ID: tunick.ztv

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Re: Request for Interpretation of 49 CFR 579.21 and 579.27

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This is in reply to your FAX of June 15, 2003, revising your request of June 9 for an interpretation of certain provisions of the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which are set out at Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to point out that you have raised several specific issues that had not been raised during the rulemaking proceeding that led to the EWR regulations. In this letter, I will provide an interpretation of what is required under the current regulatory language. However, we may revisit some or all of these issues when we conduct our promised review of the regulations after they have been in effect for some time.

You presented the following hypothetical facts as the context for your questions: (1) a manufacturer of light motor vehicles produces fewer than 500 vehicles in calendar year (CY) 2003 and therefore would report under 579.27 for CY 2003 (i.e., it would only have to report claims and notices involving deaths associated with its vehicles); and (2) during the first quarter of CY 2004 the same manufacturer produces more than 500 light vehicles and thus must report under 579.21 (i.e., it would have to provide comprehensive data about warranty claims, consumer complaints, property damage claims, and field reports) for that quarter and the rest of CY 2004.

Although your hypothetical scenario assumes that the manufacturer in question produced over 500 vehicles in the first quarter of CY 2004, I want to point out that NHTSA expects vehicle manufacturers to make good faith estimates of their expected annual production when deciding whether to report under 579.21-24 or 579.27. For example, if a manufacturer of light vehicles produces 150-200 light vehicles in the first quarter of any calendar year, and expects to continue production at similar levels throughout the year, it must report under 579.21, rather than 579.27. It may not wait until the quarter that it actually surpasses the 500-vehicle threshold.

You first asked us to confirm your view that:

1. [A manufacturer] must report full 579.21 information only as regards a past model year within the nine-prior-model-years if such model year either:
1. Had production "built for sale in the US" that exceeded 499 units; or
2. Fell within a calendar year that had: vehicle production "built for sale in the US," that exceeded 499 units; and

1. As regards model years during the "nine-prior-model-years" that do not meet either (a) or (b) above, [the manufacturer] must supply only 579.21(b) (incidents involving death) information.

Your suggested interpretations are inconsistent with the language of the regulation. The introductory text of 579.21 specifies that its reporting requirements apply to "a manufacturer whose aggregate number of light vehicles manufactured for sale, offered for sale, imported, or sold, in the United States, during the calendar year of the reporting period . . . is 500 or more . . . ." In any CY in which a manufacturer produces 500 or more light vehicles for sale in the United States, the manufacturer must report under 579.21, regardless of how many vehicles it produced in prior CYs. Moreover, the text goes on to say that any manufacturer reporting under that section must submit the comprehensive information required under 579.21(a) and (c) for the vehicles produced during the model year of the reporting period "and the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period, including models no longer in production." Thus, under the rule, comprehensive submissions are required from such a manufacturer for vehicles produced during the prior nine model years, regardless of whether the manufacturer was previously required to provide that information with respect to the vehicles produced in those earlier years.

You also asked us to confirm your view that:

A large volume manufacturer that has been reporting under 579.21 but who then downsizes, would, once two calendar years have passed without its crossing the 500-unit mark, no longer have to supply full 579.21 information for the nine-prior-model-years (as it would be reporting under 579.27).

We agree that under the current regulatory language, any manufacturer that reports under 579.27 (because at least two years have passed without it producing 500 or more vehicles of any category), does not have to submit the comprehensive information required under 579.21, regardless of the number of vehicles it produced during the preceding model years. However, we expect it to retain the information required under 579.21.

If you have any additional questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.7/24/03

ID: nht94-2.18

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 5, 1994

FROM: Hamilton K. Pyles -- Cairncross & Associates, Inc.

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/12/94 from John Womack to Hamilton K. Pyles (A42; VSA 102(a)(2)(A); Part 591

TEXT:

We are writing to request the assistance of your office, or your personal assistance, in obtaining Department of Transportation approval and color code designation on our, LIFE LITES system. Our firm has secured a patent, foreign trade license and comple ted testing with the Ohio State University, and is ready to begin producing the device.

C & L Safety Products currently has a plastics firm and lighting manufacturer within your district to begin production, as well as, several organizations who have committed to purchase the final product. We feel normal, or abnormal delays, in securing ap proval for the device could adversely impact the economic development of your voting area. Rapid approval would permit you to utilize our firm as an example, particularly in an election environment, of the assistance you can provide to those considering southwest Ohio as a site for future business. Additionally, we are prepared to utilize our public relations firm in contacting other organizations with the details of any assistance provided by you in this matter.

Sue Clark, of your Hamilton office, has been working with us, and has all the details of efforts made to date in securing approval, and has been greatly supportive in moving through the Department of Transportation process.

We have taken the liberty of enclosing a local and national press article explaining the purpose of the device, as well as, copies of the patent and foreign trade permit. Should there be any questions, please call us, to reduce the delays associated wit h mailed correspondence. Best wishes for continued success.

We would like to import into the United States a kit for a custom compact pick-up truck bed. The bed is made of varnished and sealed wooden planks and plywood with metal fastenings and reinforcements. The kit would consist of the following:

1. Plans and instructions in English for the safe and secure assembly of the bed and attachment on the frames of the specified pick-up truck makes, models and years.

2. Wooden and Plywood parts of the bed suitably labelled for identification.

3. Metal parts, fastenings, wiring and lights.

The intention is to offer this kit in advertisements in specialty

magazines and catalogs to the general public and to offer it to manufacturer's who place specialized beds (campershells, utility company boxes, etc.) on pick-up frames that they buy new without factory installed beds. The general public would strip the existing bed off their truck to install ours.

What federal laws and regulations, under your cognizance, govern the importation, sale and installation of wooden pick-up bed kits? What must I do, initially, to import a trial sample bed into the United States?

As we are on a fairly tight time schedule, your prompt reply by FAX and mail will be very much appreciated, partial answers one by one are far preferable to waiting for all the answers before replying. Thank you.

ID: 1985-04.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John L. O'Connell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 25, 1985 Mr. John L. O'Connell Public Transportation Administrator Department of Motor Vehicles State of Connecticut State Street Wethersfield, CT 06109-1896 Dear Mr. O'Connell: This is in reply to your letter of October 8, 1985, to Jeffrey Miller, former Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked whether a new style school bus warning lamp system developed by the Whelen Engineering Company meets the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and referenced SAE standards, and whether such a system can be installed and used on school buses in compliance with Federal regulations. Pursuant to paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108, a school bus must be equipped with a system of red lamps, or red and amber lamps meeting SAE Standard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964 (copy enclosed). The Whelen system is said to comply with SAE J887 May 1982, with the possible exception of dimensions. The requirements that the Whelen system must meet are those of the 1964 version of J887. Dimensional specifications are not included in the 1964 version, however, the minimum effective projected luminous lens area requirement of 19 square inches must be met. The test report indicates that the Whelen lamp meets the minimum photometrics of both the 1982 and 1964 versions of J887 and its dimensions, 7" x 2.75", indicate that the minimum luminous lens area requirement may also be met. However, the test report indicates that the light flashes at a rate of 55 cycles per minute. The Whelen lamp therefore does not comply with the 1964 requirement that school bus warning lamps flash at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute (nor the 1982 SAE specifications of 1-2 H which is 60-120 cycles per minute). For this reason, the Whelen system does not meet Federal requirements and cannot be installed on school buses certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: alliance.march20

Robert Strassburger, Vice President
Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This is in response to your letter of March 18, 2003, in which you asked questions regarding our interpretation of certain provisions of the early warning reporting rules promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579. You requested prompt turn around in view of the fact that the first reporting period will soon begin. This letter provides that response. I will first paraphrase your inquiries and then provide a brief statement of our interpretation.

1. Reporting Information on the Face of a Claim/Complaint. The Alliance inquired as to whether manufacturers must report complaints/claims based on the information contained on the face of the complaint or claim, rather than reporting on the basis of the manufacturers review or analysis of the complaint/claim.

The answer is yes. Reporting is to be based on the information in the complaint or claim, rather than on the manufacturers assessment. Even if the manufacturer disagrees with the assertions of the consumer/claimant after conducting its analysis, the manufacturer must still report the complaint or claim. Each of the five examples given in your letter would be reportable as a "consumer complaint" under the early warning reporting rules.

2. Marketing Survey Information. The Alliance sought NHTSAs concurrence that marketing information purchased from third-party vendors (such as J.D. Power) or supplied by third parties (such as Consumer Reports magazine), which might contain information reflecting a consumers dissatisfaction with a product, is not reportable in the early warning program as a "consumer complaint," or otherwise, even if the information contains "minimum specificity" about the make, model, and model year of a vehicle. You also asked about complaints that are included in "marketing information" solicited by a manufacturer directly from the purchasers of its products.

We concur with respect to third-party submissions, since they are not "addressed to the company . . . ." and therefore do not fall within the regulatory definition of "consumer complaint" in Section 579.4(c). However, if a manufacturer collects the information directly from its consumers, by itself or through a contractor, it would have to report any "complaints" included in that information, regardless of whether the primary purpose of the activity is marketing. As you note in your letter, consumers responding to such manufacturer surveys are "likely aware that they are communicating with the manufacturer." The fact that the comments are solicited by the manufacturer is not determinative, particularly since many consumers who make a complaint about a vehicle in this context will justifiably believe that they need not repeat that complaint to a different office within the company.

3.Dealer Repair Work Orders. The Alliance sought the agencys views on whether dealer repair work orders, if received in writing by a vehicle manufacturer, are reportable as " dealer field reports." These work orders are the dealers internal records of service performed at dealerships. As described in your letter, these work orders are not requested by, or provided to, manufacturers in the ordinary course of business, but might be submitted in the context of "lemon law" proceedings, product liability litigation, or similar proceedings, often many years after the service in question was performed. As such, we would not consider them to be "field reports" under the rule, and they would not have to be reported under that category. However, if the work had been performed under warranty, it would have to be reported as a warranty claim.

4.Vehicle Inspections Conducted to Determine Eligibility for Insurance and/or Extended Warranty Coverage. Finally, the Alliance asked whether written reports of vehicle inspections conducted solely to determine eligibility for insurance and/or extended warranty coverage are reportable as "field reports." As described in your letter, these reports are not prepared in response to an assertion that a specific problem exists in a particular vehicle, which is the normal genesis of field reports. Thus, although it is possible that an inspection report might identify a problem in a vehicle, it would not be a "communication . . . regarding the failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem . . . ." As such, these inspection reports would not have to be reported to us as field reports.

If you have any questions, pleas call Taylor Vinson or Lloyd Guerci of this office at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.33/25/03

ID: 12203.ztv

Mr. Paul G. Schoen
President
Chariot Marine Fabricators & Industrial Corp.
P.O. Box 635
West Frankfort, IL 62896

Dear Mr. Schoen:

This responds to your letter of July 15, 1996, for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 as it applies to the location of front side marker lamps and reflectors on a wide boat trailer that you manufacture. You inform us that "questions have been raised by Transport Canada" as to the location of these lamps and reflectors, and that Transport Canada has encouraged "that trailers manufactured by our company for sale in the United States be built to the same lighting specifications as the trailers our company builds for export to Canada."

Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that front side marker lamps and reflectors are to be located "as far to the front as practicable." This is qualified by paragraph S5.3.1.3 which states that, on a trailer, they may be located as far to the front as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue. You tell us that in Canada, sec. 108(7)(c) of CMVSS No. 108 states that they "may be located as far forward as practicable, exclusive of the trailer tongue." The Canadian requirement in this respect appears to be identical to the requirement of the United States.

According to a letter that Canada sent you:

"the preferred location of the front side marker lamps and reflex reflectors is where the vertical load-bearing frame members meet at the furthest point forward at the center line of the trailer, at a location not less than one meter (39 in,.) and not more than 1.5 meters (60 in.) behind the coupler with the surface of the reflective device parallel to the longitudinal axis of the trailer."

At present. your company locates this equipment at points A and B, as shown in the diagrams you enclosed. In these locations, it appears that the equipment is located at points closer to the front end of the trailer than they would be under Canada's interpretation of its regulation. However, because the trailer tongue is very short, when the marker lamps are located at points A and B they will be obscured at the 45-degree visibility angle by the side of the towing vehicle, thus reducing some of their effectiveness. This problem is solved when the side marker lamp is placed in the location preferred by Canada

There are a number of areas where FMVSS No. 108 prescribes location requirements in terms of practicability, i.e.,: "as far to the front as practicable," " as far to the rear as practicable," " as far apart as practicable", and "as high as practicable." This is to afford a manufacturer maximum design freedom while indicating preferred locations for lighting equipment. It has been our practice to leave the determination of practicability to the manufacturer who, in his certification of compliance with all applicable FMVSS, certifies that it has located the equipment in accordancewith a practicability specification. It has not been the practice of the United States Government to substitute its judgment of practicability for that of the manufacturer, unless the manufacturer's determination is clearly erroneous.

Your company has previously determined that the front side marker lamps and reflectors on the trailer are "as far to the front as practicable" at Points A and B. Yet in this location the front side marker lamp cannot fully perform its function because it will be obscured at the forward 45 degree angle by the mass of the towing vehicle. Even though relocation rearward would result in the marker lamps no longer being located "as far to the front as practicable" under a literal interpretation of these words, we believe that it is a proper exercise of the manufacturer's discretion in determining practicability to locate lighting equipment where it can best fulfill its intended function. Thus, we concur with Canada's recommendation in this instance for location of the front side marker lamps 1 to 1.5 meter behind their present location at Points A and B..

However, our interpretation does not extend to the front reflex reflectors which, in our view, should remain in their present location at Points A and B. The reflectors serve the important purpose of marking the forward end of the trailer when the side marker lamps are not operating, such as when the trailer is at rest, whether or not it is attached to the towing vehicle. We assume that you are currently using a combination lamp and reflector. If this is so, you may use the same equipment in the new location, but you must provide separate reflectors at Points A and B..

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:9/10/96

ID: nht94-2.24

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John A. Boehner -- Congress of the United States, House of Representatives

TO: Jackie Lowey -- Director, Congressional Affairs, DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/25/94 Est from John Womack to John A. Boehner (A42; Std. 108; VSA S102(a)(2)(A)) and letter dated 3/25/94 from James Ackley, Carol Baumhauer and Krista D. Subler to John A. Boehner

TEXT:

The enclosed correspondence requesting permission to use two unassigned colors was sent to me by Mr. John Cail and Mr. James Ackley.

I would greatly appreciate you providing my Hamilton office with the appropriate information so that I may reply to my constituent's inquiry.

If I may provide additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Attachment

C & L Safety Products Unlimited Eaton, Ohio

The Honorable John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) 1020 Longworth House Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Boehner,

We are writing to request the assistance of your office, or your personal assistance, in obtaining Department of Transportation approval and color code designation on our, LIFE LITES system. Our firm has secured a patent, foreign trade license and comple ted testing with the Ohio State University, and is ready to begin producing the device.

C & L Safety Products currently has a plastics firm and lighting manufacturer within your district to begin production, as well as, several organizations who have committed to purchase the final product. We feel normal, or abnormal delays, in securing ap proval for the device could adversely impact the economic development of your voting area. Rapid approval would permit you to utilize our firm as an example, particularly in an election environment, of the assistance you can provide to those considering southwest Ohio as a site for future business. Additionally, we are prepared to utilize our public relations firm in contacting other organizations with the details of any assistance provided by you in this matter.

Sue Clark, of your Hamilton office, has been working with us, and has all the details of efforts made to date in securing approval, and has been greatly supportive in moving through the Department of Transportation process.

We have taken the liberty of enclosing a local and national press article explaining the purpose of the device, as well as, copies of the patent and foreign trade permit. Should there be any questions, please call us, to reduce the delays associated wit h mailed correspondence. Best wishes for continued success.

Sincerely,

John Cail Sr. James Lipps

3/29/94

ID: nht75-1.23

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of March 24, 1975, to Mr. Schwimmer of this office concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to new brake hose assemblies whose end fittings are partially disassembled by vehicle manufacturers.

You have described brake hose assemblies equipped with permanent end fittings containing sacrificial sleeves. Although the assemblies are complete when delivered by you to a vehicle manufacturer, they must be partially disassembled by him (because they lack swivel fittings) to facilitate installation in vehicles. At this point the vehicle manufacturer does, as you have suggested, become the hose assembler, assuming responsibility for the assemblies' compliance with the standard and relieving you of responsibility for their continued compliance. He is not, however, required to remove the assembler's band which you have installed pursuant to S5.2.4 (as incorporated by reference in S7.2 and S9.1), although he is free to do so; nor is he required to install his own band, because of the exception in S5.2.2 for assemblies which are assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in his own vehicles. Furthermore, he is not required to replace the sacrificial sleeve in the end fittings, because that sleeve has not yet been used.

An aftermarket purchaser who disassembles and then reassembles one of your assemblies also relieves you of responsibility for its continued compliance with the standard. He is not required to remove your assembler's band, nor is he required to replace the sacrificial sleeve.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

POWER CONTROLS DIVISION Midland-Ross Corporation

March 24, 1975

Mark Schwimmer -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106-74, Brake Hoses

Dear Mr. Schwimmer:

We manufacture air brake hose end fittings and make hose assemblies for original equipment and aftermarket applications. We produce two basic sytles of end fittings; the type that are crimped or swaged onto the hose, and the type that utilizes a sacrificial sleeve or ferrule. These fittings are assembled on fabric reinforced rubber air brake hose (S.A.E. types A and B) only. We are aware that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, regards both of these designs as permanent end fittings. Several questions have arisen regarding technicalities and responsibilities as interpreted through Standard No. 106-74. Rulings by you or your office are requested on the following specific questions:

1. Hose assemblies are produced for sale to a vehicle manufacturer. The end fittings used are of the sacrificial sleeve type construction. These end fittings do not contain a swivel, as in the crimped fitting design. When we produce these assemblies, they are complete, finished and tagged assemblies, meeting the requirements of Standard No. 106-74. Representative samples of our production are audit tested to verify the compliance. After the hose assemblies are received by the vehicle manufacturer, he must partially disassemble the end fittings (due to the lack of a swivel fitting) in order to secure the hose assembly to the air brake system component. At this point we seek interpretations of the following questions.

a. Does the vehicle manufacturer now become the "hose assembler" and therefore assume all responsibilities of Standard No. 106-74 as the assembler, as well as exonerate us of all the responsibilities as the assembler?

b. If "a" above is answered affirmatively, then should the vehicle manufacturer be obligated to remove our assembler's compliance and identification tag?

c. Is the vehicle manufacturer obligated to replace the sacrificial sleeve in the fittings, even though the hose assembly has not been "used" prior to his installation of the assembly?

2. This same situation could occur in the aftermarket, but with little or no control from our standpoint. We are required by Standard No. 106-74 to tag each assembly. If your ruling to questions 1.a. and 1.b. above is affirmative, then we have no way of knowing if the aftermarket purchaser removes our tag as the vehicle manufacturer would be compelled to do. We can check on an original equipment manufacturer's procedures relatively easily, but it would be virtually impossible for us to police the aftermarket to determine if our compliance and identification tag were wrongfully attached to the assemblies in question. Therefore, in the aftermarket situation we request a ruling to the same three questions as asked in 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c above as they apply to aftermarket sales.

Very truly yours,

Leon C. Huneke -- Chemical Engineer

ID: nht95-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

TO: R. C. Rost -- Minnesota Body & Equipment

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/8/94 LETTER FROM R. C. ROST TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 10496)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law requires buses used for Head Start to be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. You stated that the state of Minnesota recently adopted a law that prohibits such buses from being equip ped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. I apologize for the delay in our response.

In an August 26, 1988 letter to you, NHTSA explained that "Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprimary school pupils suc h as those in Head Start programs." Federal law continues to require such buses to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, the Head Start buses referenced in your letter must be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. We have writte n to Major Glen Gramse of the Minnesota State Patrol to explain that the Minnesota law is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses.

I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam2102

Dear Mr. Ruda: #I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation o July 21, 1975, with Mark Schwimmer if this office, concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses.* #Your letter of June 12, 1975, explained that you supply hose in lengths as short as 1 1/2 inches. You found it possible to include a complete legend of the information required by S5.2.2 of the standard only by utilizing two lines if printing, parallel to each other and separated by approximately 1/8 inch. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, such a labeling procedure would satisfy the standard's requirements. #I would like to point out, however, that the standard was amended by Notice 18 (40 FR 38159, August 27, 1975), to facilitate the depletion of inventories of brake hose which complies with all requirements except the labeling requirements of S5.2. One effect of that amendment was to delay until September 1, 1976, the requirements that at least one complete legend appear on any hose used in an assembly, regardless of its length. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of the notice. #Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0089

Dear Mr. Butterfield: Thank you for your letter of June 17, 1968, to the National Highwa Safety Bureau, attention of Mr. Joseph R. O'Gorman, concerning the requirements for rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps on your EVO Refuse Packer.; Since no mounting height restrictions are specified for rea identification lamps in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, these lamps may be mounted on or below the cross member between the rear wheels. Shielding may be necessary to protect the lamps.; No clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp o identification lamps. Combination rear clearance and side marker lamps may be used providing the requirements for each are met.; With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point ou that this Bureau does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;