ID: 001112cm EZOn

Ms. Lori Crouzillat
Safety Advisor
E-Z-ON Products, Inc.
605 Commerce Way West
Jupiter, FL 33458

Dear Ms. Crouzillat:

This is in response to your letter of February 24, 2003, in which you ask for a clarification of the labeling requirement for child safety harnesses that mount to school bus seat backs.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 requires child safety harnesses [1] manufactured on or after February 1, 2003, that attach to school bus seat backs to be labeled with the warning specified in FMVSS No. 213. In your letter, you state that several states and members of the school bus industry believe that "seatmount products" in use, that were manufactured before February 1, 2003, are not in compliance with FMVSS No. 213 because they are not labeled with a warning. You ask whether the agency requires all harnesses, irrespective of manufacture date, to be labeled with the warning contained in FMVSS No. 213 in order to be in compliance with that standard. The answer is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30111. NHTSA has used its authority to issue FMVSS No. 213, regulating child restraint systems, in order to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicles. Each new child restraint system, including harnesses, must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 213.

FMVSS No. 213 generally prohibits a child restraint system from having any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat back. (See S5.3.1.) However, to facilitate the safe transportation of preschool and special needs children, the agency amended FMVSS No. 213 on an interim basis to exclude from this prohibition harnesses manufactured for use on school bus seats. (67 Federal Register 64818; October 22, 2002.) The interim rule went into effect October 22, 2002, and NHTSA has decided in the exercise of its enforcement discretion, not to take enforcement action with respect to harnesses manufactured before that date. [2] For seat-mount restraints manufactured on or after February 1, 2003, the interim rule requires them to be labeled with the following warning:

Warning! This restraint must only be used on school bus seats. Entire seat directly behind must be unoccupied or have restrained occupants. (67 FR at 64820)

The labeling requirement applies only to the restraints manufactured on or after the specified date (February 1, 2003). Furthermore, the labeling requirement applies to manufacturers of the seat-mount harnesses and does not impose any requirement on the end user to obtain labels for those harnesses manufactured before February 1, 2003.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.4/18/03





---

[1] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, uses the term "harness." Some manufacturers use the term "vest." We consider the terms "harness" and "vest" to be interchangeable.

[2] The interim rule expires December 1, 2003. The agency is currently reviewing the interim rule to determine if it should be made permanent. (67 FR 64818.)

ID: aiam2424

Dear Mr. Martin: This is in response to your September 14, 1976, request fo confirmation that seat belt webbing with one woven selvage and one knitted selvage qualifies as webbing', as that term is defined in paragraph S3 of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*.; The definition of webbing' in Standard No. 209 does not specify tha selvages must be woven. Rather, the definition only specifies that selvages be finished', for the purpose of ensuring that the webbing will not ravel. We conclude that the new webbing you submitted, with one woven and one knitted selvage, has finished selvages' and would qualify as webbing' within the meaning of Standard No. 209.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Douglas I. Greenhaus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Douglas I. Greenhaus Senior Attorney/Regulatory Affairs National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, VA 22102

Dear Mr. Greenhaus:

Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff. You asked us to confirm your understanding of how our regulations would affect the alteration of a new vehicle prior to its sale.

Your question specifically relates to a situation in which a dealer wants to switch, prior to sale of the vehicle, the bucket seats from one new motor vehicle to another new vehicle of the same model. You explained in a phone conversation with Mr. Oesch that changing the seats might involve some cutting and welding of the seats or their trucks. Under Part 567.7 (49 CFR Part 567.7) of our regulations, we would consider the dealer to be an "alterer". After completing the alteration, the dealer would be required by Part 567.7 to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Depending on the specific design of the vehicle seat and the actual alterations performed, the replacement of a seat would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and could be affected by Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Thank you for providing us with the information on glass tinting. I hope this information on vehicle alteration is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 WESTPARK DRIVE . MCLEAN, VIRGINIA 22102 July 8, 1985

Mr. Steven Oesch Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Agency Room 5219 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Thank you for the assistance which you gave me during our telephone conversation of Friday, July 5, 1985. In answer to your question concerning automobile glass tinting, I have asked the editors of "Automotive Executive", and they have indicated to me that no articles have yet been published.

In order to confirm your understanding of the regulations, let me state that it would appear that a dealer intending to switch the bucket seats from one model vehicle to another vehicle of the same model would be required to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and, in particular, would have to meet the seating and seat belt standards found at 49 C.F.R. Sections 571.207 and 210. The dealer would meet the definition of a "person who alters certified vehicles" as described under 47 C.F.R. Section 568.8 and as such would be required to certify compliance of his alterations with the safety standards. The dealer would thus be required to conform with the specific vehicle labeling requirement spelled out at 49 C.F.R. Section 567.7.

I again thank you and the Administration for your assistance, and I urge you to call me here at NADA should I in some way be able to aid you in the future.

Sincerely yours Douglas I. Greenhaus Senior Attorney/Regulatory Affairs. DIG/shb

ID: nht93-8.5

DATE: November 10, 1993

FROM: J. Frank Haasbeek -- President, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TO: Albert Gore, Jr. -- Office of the Vice President

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/23/93 from Howard M. Smolkin to J. Frank Haasbeek (A41; Std. 121)

TEXT:

In common with other entrepreneurs and business managers, I am delighted that you have made it your personal goal to reshape the way in which government goes about its business and thus lighten the bureaucratic load that inevitably each one of us has to carry.

My business has suffered enormously at the hands of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the gridlock in that division of the Department of Transportation is getting worse and not better.

Of necessity I will need to burden you with some background information that I will try to keep as brief and to the point as possible.

My company, a small business enterprise, manufactures air brake systems for trucks, buses, trailers etc. Our system is patented and its performance and built-in safety features are unequalled.

In April of 1992, the NHTSA issued an interpretation under a 1991 FMVSS 121 rule that instantly made our system incapable of compliance with that rule and hence illegal.

In a June 1992 meeting with NHTSA's Chief Counsel and over twenty of its department heads and staff, we proved conclusively that the NHTSA interpretation was in error and a rule making procedure was subsequently initiated by NHTSA to correct this anomaly.

The new draft rule was published in the Federal Register in March 1993, but as of this date the final rule has not been issued. I have been given to understand by the NHTSA that the agency's attorneys are too pre-occupied with congressionally mandated rule making to write the necessary legal language.

This company has been economically disadvantaged and damaged by the inordinate delay on the part of the NHTSA to correct its own bungling. We have had to reduce our staff and incurred substantial losses while a safer air brake system has been denied to many potential users.

The NHTSA is still without an administrator and the agency is foundering with no-one at the helm.

My employees, my investors and I would indeed be grateful if your office could assist in the issue of the final rule without any further delay.

- - - - - The following letter transmitted Mr. Haasbeek's correspondence to the NHTSA:

MEMORANDUM

DATE: DECEMBER 14, 1993 TO: Director, Office of Executive Secretariat U.S. DOT Room 10205 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Enclosed are letters from constituents asking for assistance with matters related to the U.S. Department of Transportation. This information was sent to the office of Vice President Gore.

On behalf of the Vice President, I am forwarding this material with the request that the issues be addressed in an appropriate and expeditious manner. An acknowledgement of receipt and notification of this referral has been sent to each of the constituents. Please respond directly to the correspondents. No reply to this office is necessary.

Sincerely,

Bill Mason Director of Correspondence

ID: nht95-4.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Orlando Ferreira -- Orion Bus Industries Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/18/95 LETTER FROM ORLANDO FERREIRA TO J. MEDLIN (OCC 11221)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ferreira:

This responds to your FAX message to Mr. Jere Medlin of this agency, asking whether your "master switch" on a transit bus must be illuminated pursuant to Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. Your master switch has four controls, "engine stop," "run," "lights," and "park." In a telephone conversation with Mr. Medlin, you explained that your "run" control functions as an "engine start" control, and your "park" control functions as a "clearance lamps systems" control.

As explained below, Standard No. 101 specifies illumination for the "engine stop" and "park" controls, but not for the "run" and "light" controls. In addition, there are identification requirements for those controls.

Your drawing of the master switch shows that the switch resembles a tuning knob on a radio. Like a knob, the switch can be turned to each of the above four positions, one position at a time. Because turning the master switch knob to each position activ ates the described function, we would consider each position to be a separate control.

You write that the master switch will be placed on a "driver's side control panel," a location that subjects controls to Standard No. 101's illumination requirements. S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 (referencing Tables 1 and 1(a) Identification and Illuminat ion of Controls), specifies that if:

* a control is provided, * is listed in column 1 of either Table 1 or 1(a), * and is accompanied by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4, Illumination, of the table,

the "identification . . . of any control" shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated.

"Engine stop" control The identification of the "engine stop" control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. This is because in Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine stop" control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresp onding space in column 4 of each table.

"Park" control Two issues are raised by your "park" control. The first relates to Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard, the control that regulates the parking lights is the "clearance lamps system" control, rather than the "par k" control. Since your control regulates the parking lights, it must be identified as "Marker Lamps", "MK Lps" or (as you propose) with the symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1. Labeling the control as "park" could confuse some persons into thinking "park" is a transmission park position.

The second issue is the illumination requirement. The identification of the control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. As noted above, your park control has to be identified as "Marker Lamps" or "MK Lps". In Ta ble 1, the control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4. Thus, the control must be illuminated.

"Run" control The same two issues discussed in our answer directly above, pertain to this control. First is Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard the control that will start the engine must be identified as "engine start" (rathe r than "run") as described in both Tables 1 and 1(a), when it is separate from the key locking system (as is yours).

The control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine start" control (which is the correct identification of the control) is specified in column 1, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

"Lights" control The same two issues discussed above are relevant here. The illustration you enclosed with your letter shows that you use both the word "Lights" and an identifying symbol to identify your Lights control. We are not sure that you are correctly using the symbol. The symbol you use is listed in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 as that for the master lighting switch. A master lighting switch regulates all exterior vehicle lights. If your "lights" control only regulates headlamps and taillamps, and not all ex terior vehicle lights, please designate the headlamps and taillamps as specified in column 3 of Table 1.

The "lights" control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "lights" control is specified in column 2, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

ID: nht95-7.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Orlando Ferreira -- Orion Bus Industries Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/18/95 LETTER FROM ORLANDO FERREIRA TO J. MEDLIN (OCC 11221)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ferreira:

This responds to your FAX message to Mr. Jere Medlin of this agency, asking whether your "master switch" on a transit bus must be illuminated pursuant to Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. Your master switch has four controls, "engine stop," "run," "lights," and "park." In a telephone conversation with Mr. Medlin, you explained that your "run" control functions as an "engine start" control, and your "park" control functions as a "clearance lamps systems" control.

As explained below, Standard No. 101 specifies illumination for the "engine stop" and "park" controls, but not for the "run" and "light" controls. In addition, there are identification requirements for those controls.

Your drawing of the master switch shows that the switch resembles a tuning knob on a radio. Like a knob, the switch can be turned to each of the above four positions, one position at a time. Because turning the master switch knob to each position activates the described function, we would consider each position to be a separate control.

You write that the master switch will be placed on a "driver's side control panel," a location that subjects controls to Standard No. 101's illumination requirements. S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 (referencing Tables 1 and 1(a) Identification and Illumination of Controls), specifies that if:

* a control is provided, * is listed in column 1 of either Table 1 or 1(a), * and is accompanied by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4, Illumination, of the table,

the "identification . . . of any control" shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated.

"Engine stop" control The identification of the "engine stop" control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. This is because in Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine stop" control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4 of each table.

"Park" control Two issues are raised by your "park" control. The first relates to Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard, the control that regulates the parking lights is the "clearance lamps system" control, rather than the "park" control. Since your control regulates the parking lights, it must be identified as "Marker Lamps", "MK Lps" or (as you propose) with the symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1. Labeling the control as "park" could confuse some persons into thinking "park" is a transmission park position.

The second issue is the illumination requirement. The identification of the control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. As noted above, your park control has to be identified as "Marker Lamps" or "MK Lps". In Table 1, the control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4. Thus, the control must be illuminated.

"Run" control The same two issues discussed in our answer directly above, pertain to this control. First is Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard the control that will start the engine must be identified as "engine start" (rather than "run") as described in both Tables 1 and 1(a), when it is separate from the key locking system (as is yours).

The control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine start" control (which is the correct identification of the control) is specified in column 1, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

"Lights" control The same two issues discussed above are relevant here. The illustration you enclosed with your letter shows that you use both the word "Lights" and an identifying symbol to identify your Lights control. We are not sure that you are correctly using the symbol. The symbol you use is listed in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 as that for the master lighting switch. A master lighting switch regulates all exterior vehicle lights. If your "lights" control only regulates headlamps and taillamps, and not all exterior vehicle lights, please designate the headlamps and taillamps as specified in column 3 of Table 1.

The "lights" control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "lights" control is specified in column 2, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

ID: 11221

Mr. Orlando Ferreira
Orion Bus Industries Ltd.
5395 Maingate Drive
Mississauga, Ontario L4W 1G6
Canada

Dear Mr. Ferreira:

This responds to your FAX message to Mr. Jere Medlin of this agency, asking whether your "master switch" on a transit bus must be illuminated pursuant to Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. Your master switch has four controls, "engine stop," "run," "lights," and "park." In a telephone conversation with Mr. Medlin, you explained that your "run" control functions as an "engine start" control, and your "park" control functions as a "clearance lamps systems" control.

As explained below, Standard No. 101 specifies illumination for the "engine stop" and "park" controls, but not for the "run" and "light" controls. In addition, there are identification requirements for those controls.

Your drawing of the master switch shows that the switch resembles a tuning knob on a radio. Like a knob, the switch can be turned to each of the above four positions, one position at a time. Because turning the master switch knob to each position activates the described function, we would consider each position to be a separate control.

You write that the master switch will be placed on a "driver's side control panel," a location that subjects controls to Standard No. 101's illumination requirements. S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 (referencing Tables 1 and 1(a) Identification and Illumination of Controls), specifies that if:

C a control is provided, C is listed in column 1 of either Table 1 or 1(a), C and is accompanied by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4, Illumination, of the table,

the "identification ... of any control" shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated.

"Engine stop" control The identification of the "engine stop" control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. This is because in Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine stop" control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4 of each table.

"Park" control Two issues are raised by your "park" control. The first relates to Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard, the control that regulates the parking lights is the "clearance lamps system" control, rather than the "park" control. Since your control regulates the parking lights, it must be identified as "Marker Lamps", "MK Lps" or (as you propose) with the symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1. Labeling the control as "park" could confuse some persons into thinking "park" is a transmission park position.

The second issue is the illumination requirement. The identification of the control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. As noted above, your park control has to be identified as "Marker Lamps" or "MK Lps". In Table 1, the control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4. Thus, the control must be illuminated.

"Run" control The same two issues discussed in our answer directly above, pertain to this control. First is Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard the control that will start the engine must be identified as "engine start" (rather than "run") as described in both Tables 1 and 1(a), when it is separate from the key locking system (as is yours).

The control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine start" control (which is the correct identification of the control) is specified in column 1, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

"Lights" control The same two issues discussed above are relevant here. The illustration you enclosed with your letter shows that you use both the word "Lights" and an identifying symbol to identify your Lights control. We are not sure that you are correctly using the symbol. The symbol you use is listed in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 as that for the master lighting switch. A master lighting switch regulates all exterior vehicle lights. If your "lights" control only regulates headlamps and taillamps, and not all exterior vehicle lights, please designate the headlamps and taillamps as specified in column 3 of Table 1.

The "lights" control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "lights" control is specified in column 2, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:101 d:10/25/96

ID: nht89-3.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: DECEMBER 11, 1989

FROM: JOE DABROWSKI -- VP ENGINEERING TMC/MCI, TRANSPORTATION MANUFACTURING CORP. TO: FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO R. W. SCHREYER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 210). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-5-90 TO HARRY THOMPSON FROM R. W. SCHREYER, LETTER DATED 3-22-89 TO KEITH A. MCDOWELL FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, AND LETTER DATED 3-25-77 TO ROBERT B. KURRE, WAYNE CORPORATION, FROM FRANK BERNDT. TEXT:

During the 1989 SAE Truck & Bus meeting held in Charlotte, N.C., I met with a Dale Guthrie, Engineering Manager for Thomas Built Buses. During the course of our meeting, our conversation turned to seat belts and he advised me of a letter (copy attached) he received from you responding to his inquiry as to an interpretation of the requirements of Standard 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

In particular, my inquiry addresses how much force must be used when testing seat belt anchorages in Intercity coaches to certify compliance with the standard and whether it is necessary to test simultaneously all seat belt assemblies as called out in St andard No. 207, Seating Systems.

If we can use the same interpretation that the referenced letter addresses, we would be able to comply with some of the requests we are receiving for seat belts in intercity buses.

Your attention to this matter and prompt reply are appreciated.

ID: 1984-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/84

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM R. WILLEN, ESQ. -- MANAGING ATTORNEY, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8-7-84 TO FRANK BERNDT, NHTSA, FROM WILLIAM R. WILLEN, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., ATTACHED; OCC 1018 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.; STD. 218; OCC 1018

TEXT: We have received your Defect and Noncompliance Information Report dated August 7, 1984, and appreciate your submittal of it.

However, further information is needed before we are able to consider the petition for inconsequentiality that American Honda filed on June 14, 1984. Specifically, we must judge whether Honda, which describes itself as the "distributor" of the helmets, is the proper party to file the inconsequentiality petition. Such petitions are filed by "manufacturers" which is a term defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(5) to include not only assemblers but also importers for resale.

Your letter of August 7 names two manufacturers of the helmets concerned, Shoei Safety Helmet Corp. and Bell Helmets, Inc. If the helmets manufactured by Shoei were imported from Japan by Honda, then Honda is a statutory "manufacturer" of these helmets and may file the petition. Would you therefore confirm whether Honda is the importer of the Shoei helmets.

We assume that the helmets manufactured by Bell were produced in the United States. If they were produced solely for Honda and the headsets installed solely at Honda's direction, or by Honda after delivery to Honda, then we would consider Honda the "manufacturer" of these helmets for purposes of the petition. However, if, for example, the Bell Star which corresponds to the Hondaline Hawk, were also fitted with the headset by Bell, then it would appear that Bell should be a co-petitioner or file a separate petition. We therefore would appreciate knowing at which point in the manufacturing process the headsets have been installed, whether the installer was Bell or Honda, and whether, to Honda's knowledge, Bell installs any headsets in any helmets it produces that are not sold to Honda.

When these clarifications are provided, we shall consider your petition further.

ID: nht90-3.76

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Timothy Murphy -- Peterson Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-23-90 from T. Murphy to S.P. Wood (OCC 5037)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1990, to Stephen Wood of this Office, in your capacity as Chairman, Engineering Committee--Lights, Transportation Safety Equipment Institute. You have asked that we review an interpretation furnished The Bargm an Company on February 26, 1990. Bargman's customer wished an amber reflector around the edge of an amber turn signal lens, and the company had asked "if an amber reflex reflector was permitted as an additional reflector on the rear of vehicles" covered by Standard No. 108. We stated that amber reflectors would be permissible.

You quote from our letter the sentence that "It does not appear to us that an amber tail lamp lens with an amber reflector would create an impairment", and you disagree with this conclusion. We are in error. Bargman asked its question only with referenc e to turn signal lamps, and our letter should have used the words "turn signal lamp", not "tail lamp." We have no intention of allowing amber as an alternate color for a tail lamp.

Notwithstanding the error, you are also concerned that amber reflectors in conjunction with red reflectors and red tail lamps could be the source of confusion. You point out that the amber reflectors would appear 2 1/2 times brighter than the red reflec tors, and conclude that "this would certainly represent an impairment of a required device."

Our letter to Bargman was in the context of an amber reflector surrounding an amber lens, and did not reach the question of separate amber reflectors on the rear. It is true that SAE Standard J594f Reflex Reflectors January 1977 specifies values for amb er that are 2 1/2 times those for red. Whether supplementary amber reflex reflectors that are not required to conform to Standard No. 108 would nevertheless be manufactured to meet the SAE specifications is a question that we cannot answer. However, as we have advised inquirers from time to time in the past, the determination of impairment is initially made by the manufacturer who certifies that its vehicle meets Standard No. 108 (and the other standards). If that determination appears clearly erroneo us, the agency will question it. If a manufacturer concludes that an amber reflector would impair the effectiveness of other rear lighting equipment, the agency would not question that determination.

You also call our attention to the fact that several States "clearly specify that reflectors, visible from the rear of a vehicle, shall be red", and raise the possibility that drivers of vehicles with amber reflectors could be cited in States with the re d-only specification. We had advised Bargman, a company located in Michigan, that the appropriate

remedy appeared to be to seek an amendment of the Michigan law as we did not view Standard No. 108 as preemptive in this instance, and as this agency had no plans to specify amber as an alternate color for rear reflex reflectors.

We believe that it is the responsibility of truck operators to ensure that their equipment is in conformance with all applicable State and Federal laws. Familiarity with State reflector laws is part of this responsibility.

I hope that this answers your questions.