ID: 1984-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack DiMaio Technical Service Dept. Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. DiMaio:

This responds to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you asked whether it is necessary to mold the DOT symbol on the sidewall of a motorcycle tire used for racing on a production motorcycle, if the production motorcycle is to be used only on the race track. Standard No. 119 requires the DOT certification to appear on new motorcycle tires designed for highway use. If these tires are designed for use only on a race track, they need not have a DOT symbol on the sidewall.

Section S6.5( a) of Standard No. 119 specifies that each tire subject to the standard shall be marked with the symbol DOT, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section S3 specifies: "This standard applies to new pneumatic tires designed for highway use on...motorcycles manufactured after 1948" emphasis added. Thus, the relevant question in determining whether the DOT certification must appear on the sidewall of a tire is whether the tire is designed for highway use.

It is not clear from your letter whether these tires are designed for highway use. You noted that the motorcycles on which the tire is mounted are intended for use only on race tracks. If these tires are not designed for use on other motorcycles, the DOT symbol need not be molded on the sidewall of the tires. If, on the other hand, the tires are also designed for use on other motorcycles which wil1 be used on the highways, the DOT symbol must be molded on the sidewall of the tires. This is a determination which must be made in the first instance by Continental, but may be reexamined by this agency.

Please feel free to contact me if you need any further information on this matter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 20, 1984 NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Frank Berndt Dear Mr. Berndt,

In a recent visit to Continental A. G., in Hanover, Germany, the question of high speed motor cycle racing tires camp up. The question is as follows.

Is it necessary to mold the DOT approval on the sidewall of a motor cycle tire used for racing on a production racing motor cycle to be used on the race track only?

Your early response to the above questions would be greatly appreciated along with any comments relating to this subject.

Sincerely, Jack DiMaio Technical Service Dept.

ID: 1984-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Homer S. Meyers -- President, Easco, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 2, 1984, requesting information on which of the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering. You described the product as a cross-bed seat for use in pickup trucks. The seat would be made of plastic and be mounted in the front of the truck bed facing the rear. The following discussion explains the application of our regulations to your potential product.

Since your potential product would be used as a seating position in a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion, each occupant position on the seat would be considered a designated seating position by the agency. If your product is installed as an item of original equipment on a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the designated seating positions must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No.208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our safety standards.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 209, and 210. However, we strongly recommend that you provide properly-anchored seat belts at each seating position.

Finally, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

August 2, 1984

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

This company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pick-up truck accessories.

A potential new product which we are considering is a cross-bed seat for such trucks. A sketch is enclosed. This seat would be formed from plastic sheet of sufficient thickness to provide the necessary strength. It would be mounted in the front of the truck bed facing to the rear. It would be supported by the flange around the top, resting on the lip at the front and sides of the bed, and also by an aluminum leg in the middle of the front edge of the seat.

The seat would be held in place by sheet metal screws going into the lip of the bed. Slots would be cut in the rear of the seat to allow passage of seat belts to fastenings on the floor or front wall of the bed. Alternatively, the belts might be fastened to the seat itself with appropriate back-up strengthening plates.

I would apprediate having your opinion as to the safety standard regulations that would apply to such product.

Homer S. Myers

President

EASCO, Inc.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1984-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/18/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Customs Service -- Paul Lorelli

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Lorelli Office of Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures U. S. Customs Service 300 S. Ferry Street San Pedro, California 90731

This is in reply to your request to Taylor Vinson of this office; by telephone on October 31, 1984, for an interpretation of 19 CFR 12.80, and other matters.

Section 12.80(b)(ii) of the import regulations refers to technical noncompliance of a vehicle with Federal motor vehicle safety standards "because readily attachable equipment items which will be attached to the vehicle before it is offered for sale..." are not on the vehicle at the time it is offered for importation into the United States. You have asked the meaning of the phrase "readily attachable equipment items."

As Mr. Vinson explained to you, at the time the importation regulations were being developed, importers commented to the drafters that their practice was to remove certain items from the exterior of a vehicle prior to shipping to prevent breakage or theft. The items mentioned were windshield wipers, wheel covers, and exterior rear view mirrors. Therefore, the final rule took into account the importer's practice by allowing unrestricted entry of vehicles that complied with the exception of "readily attachable equipment items." As bumpers and headlamps are not readily attachable in the sense that wipers, mirrors, and wheel covers are, we do not consider these equipment items to qualify for the exception. Because sale of nonconforming new vehicles is a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a dealer who sells a car without the windshield wipers or mirrors attached would be subject to a civil penalty; as a practical matter, a new car won't be sold with such equipment items missing.

You also asked how we insure that a manufacturer continues to produce vehicles that comply with the safety standards. As Mr. Vinson explained, while we have authority to enter places where vehicles are produced or are being held for sale, we do not position inspectors in factories, nor require submission of compliance documentation to us before production commences. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which a manufacturer must exercise due care in assuring the compliance of its vehicles with all applicable safety standards and must then attach a label to a vehicle at the completion of its manufacture certifying that compliance. The agency will purchase vehicles at random and test them for compliance. If a nonconformance is found, a manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties not only for the production of the noncomplying vehicle but also for providing certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. A tap civil penalty of $800,000 may be assessed for each of these violations. Further, a manufacturer of noncomplying vehicles is required to notify distributors, dealers, and purchasers of noncompliances, and to remedy the condition, by repair, repurchase of the vehicle, or replacement of it with an equivalent. The civil penalty sanctions and notification/remedy and requirements seem to have been successful in creating a climate under which manufacturers, on the whole, have met their obligations.

I hope that this information has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harleigh Ewell, Esq. -- Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Harleigh Ewell, Esq. Office of the General Counsel U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207

This responds to your letter asking whether a certain product would be considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 (4)). The product is a "trouble light" which can be plugged into either a standard 120 volt outlet or a vehicle's cigarette lighter. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider this product to be an item of motor vehicle equipment.

The relevant language in section 102(4) specifies that any "accessory or addition to the motor vehicle" is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. In previous interpretations of the section, NHTSA has considered a product to be an accessory if it has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle and is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of the motor vehicle. The product with which you are concerned does not satisfy the first part of this test, since it is designed to be used both in the motor vehicle and in the home. Therefore, NHTSA does not consider this product to be an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207

December 11, 1984

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Our staff has become aware of a possible defect in a "trouble light" that makes provision for use either plugged in to a standard 120 V socket or in to a car's cigarette lighter. The problem is that while the light is plugged in to the 120V socket, contact with the exposed lighter plug could result in exposure to either 60V or 120V, depending on whether the fluorescent light is turned on.

As you probably know, the Consumer Product Safety Act, at 15 U.S.C. S 2052(a)(1)(C), excludes "motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment" from the definition of "consumer products" that the CPSC can address. Therefore, in order to help us determine whether CPSC has authority to take action with respect to this product, we would like to know NHTSA's views on whether the trouble light described above could be considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391(4).

Thank you for your cooperation. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Harleigh Ewell Attorney

ID: 1985-01.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Keith A. Sharp, Esq. Lillick, McHose & Charles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Keith A. Sharp, Esq. Lillick, McHose & Charles 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90017

Dear Mr. Sharp:

This responds to your recent letter to Betsy Harrison of this office concerning the importation of unassembled components for bus chassis from Japan. According to the information in your letter, your client, Isuzu Truck of America, Inc. (IST), is considering importing these unassembled components from Isuzu Motors Limited in japan, and assembling them into bus chassis in the United States. Then, IST would sell the bus chassis to companies which would install bodies on the chassis.

You ask whether your client, IST, would be responsible for assigning a vehicle identification number (VIN) to the bus chassis, which are produced using the imported components. Based on the information given, the answer is yes. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, IST would be considered the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle, because IST would be assembling a frame and chassis structure which would require substantial additional manufacturing operations before it becomes a completed vehicle.

You also state that U.S. Customs may not release the unassembled bus chassis components to IST at the port of entry unless the components bear vehicle identification numbers. We are not aware of any customs regulation which requires a VIN to be affixed to unassembled chassis components.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 4, 1984 Betsy Harrison, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Vehicle Identification Numbers

Dear Ms. Harrison:

We are attorneys for Isuzu Truck of America, Inc. ("IST"). IST is the distributor of trucks and buses manufactured by Isuzu Motors Limited, a Japanese corporation, in the United States. IST is contemplating importing into the United States unassembled components for bus chassis. IST would assemble the components into bus chassis which would then be sold by IST to companies which would install bodies on the chassis and resell them to end-users.

Your office has previously advised us, on an informal basis, that IST would be the party responsible for placing the required vehicle identification numbers on each bus chassis. We request that you now confirm your opinion in writing. We note that IST is concerned that U.S. Customs may not release the bus chassis components to IST at the port of entry unless the components bear vehicle identifi-cation numbers. We would appreciate your comments on the existence of such a problem.

If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Very truly yours,

LILLICK McHOSE & CHARLES

By:

Keith A. Sharp

KAS:slm

cc: Art Sato Candy Watson

ID: 1985-01.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Addressee not given

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1984, (not received until October 17, 1984) with respect to questions of compliance of lighting and bumper requirements on a vehicle equipped with a variable height control system.

Standard No. 108 requires that the center of a headlamp lens be not less than 22 inches from the road surface. You stated that this minimum might not be met with respect to certain headlamp configurations when the ignition is off, and the hydraulic pressure in the height control system relaxes, a period of approximately three hours. You believe that compliance with the mounting height requirement should be judged "with the ignition switch in only the 'on' position," the apparent point at which the height control system begins to operate.

We believe that the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose. Since vehicles at rest do not require use of headlamps, the minimum height would be measured at the point after the ignition is on and when the car begins to travel (your letter implies that the time lag between turning on the ignition and restoration of a complying mounting height is a matter of seconds). On the other hand, the hazard warning signal lamps are frequently operated when the vehicle is stopped, and therefore the minimum mounting height of turn signal lamps, through which they operate, must be met with the ignition off, even if the system requires three hours to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height.

We also call to your attention paragraph S4.1.3 which forbids the installation of motor vehicle equipment which impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, and ask that you consider whether a height control system would change vehicle height, pitch, roll, etc., in response to some external or internal condition, in a manner which would affect the performance of headlamps and other lighting equipment.

You have also asked, in essence, which conditions of operation of the system are appropriate for the pendulum and barrier impact tests of the bumper standard, 49 CFR Part 581. Under Sec. 581.5(c), the suspension system is to remain in adjustment and operate in the normal manner; under Sec. 581.6(c) the engine is operating at idling speed. In our opinion, the vehicle is required to meet the pendulum test of Part 581 in any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates, and the barrier test of Part 581 when the engine is idling.

Finally, you requested confidentiality for all information submitted which pertains to the variable height control system. After carefully reviewing the documents, I have determined that your request should be granted. The release of these documents could cause substantial injury to the competitive position of your company. Therefore, I am withholding from the public your letter which contains a detailed description of the variable height control system currently under consideration. I am also deleting all references to the company name. I will instruct all agency personnel having access to this information to accord it confidential treatment.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: 1985-02.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Chris Condon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mrs. Chris Condon 5639 Lightspun Lane Columbia, MD 21045

Thank you for your March 1, 1985 letter to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the ignition interlock in your 1980 Volkswagen Rabbit. I regret the delay in our response. You ask whether an automobile dealer may legally disconnect this safety belt interlock.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The safety belt interlock system in your vehicle is not required by any of our safety standards. In addition, Section 108(a)(2)(C) of the Act expressly allows dealers to disconnect safety belt ignition interlocks. Thus, your dealer may disconnect the ignition interlock system without violating the "render inoperative" provision.

Please note, however, that a dealer who undertakes such a task must not render inoperative any device that is required by a vehicle safety standard. For example, the dealer may not remove the safety belts themselves nor disconnect a belt warning system required by our standards. You state that there is some confusion over the actual effects of disconnecting the interlock system. Before undertaking the procedure, your dealer should determine whether the belt warning system required by our standards would in fact still operate after disconnection of the interlock.

Also, you are correct that you, as an individual vehicle owner, are not subject to the "render inoperative" provision of the Vehicle Safety Act. Although the agency believes that motor vehicle safety devices are important and should not be tampered with, you may alter any safety feature in your car, even if the feature was installed to comply with our regulations.

I hope that I have answered your question. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

5639 Lightspun Lane Columbia. MD 21045 March 1, 1985

Mr. Steven Oesch National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Steve,

As per our phone conversation of February 27. I am writing to request your legal opinion regarding the following:

Our 1980 Rabbit diesel has a passive restraint system which was a manufacturer's standard feature on the car when we purchased it. The seat belts in the front must be engaged or the car cannot be started. You told me that as an individual I could legally, disconnect the system allowing me to use the seat belts but not having the procedure linked to the starting of the car.

My question is - can a car dealer's mechanic at his place of employment disconnect the electrical connection legally? I have been told conflicting statements by two persons who work in Volkswagon service as to whether all belt warning would be eliminated if the belt- starter connection were to be severed. I plan to write to the appropriate person in the company to obtain a written opinion.

Your help is appreciated. Cordially, (Mrs.) Chris Condon

ID: 1985-02.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Dennis J. Slyman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 15, 1985 Dennis J. Slyman, Esq. 101 N. Main Street Greensburg, PA 15601 Dear Mr. Slyman: Thank you for your letter of March 21, 1985 asking how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act affects one of your clients. I hope the following discussion will explain the provisions of the Act. You explained in your letter and a phone conversation of April 4, 1985, with Stephen Oesch of my staff that your client sold a new 1977 Dodge Van to Mon Valley United Health Services in March 1977. At the time of the sale, the van was converted by Braun Corporation from a passenger van to a wheelchair van. Approximately two years after its purchase, Mon Valley requested your client to install a bench seat in the rear of the van. You stated that Mon Valley asked that the new seat not have safety belts and thus your client did not install them. Subsequently, a passenger sitting in the rear seat was injured in a crash and your client was sued for negligence. I want to emphasize that our comments relate only to our interpretation of the Safety Act from out vantage point as a Federal enforcement agency. The effect of Safety Act provisions in private products liability and negligence actions is a matter for state courts to determine. You asked whether your client violated Section 10B and 125 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1410) by not installing safety belts in a vehicle when it installed the bench seat in the used van. Because the vehicle involved was a used vehicle at the time the rear bench seat was installed, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(1)(A) against selling or otherwise introducing into interstate commerce a new vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would not apply to your client. This is because Section 108(b)(1) of the Act specifically provides that the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(1)(A) do not apply after the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale. Section 108(a)(2)(A) may have an effect on your client's action. That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) applies whether the vehicle is a new or used vehicle. Thus if the used van had safety belts in it at the position where your client installed the bench seat and your client removed them, there may have been a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A). If the used van did not have safety belts at that position, Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not create an affirmative duty under Federal law to install safety belts. However, there may be such a duty under State statutory or common law. The other prohibitions of Section 125 of the Act, which sets forth limitations on the agency's rulemaking authority, does not apply to your client's situation. Other than Section 108(a)(2)(A), there are no other provisions of the Act that apply to your client's installation of a bench seat in a used vehicle. If you have further questions, Stephen Oesch of my staff (202-426-2992) would be glad to assist you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joe Rutman -- President, Pathway Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/10/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Timothy Pawl (Std. 108)

TEXT:

Mr. Joe Rutman President, Pathway Ltd. P.O. Box 88111 Grand Rapids, MI 49580

This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1986, with reference to an electronic message display known as "Tellite"

We have reviewed your letter and our letter of February 10, 1986, to Timothy Pawl that you enclosed. The interpretation to provided Mr. Pawl was posited on the fact that Tellite was "in close proximity" to the center highmounted stop lamp which, in the a bsence of further explanation, we assumed meant either to the right or left of it. Your letter, however, indicates that the message function may be superimposed over the center lamp, though operating independently of it. Before we provide a definitive re sponse to your letter of October 16, 1986, we would appreciate your providing us with a photo or drawing of Tellite so that we will have a better understanding of it. We should also like to know what messages it is intended to display.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 16, 1986

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones:

Pathway Ltd. previously corresponded with you through a potential joint venture party regarding DOT approval of a concept which we now hope to move forward and promptly develop. Pathway has developed an electronic message display known as "Tellite". We b elieve, based on prior correspondence, that the circuitry and display conforms with, or is at least not in violation of, any NHTSA regulations or standards. Please note that this display board will incorporate the red, third brake light located in the re ar window of the vehicle. The circuitry for the red brake light is independent of the message circuitry and overriding. In other words, in the event that the brake is depressed, the third stop light (red LEDs) illuminates and the amber message LEDs are o verridden and are not illuminated during braking. (The amber message board is approximately 4 inches wide and 2 inches high).

It is our intention initially to sell this product as an aftermarket installation. However, we are also interested in pursuing the original equipment manufacturers. The purpose of this letter is to specifically request any direction you might provide reg arding whether our concept, as outlined, fails in any way to comply with any Federal (NHTSA) regulations for installation in the rear window of a passenger vehicle.

You should also know that the amber message board would not flash during display.

I look forward to your response. Please direct any further correspondence to my attention, Joe Rutman, President, Pathway Ltd., P.O. Box 88111, Grand Rapids, MI 49508. Thank you.

Very truly yours

Joe Rutman

(See 2/10/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Timothy Pawl)

ID: nht87-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Mark Roberts

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mark Roberts 40 East Stillforest Houston, Texas 77024

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1987, with respect to an aftermarket motorcycle lamp that you wish to produce. You refer to the lamp as a "motorcycle safety light" that would supplement other motorcycle lighting and "would be a rear facing or all direction light with an amber colored lens that would flash". You have asked if there are any restrictions or guidelines for such a lamp.

Your letter does not indicate the size, flash rate, or intensity of the light, nor whether you intend it to be installed by motorcycle dealers prior to the first sale, or available only for installation on motorcycles already in use. However, I can give you some general guidelines.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment contains the requirements that apply to motorcycles and must be met at the time of sale and delivery to their first owners. Generally, except as provided i n the standard (e.g. motorcycle headlamp modulating devices) all lamps must be steady burning in use. Your lamp, however, would flash, and therefore appears precluded as an item of original equipment. Further, vehicle equipment must not impair the effect iveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Although in the absence of specifications of your lamp we cannot say whether it would impair the effectiveness of required motorcycle lighting equipment, we note that an rearward facing amber flashi ng lamp could create confusion with a rearward facing amber turn signal lamp.

As an aftermarket device intended for vehicles in use, your lamp is subject only to the Federal restriction that its installation by a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business shall not render inoperative in whole or in part other required l ighting equipment. Should your device place an excessive drain on a motorcycle battery affecting the operability of other lighting equipment it could be viewed as violative of the Federal restriction. However, even if this question is answered in the neg ative, the question of the acceptability of the supplemental lamp is determined by the laws of the state in which the device is sold or used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write American Association of Motor Vehicle Admi nistrators, 1301 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016, for further information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Dept. of Transportation Erika Jones Chief Council Natl. Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones,

Our company is interested in producing a motorcycle safety light intended as an after market piece of equipment, and not to replace original equipment. It would be a rear facing or all direction light with an amber colored lens that would flash.

Please tell me of any restrictions and / or guidelines that might affect the design and production of such a light. Is there is a manual of such information, I would greatly appreciate being sent one. Thank you for your attention.

Yours,

Mark Roberts