non resident importing the vehicle for personal use for a period not to exceed one year and will not sell the vehicle during that time. Such an entry is not accompanied by the new DOT conformance bond, which is required only for entries pursuant to 591.5(f) and (g).

I do not know what Customs means by being held "accountable" if the vehicle is not properly exported. You have stated that it will be accompanied by a Customs bond, and I assume that if the terms of that bond are violated Customs will take whatever enfor cement action against the vehicle and its owner is deemed appropriate under the bond.

ID: nht90-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/26/90

FROM: KENNETH E. TOMPOR -- AUTO BROKERS AND LEASING LTD

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TITLE: IMPORT OF 1985 FERRARI 288 GTO AS OF TODAY, APRIL 26, 1990

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/30/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO KENNETH E. TOMPOR; REDBOOK A35; PART 593; LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM KEN TOMPOR -- AUTO BROKERS AND LEASING TO JOSEPH THRASHER -- NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT

TEXT: IN 1988, I PURCHASED FROM A MR. RAYMOND DEANGELO IN LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA THE ABOVE MENTIONED FERRARI, SERIAL #54245. THE CAR WAS PAID FOR ON OCTOBER 10, 1988 AND WHILE TRANSPORTATION WAS BEING ARRANGED TO MYSELF IN MICHIGAN, MR. DEANGELO REMOVED THE V EHICLE FROM MY LOS ANGELES STORAGE AREA "AS HE CHANGED HIS MIND". THE VEHICLE AND MONIES HAVE NOT BEEN RETURNED, AND AS YOU MAY HAVE GUESSED A LAWSUIT WAS INITIATED. MY COURT CASE AGAINST MR DEANGELO WILL BEGIN TUESDAY, MAY FIRST, IN FEDERAL COURT, AND I NEED AT THAT DATE A LETTER STATING THAT THAT VEHICLE TODAY CANNOT BE BROUGHT INTO THE UNITED STATES LEGALLY. WE ARE SUEING TO GET THE VEHICLE, NOT MONETARY DAMAGES, AND NEED TO SPECIFY THE UNIQUENESS OF IT IN THAT IT CANNOT BE REPLACED LEGALLY TODAY.

MR. TAYLOR VINSON HAS GIVEN ME YOUR NAME AND ASSURED ME THAT YOU WOULD BE SO KIND AS TO FURNISH ME WITH A LETTER TO SUBSTAINIATE THIS STATEMENT. I WOULD APPRECIATE FAX-BACK ON MONDAY 4-30, AS CASE BEGINS ON MAY 1, 1990 THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE, I REMAINI N 1988, I PURCHASED FROM A MR. RAYMOND DEANGELO IN LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA THE ABOVE MENTIONED FERRARI, SERIAL #54245. THE CAR WAS PAID FOR ON OCTOBER 10, 1988 AND WHILE TRANSPORTATION WAS BEING ARRANGED TO MYSELF IN MICHIGAN, MR. DEANGELO REMOVED THE VE HICLE FROM MY LOS ANGELES STORAGE AREA "AS HE CHANGED HIS MIND". THE VEHICLE AND MONIES HAVE NOT BEEN RETURNED, AND AS YOU MAY HAVE GUESSED A LAWSUIT WAS INITIATED. MY COURT CASE AGAINST MR DEANGELO WILL BEGIN TUESDAY, MAY FIRST, IN FEDERAL COURT, AND I NEED AT THAT DATE A LETTER STATING THAT THAT VEHICLE TODAY CANNOT BE BROUGHT INTO THE UNITED STATES LEGALLY. WE ARE SUEING TO GET THE VEHICLE, NOT MONETARY DAMAGES, AND NEED TO SPECIFY THE UNIQUENESS OF IT IN THAT IT CANNOT BE REPLACED LEGALLY TODAY.

MR. TAYLOR VINSON HAS GIVEN ME YOUR NAME AND ASSURED ME THAT YOU WOULD BE SO KIND AS TO FURNISH ME WITH A LETTER TO SUBSTAINIATE THIS STATEMENT. I WOULD APPRECIATE FAX-BACK ON MONDAY 4-30, AS CASE BEGINS ON MAY 1, 1990 THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE, I REMAIN

ID: nht90-2.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 27, 1990

FROM: Kent D. Smith

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to K.D. Smith (A36; Std. 108); Also attached to Federal Register, 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-89 Edition), pages 137, 138, 139, and 140 (text omitted)

TEXT:

I appreciated your response to my letter (locater number #4387). In my initial letter to you I described a device that could be used to inform following vehicles that their headlights were blinding you and that they needed to put them on low beam. This device consisted of a button that would activate the backup lights momentarily and would send the same message to the following driver as blinking the headlights up and down does to inform oncoming cars that they needed to dim their lights.

At the present time there are three methods that people use to inform following vehicles that their high beam in your rear view mirrors are making it difficult for you to drive. Some try taping their brakelights. This method is not effective because it is more universally accepted to mean that the following driver is tailgating. Another method which was pointed out in the cartoon that you sent me was that you slow down, let the offending driver pass and then put your lights on high and give him a tast e of his own medicine. This may make you feel better but it doesn't take care of the problem when it is happening. The most extreme method, but the one that gets the message across better than the other two, is what many truck drivers have done and in some cases people in private vehicles. In the case of truckers some have attached a spot light to their side mirror and when the following vehicle doesn't dim his lights he gives him a blast in the eyes with the spot light. The message is clear but it' s a dangerous way of putting the point across because of it's blinding effect on the driver of the following vehicle.

I realize that my device need not be a mandated part of newly manufactured cars but I believe that it has a place as an option for new cars as well as an after market item. There was some concern on your part that this device "might" impair the effectiv eness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 allows. Over the past number of years there have been several new devices added to the rear lighting system that have been an enhancement and not an impairment. Three of them that I have in mind are the turn signal, the four way emergency lights, and the brake light that is placed in the rear view window. I suppose that at the beginning there was some question as to what they meant but it didn't take the public long to understand the message they were trying to convey. I believe that the public would be equally as fast understanding the message that the "rear high beam awareness light" was trying to convey.

A Federal Standard, SAE J593e 4.2, states that "Backup lamps shall not be lighted when the vehicle is in forward motion". I believe that the intent of this law is to force people to repair their backup light system when the lights are stuck in an on pos ition. With my safety device the backup

lights would go on and off in a matter of a second or two so it would seem to me that the spirit of this law would not be violated. I feel that this would be a safe way of eliminating an annoying problem (high beams in your rear view mirrors) that up to now has not been resolved.

What steps would have to be taken in regards to this SAE Standard that would permit me to test market this product? In your legal opinion would I be in violation of any Federal Law by manufacturing and selling this device?

I again thank you for your time and patience and look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Please send your reply to: Kent D. Smith 12249 S. 1565 E. Draper Utah 84020

P.S. To save you the time of looking it up I'm enclosing my previous letter sent to your office Jan. 26, 1990. (Locater # 4387)