ID: nht71-3.38

DATE: 07/16/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 29, 1971, in which you ask who would be the manufacturer of a retreaded tire, when the tire is manufactured by a process, known as "cure out". You explain this process as one in which one retread shop will process a casing to the point where it would be placed in a mold for curing. The tire is then sent to a second shop for curing and subsequently returned as a finished product to the first retread shop.

You indicate that one of your members is now involved in a legal case, and the outcome apparently hinges on who is legally responsible for the performance of the tire.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.) and motor vehicle safety standards and regulations issued pursuant to the Act (49 CFR @ 551 et seq.) the manufacturer in the "cure out" process as described above, would be the second retread shop, the one which produces the finished product. It is he who would be required to assume responsibility for the compliance of the tire with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires", and it is also he who would be assigned a code mark pursuant to the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574).

2

However, the person we consider the manufacturer for purposes of the Act and regulations issued pursuant to the Act, may not be responsible for the tire in a civil suit, and our opinion is not intended to speak to the issue of liability in a civil action.

TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE

June 29, 1971

David Smeltzer National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Would you please give me in writing an interpretation of who is the legal manufacturer of a retread produced under the so-called "cure out" process. To refresh your mind a "cure out" is that operation whereby one retread shop will process a casing to the point where it would be placed in a mold for curing. At that stage the partially processed retread is sent to a second retread shop for curing and subsequently returned as a finished product to the first retread shop.

One of our members is now involved in a legal case and apparently the outcome hinges on who is legally responsible for the performance of the retread when it is sold to a consumer.

A timely response from you would be appreciated.

Philip H. Taft Director

ID: nht91-5.8

DATE: July 30, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Garth C. Bates, Jr.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-12-91 from Garth C. Bates, Jr. to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6225)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 12, 1991. In the letter, you ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has regulations concerning the construction or testing of compressed natural gas (CNG) automotive fuel tanks.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment nor endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, (49 CFR 571.301) specifies requirements for the integrity of motor vehicle fuel systems. However, that standard does not apply to vehicles that use only fuel with a boiling point below 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Since CNG has a boiling point well below this level, vehicles manufactured to be fueled only by CNG are not covered by the standard. You should be aware, however, that NHTSA recently discussed the possibility of establishing a fuel system integrity standard for vehicles using CNG in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The ANPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 1990 (55 FR 41561).

There are some requirements that are applicable to manufacturers of CNG automotive fuel tanks. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . .

Since your product would be manufactured for use as an automotive fuel tank, it would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. If either your company, as the equipment manufacturer,

or this agency were to determine that your product contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company would have to notify purchasers of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the ANPRM concerning possible fuel system integrity requirements for vehicles using CNG and an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

Attachments

NHTSA information sheet dated September 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. (Text omitted)

NHTSA information sheet dated September 1985 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. (Text omitted)

Copy of the Federal Register, volume 55, number 198, 10-12-90: proposed rules concerning 49 CFR Part 571, Fuel System Integrity; Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). (Text omitted)

ID: nht80-4.29

DATE: 12/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 10, 1980, concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether Ford may make a minor variation in the language specified in S5.5.2(g) for the label that must be permanently affixed to child restraints. As explained below, you may use the language proposed in your letter.

Section 5.5.1 of the standard requires that each child restraint be permanently labeled with specified information. Section 5.5.3 requires that the information specified in S5.5.2(g)-(k) must be displayed on the child restraint so that it is visible when the restraint is installed in the vehicle.

You state that the only information specified for the visible label that is applicable to the Ford "TOT GUARD" is the language in S5.5.2(g). That section provides that the child restraint must be labeled with the following words:

WARNING! FAILURE TO FOLLOW EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS CAN RESULT IN YOUR CHILD STRIKING THE VEHICLE'S INTERIOR DURING A SUDDEN STOP OR CRASH:

SECURE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT WITH A VEHICLE BELT AS SPECIFIED IN THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS LOCATED .

You are concerned that the above language may create potential confusion for users of the "TOT GUARD" since the user might be led to believe that more than one instruction is applicable. In your proposed revision, the word "each of" would be deleted from the warning and the word "instructions" would be changed to the singular.

Your proposed revision does not make any substantive change in the meaning of the warning specified for the label. Since the proposed change is a minor variation intended to clarify the language for restraints that only need to be labeled with one of the specified instructions, it is permitted.

SINCERELY,

Office of the General Counsel

Ford Motor Company

November 10, 1980

Stephen Oesch, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Oesch: In accordance with our telephone conversation this morning, I request confirmation that the following variation of the language specified in subsection S5.5.2(g) acceptably meets the requirements of subsection S5.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213.

WARNING! FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING [INSTRUCTIONS] CAN RESULT IN YOUR CHILD STRIKING THE VEHICLE'S INTERIOR DURING A SUDDEN STOP OR CRASH:

SECURE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT WITH A VEHICLE BELT AS SPECIFIED IN THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS LOCATED UNDER THE SEAT PAD.

None of the instructions specified in subsections S5.5.2(h) through (k) of Standard No. 213 is appropriate for the installation of Ford's "TOT GUARD" child restraint system. Accordingly, were our labelling to employ literally the language set forth in subsection S5.5.2(g), the user would be provided with a single cautionary instruction following the warning paragraph but led to believe by the warning paragraph that more than one instruction is applicable. To avoid potential confusion on this point, we propose to delete the words and letter bracketed and struck-through above and add the underlined language.

I am confident that the Administration will find Ford's proposed version of the warning and instruction language for its TOT GUARD label unobjectionable. I should appreciate, however, having your confirmation that this is the case.

D. G. McGuigan

CC: J. A. STARKEY

ID: aiam5379

"Dear Mr. Parker: Thank you for your letter on behalf of you constituent, Mr. George Duke of the Jones County School District, concerning your constituent's desire to install television monitors in school buses to air 'drug-free videos.' You asked whether the installation would be consistent with our school bus regulations. I am pleased to explain our school bus regulations. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 222, 'School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.' The standard has head impact protection requirements that require the area around a school bus passenger to be free of surfaces that could injure the child in a crash. All new school buses must be certified as complying with FMVSS No. 222. Our regulations do not prohibit Jones County from installing the video equipment in their school buses. Since the FMVSS only apply to new school buses, we do not require existing school buses to continue to meet FMVSS No. 222. Further, NHTSA does not regulate in any manner how individual owners choose to modify their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District may install the television monitors in its school buses without regard to whether the head impact protection requirements of FMVSS No. 222 are maintained. However, we would urge Jones County to install the television monitors safely. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization entails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and to ensure that the seating area is free from harmful structures. To protect school bus passengers, we suggest to Jones County that any video equipment installed on a school bus should be outside of an area that a school bus passenger might impact in a crash. Further, the equipment should be installed so that it does not become unsecured, especially during a crash where any projectile can be very dangerous to the vehicle occupants. We also note that the Safety Act limits how certain commercial businesses may modify new or existing school buses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with any FMVSS. If any of these parties installed the video equipment in a manner that rendered inoperative the compliance of the school bus with FMVSS No. 222, a possible violation of 108(a)(2)(A) could result. The 'render inoperative' provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District, the owner of the school buses, could install the equipment itself in its own shops without violating this or any other provision of the Safety Act. As mentioned above, NHTSA urges the school district to ensure that the equipment does not degrade the safety of the school buses, particularly with regard to the head impact protection provided by the buses. I hope this information will be helpful to you in responding to your constituent. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please feel free to contact John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, at this address or at (202) 366-9511. Sincerely, Christopher A. Hart Acting Administrator";

ID: nht67-1.7

DATE: 12/27/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Howard A. Heffron; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Federal Highway Administrator has asked me to reply to your letter of November 24, 1967, in which you asked whether tow cars (as defined in the California Vehicle Code), "emergency vehicles, and other specially designed vehicles" come within the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 prescribes requirements for lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. It applies, by its terms, to "trucks . . . that are 80 or more inches overall." As you point out, the term "truck" is broadly defined in Subpart A of the Standards and includes any "motor vehicle with motive power . . . designed primarily for transportation of property or special purpose equipment." There is nothing in the definition, nor is there any other reason, to exclude vehicles designed to tow or otherwise assist other disabled vehicles from the coverage of the Standard. Moreover, paragraph S3.4.4.2 of Standard No. 108 provides that "stoplamps on a towing vehicle need not be actuated when service brakes are applied to the towed vehicle or vehicles only." The adoption of specific requirements pertaining to vehicles being towed would indicate that no exclusion for tow cars or tow trucks was intended.

We conclude, therefore, that tow trucks and tow cars that are 80 or more inches wide overall must comply with the provisions of Standard No. 108. That Standard applies to vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. State standards, if any, would continue to apply to tow cars or trucks manufactured prior to that date. I also wish to point out that, by a formal interpretation (published at 32 F.S. 8803), the term "overall width" in Standard No. 108 has been deamed to refer to "the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, market lamps, outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps. . . ." We are presently considering an amendment which would extend Standard No. 108 to trucks having a width of less than 80 inches, but the Standard in its prevent form is limited to the larger trucks.

In your letter, you refer to "emergency vehicles" and "special purpose vehicles" and ask whether such vehicles are covered by Standard No. 108. Since you did not further describe the vehicles you had in mind, we cannot tell whether they are of a type which must meet the requirements of the Standard. Since you mention the possibility that some of these vehicles may be deemed "truck tractors," we wish to call your attention to the fact that Standard No. 108, by its terms, does not apply to truck tractors.

If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call upon us.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

November 24, 1967

Lowell K. Bridwell -- Federal Highway Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Bridwell:

A question has arisen concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 issued January 31, 1967, to tow cars.

A "tow car" is defined in the California Vehicle Code as "a motor vehicle which has been altered or designed and equipped for and exclusively used in the business of towing vehicles by means of a crane, hoist, tow bar, tow line, or dolly or is otherwise exclusively used to render assistance to other vehicles."

Although the definitions for "truck" and "truck tractor" included in Subpart A of Initial Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are broad, there appears to be a number of special purpose vehicles such as tow cars, emergency vehicles, and other specially designed vehicles which may not be included.

Will you please clarify for us the definition of "truck" and "truck tractor" with relation to the above special purpose vehicles.

Very truly yours,

H. W. SULLIVAN -- Commissioner

ID: aiam0590

Dear Mrs. Goliath: This is in reply to your letter of February 9, 1972, inquiring as t the length of time, after the manufacture of an automobile, that it must still comply with the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.' You indicate that due to the influence of cleaning or preservative agents, the flammability properties could change over a period of time.; The safety standards do not apply to a domestic vehicle after it ha been sold to a purchaser for purposes other than resale. Until this point of first sale, however, regardless of the time interval after manufacture, the vehicle must comply with the standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4090

Dear Mr. Luce: This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121 *Air Brake Systems*. You asked several questions relating to whether vehicles equipped with 'Mini-Max' brakes, a type of brake produced by your company, comply with the standard. Your questions are responded to below. We note that while Question 4 was not asked directly by your letter, the question is implicit with respect to one of the questions you did ask.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; *Question 1: Is delayed mechanical parking permissible under sectio S5.6.3 as long as the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 are satisfied?*; The second sentence of section S5.6.3 provides that '(o)nce applied the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means.' As discussed by a recent notice granting a petition for rulemaking submitted by the California Highway Patrol (copy enclosed), there are at least two issues relating to whether a braking system such as Mini-Max complies with these requirements.; The first issue is whether the system meets the requirements that onc applied, the parking brakes must be held solely be mechanical means. As currently designed, the Mini-Max parking brake can be held by air and not by mechanical means, solely or otherwise, for many hours. Indeed, since a driver will often park the vehicle for a period of time shorter than that required to obtain mechanical holding, there will be many instances when the vehicle is parked and the parking brake never is held by mechanical means. The second issue is whether the parking brakes are held in the applied position. With the current design of the Mini-Max braking system, the air pressure leaks down over time until the mechanical lock is activated. Since the position of the brake components necessarily changes during this time, resulting in reduced parking brake force, there is an issue whether the parking brake is being held in the applied position.; While NHTSA has never concluded that a brake system resulting in fals parking is safe or provided an interpretation that the current Mini-Max system complies with section S5.6.3, we recognize that some past interpretations, as well as one issued by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, could contribute to ambiguity concerning whether some of the features incorporated in the Mini-Max design are permitted by the standard. In light, of that ambiguity and for the other reasons discussed in the grant notice, NHTSA decided to grant the CHP petition to initiate rulemaking on the delayed mechanical park issue rather than issuing an interpretation whether or not such a brake system complies with these requirements.; *Question 2: Is an external pressure separation assembly consisting o a two-way check valve and accompanying steel hex nipple considered to be a component of a brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3 if the assembly is 'permanently bonded' to the housing?*; The answer to this question is no. Section S5.6.3 provides in relevan part that '(t)he parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (*except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing*).' (Emphasis added.) The dictionary defines 'housing' as 'a fully enclosed case and support for a mechanism.' See *Random House Dictionary of the English Language* (unabridged edition). Thus, the term 'brake chamber housing' refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. An external pressure separation assembly does not become part of the brake chamber housing merely because it is attached to the housing, whether by 'permanent bonding' or some other means. However, a brake chamber housing could be cast or molded to include a fitting, serving the same purpose as the external pressure assembly, as an integral part of the brake chamber housing.; *Question 3: Is an internal assembly consisting of a diaphragm with th brake chamber housing considered to be a component of the brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3?*; The answer to this question is no. As discussed above, the term 'brak chamber housing' refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. A diaphragm within the brake chamber is not a component of the case enclosing the brake chamber.; *Question 4: Does section S5.2.1.1 require that capability of releas must be unaffected or that air pressure in the tank must be unaffected?*; Section S5.2.1.1 provides that '(a) *reservoir shall be provided* tha is capable, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i. of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once *and that is unaffected* by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system.' (Emphasis added.) The word 'unaffected' refers back to reservoir.' Thus, the required reservoir is not permitted to be 'affected' by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system, i.e., it must be protected. A reservoir would not meet this requirement if a loss of air pressure in the service brake system resulted in a loss of air pressure in the reservoir, even if the reservoir was still capable of releasing the parking brakes.; *Question 5: If the emergency brakes on trailers can be modulated so a to provide a driver with several applications and releases to move the disabled vehicle off the road after the signal from the low air warning system that the vehicle has lost its service brake system, is it unnecessary for an S5.2.1.1 reservoir to be capable of releasing the brakes?*; The capability of modulation after activation of the low air warnin system does not satisfy the requirements of section S5.2.1.1 (quoted above). That section requires that the reservoir not be affected by loss of service air, i.e., that it be protected, and that, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i. (a pressure that corresponds to the lower end of the range of pressures maintained by compressors), it be capable of releasing the parking brakes at least once. A vehicle's emergency brakes could be capable of modulation after activation of the low air warning system and not meet either of these requirements.; In addition to the notice granting the CHP petition, we are enclosin copies of interpretation letters concerning the Mini-Max system addressed to Navistar, P.T. Brake Lining Company, and the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-4.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 29, 1995

FROM: Guy Dorleans -- International Regulatory Affairs Manager, Valeo

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/09/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Guy Dorleans (Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

The use of light-emitting diodes brings technical solutions to almost all the styling trends, and allows to obtain an even patch luminance on the whole extension of the light-emitting surfaces. The sketches hereunder examplify a new area of freedom for rear end lighting:

Functions: Tail, Stop, rear turn signal

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED -- SEE ORIGINAL SOURCE]

All the LEDs are red in color. The internal wiring is such that failure of one LED does not switch off a complete array of diodes: if we suppose that the system incorporates a total 32 diodes. The diodes will still be in operation if a single diode fai ls. In cases C, C', D and D' [ILLEGIBLE WORD], Standard 108 revised as of October 1, 1994 shall consequently apply in its relevant figure 1b for one lighted section.

Case A: During daytime, when neither the service brake nor the turn signal is operated, all the LEDs are off and no lighting function is used.

Case B: At night, the tail lamp is on, but neither the service brake nor the turn signal is operated. The whole light-emitting surface is slightly glooming, enough to fulfill the optical specifications of Standard 108 for tail lamps. All the diodes are energized at low-level intensity.

Case C: When braking at night, the current in the diodes is increased, so that the sum of the photometrics of the stoplamp and the tail lamp is fulfilled. The whole light-emitting surface is glooming. All the diodes are energized at full intensity. At point HV, the light output is at least fivefold bigger than in case B.

Case C': When braking during the day, the current in the diodes is increased, so that the photometrics of the stoplamp is fulfilled. The shole light-emitting surface is glooming. All the diodes are energized at full intensity. At point HV, the light o utput is at lease fivefold bigger than in case B.

Case D: When changing direction at night, the whole light-emitting surface is glooming. All the diodes are energized at full intensity during the on-period of the turn signal. The sum of the photometrics of the rear turn signal lamp and the tail lamp i s then fulfilled and at point HV, the light output is at least fivefold bigger than in case B. During of off-period of the turn signal, the diodes receive the same intensity as in case B, which corresponds to tail lamp only.

Case D': When changing direction during the day, the diodes are energized at full intensity during the one-period of the turn signal and then the whole light-emitting surface is glooming. The photometrics of the rear turn signal lamp is then fulfilled. During the off-period of the turn signal, the diodes are not energized.

We hereby ask confirmation that this new lighting combination is correct.

Best Regards.

ID: nht95-7.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 29, 1995

FROM: Guy Dorleans -- International Regulatory Affairs Manager, Valeo

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/09/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Guy Dorleans (Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

The use of light-emitting diodes brings technical solutions to almost all the styling trends, and allows to obtain an even patch luminance on the whole extension of the light-emitting surfaces. The sketches hereunder examplify a new area of freedom for rear end lighting:

Functions: Tail, Stop, rear turn signal

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED -- SEE ORIGINAL SOURCE]

All the LEDs are red in color. The internal wiring is such that failure of one LED does not switch off a complete array of diodes: if we suppose that the system incorporates a total 32 diodes. The diodes will still be in operation if a single diode fails. In cases C, C', D and D' [ILLEGIBLE WORD], Standard 108 revised as of October 1, 1994 shall consequently apply in its relevant figure 1b for one lighted section.

Case A: During daytime, when neither the service brake nor the turn signal is operated, all the LEDs are off and no lighting function is used.

Case B: At night, the tail lamp is on, but neither the service brake nor the turn signal is operated. The whole light-emitting surface is slightly glooming, enough to fulfill the optical specifications of Standard 108 for tail lamps. All the diodes are energized at low-level intensity.

Case C: When braking at night, the current in the diodes is increased, so that the sum of the photometrics of the stoplamp and the tail lamp is fulfilled. The whole light-emitting surface is glooming. All the diodes are energized at full intensity. At point HV, the light output is at least fivefold bigger than in case B.

Case C': When braking during the day, the current in the diodes is increased, so that the photometrics of the stoplamp is fulfilled. The shole light-emitting surface is glooming. All the diodes are energized at full intensity. At point HV, the light output is at lease fivefold bigger than in case B.

Case D: When changing direction at night, the whole light-emitting surface is glooming. All the diodes are energized at full intensity during the on-period of the turn signal. The sum of the photometrics of the rear turn signal lamp and the tail lamp is then fulfilled and at point HV, the light output is at least fivefold bigger than in case B. During of off-period of the turn signal, the diodes receive the same intensity as in case B, which corresponds to tail lamp only.

Case D': When changing direction during the day, the diodes are energized at full intensity during the one-period of the turn signal and then the whole light-emitting surface is glooming. The photometrics of the rear turn signal lamp is then fulfilled. During the off-period of the turn signal, the diodes are not energized.

We hereby ask confirmation that this new lighting combination is correct.

Best Regards.

ID: aiam4985

"Dear Mr. Spain: This responds to your letter of January 21, 1992, t Taylor Vinson of this office, with reference to your 'Auxiliary Lighting Device'. I understand that you have also discussed the Device on the phone with Mr. Vinson on March 3, and with Mr. Van Iderstine of the Office of Rulemaking on March 26. You have referenced sections S5.1.3, S5.1.1.11, S5.3.1.1, S5.5.3 and S5.5.10(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and ask for an 'initial first impression as to whether or not we might have a problem.' In your experience, 'it is not an uncommon occurrence for a tractor/trailer to lose its taillamps due to a circuit or wiring malfunction.' When this occurs, you point out that the driver's only choice is to activate his hazard warning system, which is not its intended purpose, and which defeats the normal turn signal circuits. Your Device would permit the operator of the tractor to employ the rear turn signal lamps as surrogate taillamps if the vehicle's standard taillamps were inoperative. Specifically, 'a reduced voltage is fed through both right and left rear turn signal circuits to cause both turn signal lamps to illuminate at a reduced brilliance equal to that of a normal tail lamp.' The Device has an alternative function. It permits the turn signal lamps to be used at full intensity as fog lamps to increase rear visibility. The activation of the turn signal switch within 1/2 second overrides the Device and allows normal operation of the turn signal lamps. The Device is activated through a toggle switch on the dash, which glows to indicate to the driver that it is engaged. The applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the 'Act') and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to tractor-trailer combinations is not well defined. Standard No. 108 is, in essence, a manufacturing standard that applies to individual motor vehicles. It ceases to apply at the time of purchase by its first owner (other than the manufacturer or dealer). Once a vehicle is sold, questions of continued compliance with the standards, including Standard No. 108, must be answered with reference to the Act. The question presented by your letter concerns a device added to one vehicle before its first sale that is intended to affect the lighting performance on another vehicle after the sale of the second vehicle (i.e., when it has become a 'vehicle in use', to use the statutory term). We recently provided another interpretation of the applicability of Standard No. 108 and the Act to towing and towed vehicle combinations which I would like to discuss, as it provides a basis for our interpretation to you, but is nevertheless distinguishable from it by its facts (letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin Corp.) The Echlin Corp. device (the 'Control') was intended to control trailer sway by allowing the towing vehicle's driver to apply the towed vehicle's brakes through modulated pressure by use of a hand control in the towing vehicle. The wiring of the Control was such that the trailer stop lamps were not activated when the Control was in use. Standard No. 108 and the laws of some States require that the stop lamps be activated when the service brakes are applied. We informed the manufacturer of the Control that, under the specific facts of the case, the question was not one to be answered under Standard No. 108 as applying to new vehicles, but to be answered under the Act as it affects vehicles in use. The Act contains a general prohibition (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) against knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design on a vehicle in use that has been installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The prohibition applies to any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. With respect to the Control, the dealer of the towed vehicle adds the Control to the towing vehicle (a vehicle in use) at the time that the towed vehicle is purchased. In our opinion, the legal question was whether the dealer of the towed vehicle had rendered the stop lamps of the towed vehicle partially inoperative by its installation of the Control on the towed vehicle. In our opinion, it was not the installation of the Control but its use that was critical. The user of the Control, the vehicle operator, is not covered by the prohibition. Therefore, we informed Echlin that the sale and use of the Control does not violate the Act. This interpretation can also be viewed as stating that 'inoperability' as the word is used in the statute must result from a direct act, and not an indirect one. This, however, was not our intent. We do not believe that a person should be excused from responsibility simply because an intervening agency is required to operate a device that that person has manufactured or sold. Although many of the facts concerning the use of the Control and your Device are similar, the fact of importance in this instance is the primary purpose of the equipment in question. The primary purpose of the Control was to control trailer sway, not to affect the operation of the stop lamps. The primary purpose of your Device is to affect vehicle lighting, by serving as surrogate and supplementary lighting equipment. A further fact in difference is that you envision the Device to be installed as part of the manufacture of the tractor trailer, and not added by the dealer of the trailer to a tractor trailer in use. This raises the question of the certification that the Act requires by the truck tractor manufacturer of compliance with Standard No. 108, specifically S5.1.3. As your letter indicates, you are aware that S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of additional lamps or reflectors 'or other motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by' Standard No. 108. It is manifest that installation of the Device has no effect upon the lighting equipment of the vehicle on which it is installed, the truck tractor. The question is whether S5.1.3 can be read as prohibiting the installation of a device on one vehicle that may affect the operation of lighting equipment on another vehicle. We believe that S5.1.3. can be so read because the term 'lighting equipment required by' Standard No. 108 is general in nature, and not restricted to the vehicle on which the additional equipment is installed. Although Standard No. 108 does not establish lighting requirements to be met by combinations of towing and towed vehicles, we interpret S5.1.3 as prohibiting installation of any original equipment on the towing vehicle that could impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 to be installed on a towed vehicle. The determination of whether impairment exists is initially made by the manufacturer in certifying compliance of the towing vehicle to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If a manufacturer installs as original equipment on one motor vehicle a device whose sole purpose is to affect the lighting performance of another motor vehicle, then that manufacturer must take into account whether that device would impair the effectiveness of the other vehicle's lighting equipment in certifying compliance to S5.1.3. If that decision appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA may make its own determination in order to effect compliance with Standard No. 108. We turn first to the question of the use of the Device as a surrogate taillamp on a vehicle equipped with red rear turn signal lamps. When used as a taillamp surrogate, the Device would substitute one steady-burning red rear light for another. If, as you indicate, the intensity of the surrogate taillamp is no greater than that of the original taillamp (and thereby maintains the ratio of difference required in combination turn signal- taillamps), there would appear to be no impairment of rear lighting equipment. When used as a fog lamp on a vehicle equipped with red rear turn signal lamps, the taillamps are not disabled, and the Device activates the turn signal lamps at full intensity in a steady burning mode. Commonly, combination rear lamps on large vehicles also include the stop function as well. Because of the similarity of intensity between the steady burning fog lamp and the stop function provided by the same filament, or the stop function in an adjacent lamp, we believe that the stop signal would be impaired when the Device is used as a fog lamp in a lamp configured as described in this paragraph. When used on a trailer equipped with the amber turn signal lamps that Standard No. 108 permits, different considerations apply. All lamps that serve as marker lamps on the rear (taillamps, identification lamps, clearance lamps) are required by Standard No. 108 to be red in color. On a trailer equipped with amber rear turn signals, the use of your Device would result in a pair of steady burning amber marker lamps on the trailer rear where, heretofore, the motoring public has not been accustomed to seeing them. Thus, the question arises under S5.1.3 whether the effectiveness of the required red rear lighting equipment is impaired when the Device activates steady burning amber rear lamps. You are aware of this possibility, but have pointed out to Mr. Vinson that the Device is intended for use when the taillamps are not available. Because taillamps, identification lamps, and clearance lamps share the same wiring, inoperability of the taillamps often means inoperability of the other rear marker lights. Thus, the steady burning amber lamps provided by the Device may be the only operating marker lamps on the rear of the vehicle. You believe that this is preferable to no lights at all. We would agree that, in this circumstance, there would be no impairment of required rear lighting equipment within the meaning of S5.1.3. However, the Device provides no safeguards against operation of the amber turn signal lamps in the taillamp mode when the taillamps (and other rear marker lamps) remain operative. Further, it permits operation of the amber turn signal lamps in the fog lamp mode regardless of the operability of the other rear marker lamps. Because the Device is intended for use only under conditions of reduced visibility, such as night and fog, when the headlamps are activated, there is a potential for confusion when a motorist is confronted with simultaneously operating steady burning red and amber lamps. In this situation, a conclusion could be drawn that the utilization of the Device to create a steady burning amber lamp could, within the meaning of S5.1.3, impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required to be red. You told Mr. Vinson of your willingness to provide a warning with the Device cautioning against its use when the taillamps are operative, and we appreciate your concern with the issue. You may wish to reexamine the efficacy of amber lamps as fog lamps. We understand that the most effective rear fog lamps are red, and that red is the only color permitted in Europe. You pointed out in your letter that, absent the Device, the tractor operator might choose to employ the flashing hazard warning lights for other than their intended purpose. We believe that today's motorists interpret flashing red or amber hazard lamps on moving vehicles as a signal that the vehicle is moving slower than the stream of traffic, and that caution is advised. Thus, safety may be enhanced when the hazard lamps flash, as they provide a contrast with the steady burning but less intense red rear taillamps. Finally, even if acceptable under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency, vehicles engaged in the commercial aspects of interstate commerce are subject to the regulations of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (OMCS) Federal Highway Administration, and to the regulations of the individual States where the trailer is operated. We are not able to advise you of their restrictions, if any. You may write the Director, OMCS, Room 3404, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 for an interpretation. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, may be able to provide you with an interpretation of State laws. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";