ID: aiam5281

"FAX 07142/73-2895 Dear Dr. L ckemeyer: This responds to your FAX o December 10, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked the following questions with respect to the permissibility of rear fog lamps on U.S. cars: 'Is the rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit permissible in all the states of the U.S.? There is no statement in the FMVSS 108.' Paragraph S5.1.3. of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation as original equipment of additional lamps such as rear fog lamps if the additional lamp 'impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard.' The determination of whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit impairs the effectiveness of other lighting equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the lamp is installed. Unless such a determination is clearly erroneous, this agency will not question it. We do not know whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit is permissible in all the States. Because a fog lamp is not required motor vehicle equipment under Federal law, each State in which it is used may regulate it according to its own laws. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, and suggest that you ask the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its FAX number is 001 703 522 1553, and its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. 'Which photometric requirements do we have to fulfill for the rear fog lamp?' There are no Federal requirements that apply to rear fog lamps, and, as noted above, we are not conversant with state requirements. For your information, the latest specification of the Society of Automotive Engineers for this item of equipment is SAE Recommended Practice J1319 AUG87 'Fog Tail Lamp (Rear Fog Light) Systems.' 'Is the certification of the combined rear lamp unit binding upon the whole states of the U.S.?' No. The certification of the vehicle manufacturer is its representation that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108. A State has no authority to question this certification. However, a State is permitted to have a State vehicle lighting standard provided that the State lighting standard is identical to the Federal lighting standard in those areas covered by the Federal lighting standard. Under these circumstances, a State may enforce the State lighting standard even if the vehicle is certified as conforming to the Federal lighting standard. Furthermore, a State may have its own State lighting standard in those areas where there is no Federal lighting standard, such as fog lamps. 'Do you have a list of lighting equipment for cars and the necessary requirements in the different states of the U.S.' AAMVA may be able to provide you with this information as we are unable to. Because State requirements must be identical with respect to the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, State specifications and prohibitions will differ only with respect to supplementary lighting equipment not covered by Standard No. 108 such as cornering lamps and front and rear fog lamps. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5501

Dear Mr. Daining: This responds to your letter about Federa requirements applicable to an 'on/off switch' for antilock brake systems (ABS). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that Chrysler Jeep owners disengage their ABS in response to the 'perceived degraded performance it offers on off-road situations.' You mentioned the possibility of designing a vehicle's gear system so that the ABS function is automatically disengaged when the vehicle is shifted into the four wheel drive-LO configuration. As explained below, while both manual and automatic ABS on/off switches are permitted under the current requirements, neither is required. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, which specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems. This Standard does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting ABS. Likewise, it does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting either a manual or automatic ABS on/off switch. Accordingly, either type of switch is permitted under the standard, provided the vehicle complies with the standard both when the device is 'on' and when the device is 'off.' FMVSS No. 105 will continue to apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), notwithstanding the agency's recent adoption of FMVSS No. 135 Hydraulic Brake Systems, Passenger Car Brake Systems, which applies only to passenger car brake systems (60 FR 6411, February 2, 1995). Even though FMVSS No. 135 does not apply to MPVs, you should be aware that FMVSS No. 135 prohibits passenger cars from being equipped with ABS disabling switches. The agency stated in a July 1991 notice that 'such a switch could be left off when the ABS is needed, and that therefore, it would be more likely to be harmful than beneficial.' Please note that this prohibition does not become immediately effective, even for passenger cars, since manufacturers can continue to certify compliance to FMVSS No. 105 for five years after FMVSS No. 135 takes effect. If an automatic or manual ABS on/off switch were installed in a used vehicle, such a device must not 'make inoperative' the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business from installing such a device if the installation 'makes inoperative' compliance with any safety standard. For instance, if a vehicle could only comply with the stopping distance or other service brake requirements in Standard No. 105 when the ABS is activated, then installation of the switch would serve to make inoperative compliance with the safety standard. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3842

Dear Mr. Cucheran: This is in reply to your letter of February 8, 1984, addressed to Mr Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The reply that Mr. Vinson had drafted was misplaced while being circulated for comment, and we greatly regret any inconvenience that this may have caused you. We are also replying to a telephone call Mr. Vinson made to you on June 14.; You have informed us, in essence, that there appear to be certai vehicle configurations in which photometric requirements for the center high-mounted stop lamp, at the 5 degree down position, will not be met when such vehicles are equipped with a deck-mounted luggage rack of the type manufactured by JAC Products. You have asked for an interpretation 'exempting deck rack cross rails from compliance to the 5 degree down cone area', alternatively, you request that we 'consider a new rule exempting the 5 degree down cone requirements for vehicles supplied with deck mounted luggage carriers'. You have also informed us that General Motors intends to use the new lamp on some of its 1985 model lines, and that because of this requirement the company will drop the rack as an optional accessory.; General Motors petitioned the agency to reconsider this requirement asking for a modified level of performance if a vehicle is unable to meet the original values and test points at 5 degrees down. The agency denied this petition on May 17, 1984 (copy enclosed).; Absent a change in the language of the standard, we have no authorit to exempt, on our own motion, 'deck rack cross rails from compliance'. Temporary exemptions are granted only to manufacturers of vehicles, upon their petition, and only for a limited purpose, after a period of public comment. Given the rule concerned and the factual situation you present, we see no viable basis for such an exemption petition.; We understand that your company is a manufacturer of luggage racks fo motor vehicles, and General Motors intends to offer these racks on certain of its 1985 J-model passenger cars, which will be equipped with the new stop lamp as standard equipment. The J- cars will meet all the requirements in Standard No. 108 with the luggage rack installed. However, you have received inquiries as to the permissibility of blockage of the lamp by a duffel or other load on the luggage rack.; A manufacturer certifies conformance of a vehicle with Standard No. 18 in the state that it is sold to the consumer and not on the basis of how the consumer may use it. This means that the vehicle must meet Standard No. 108 with any factory option installed, or dealer option installed before sale. For example, if GM offered the J- car with both a luggage rack and a duffel, a car would have to meet center high-mounted lamp requirements with both rack and duffel in place. But there is no Federal requirement that the lamp meet requirements if the duffel is supplied by the vehicle owner. If there is any prohibition, it would be contained in a State law or municipal ordinance.; If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5442

"Dear Ms. Falls: This responds to your request for an interpretation o whether, in replacing stolen vehicle identification number (VIN) plates as prescribed by Tennessee state law, your client, Nissan, would conform to this agency's requirements concerning VINs. The answer is Nissan would not violate our requirements when it replaces the stolen 'VIN plate.' However, there may be other aspects of replacing stolen VIN plates that are under the U.S. Department of Justice's law enforcement jurisdiction. By way of background, Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements, requires manufacturers to assign a VIN to each motor vehicle, to simplify vehicle information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns. S4.5 of the standard specifies that VINs shall appear on a permanent part of the vehicle or on a separate label or plate, called the 'VIN plate.' S4.6 requires the VIN for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR to be included in the passenger compartment, and manufacturers typically meet S4.6 by placing the VIN plate on the vehicle's dashboard. Your letter explained that Nissan manufactures cars and light trucks in Tennessee, and leases these vehicles. Sometimes, the VIN plate in the passenger compartment is stolen from the leased vehicle, but the vehicle is otherwise not tampered with. You stated that: Section 55-5111 of Tennessee Code Annotated provides that it is a Class C misdemeanor for any person to buy, sell, offer for sale, or possess a motor vehicle from which the manufacturer's serial, engine, or transmission number or other distinguishing number or identification mark or number has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed. In addition, 55-5-112 provides that the owner of an original engine, serial, engine, or transmission, or 'other number or mark' may restore such number or mark pursuant to a permit issued by the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Tennessee Department of Safety. You asked whether Nissan, the vehicle owner, would be 'in full compliance' with NHTSA's regulations if Nissan replaced stolen VIN plates in accordance with Tennessee law. In response to your question, we note that Standard No. 115 applies only to new motor vehicles. In the event a VIN plate is stolen from a leased (i.e., used) motor vehicle, NHTSA has no authority to require that any party replace the VIN plate. Thus, under NHTSA's regulations, if the VIN plate is stolen from a used vehicle, Nissan, the owner, may use its discretion whether to replace the VIN plate. However, please note that there could be other implications under Federal law about replacing stolen VIN plates. The U.S. Department of Justice has jurisdiction over stolen VIN plates as a law enforcement matter. Therefore, I suggest that you consult with the Justice Department about possible Federal law enforcement implications of replacing the stolen VIN plates. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht88-4.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/88

FROM: TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMIBILES INC

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: 49CFR 567, CERTIFICATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMOBILES; REDBOOK A34 B; PART 567; PART 568; LETTER DATED 05/06/85 FROM JOFFREY R. MILLER CHIEF COUNSEL TO HAYLEY ALEXANDER

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

LAFORZA Automobiles (formerly Rayton Fissore North America) has acquired the US rights to manufacture and sell a MPV designed and manufactured by Rayton Fissore of Cherasco, Italy. LAFORZA Automobiles is incorporated in the state of California.

The vehicle will be built in two stages. Pininfarina will build the vehicle complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.) transmission and transfer case in Italy. These items along with some of the lighting fixtures will be installed by Cars and Concepts in Brighton, Michigan to complete the vehicle. These operations both will be performed by the respective firms under contract to LAFORZA Automobiles. Thus LAFORZA Automobiles will ha ve complete control of the manufacturing process at all times.

It is our understanding that under these circumstances, LAFORZA Automobiles is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle. They therefore must apply the certification label required under 49CFR Part 567, Certification, upon completion of the vehic le at Cars and Concepts Inc.

Please provide us with a verification of our interpretation of this matter with a copy to our Safety Consultant, Haus W. Metzger, 6323 E. Turquoise Ave., Scottsdale, Arizona 85253.

We would appreciate a prompt reply. Thank you for your coorperation in this matter.

Yours truly

ID: nht91-7.13

DATE: 11/16/91

FROM: DAVID M. HART -- PRESIDENT, FLUSHSAVER

TO: PAUL J. RICE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-10-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DAVID M. HART (A40; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-3-87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO DAVID M. ROMANSKY (STD. 108)

TEXT: I called NHTSA this date, and after being transferred from department to department, I was advised by a Mr. Roman to write your office.

Our firm specializes in the creation and subsequent marketing of unique patentable products for the mass market.

Our latest is a product which will go by the name FLASHIT, and whose market will be the owners of late model automobiles.

Virtually all late model cars have a third taillight which is located on the package tray in the center of the rear window. The FLASHIT product is essentially a "clear decal", rectangular in shape, which contains a short message. That message for example could be the name of a college (UCLA) or a car rental company, (HERTZ). The word or words contained in the message are not solid print but are clear and become visible when the brake is activated and the red taillight comes on. The red light acts upon the special quality of the product and illuminates the message contained within the "decal". It is essentially no different than the myriad stickers that are currently seen on the rear windows of many cars other than the fact that the message is clearly seen only when the brake light comes on.

Upon investigation we have determined that there is no existing regulation which would prevent the marketing of this product. However since we intend to market the product on a nationwide basis we feel it important to receive feedback from your agency.

Our mailing address is 5440 West Century Blvd. Los Angeles, Ca 90045. Phone 310 670 9939. Your prompt response and assistance would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht88-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: CLARENCE M. DITLOW II -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY

ATTACHMT: NOVEMBER 7, 1988 LETTER FROM DITLOW TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your most recent letter to me concerning retrofitting of cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. In my November 1, 1988 letter to you, I explained that we have sought the voluntary cooperation of manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them and that the vehicle manufacturers have responded positively to our efforts. I also explained that the fact that retrofit kits are not available for all model lines pr oduced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy to encourage the manufacturers to make such retrofit kits available.

In a November 7, 1988 letter, you asserted that my November 1 letter "reflects such callous disregard and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers." You s tated that you would welcome a "substantive response" to this letter. I am happy to be able to give you such a response.

Let me begin by emphasizing that the lap belts in the rear seat of most vehicles on the road today are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on our analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap b elts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time th ey rode in a vehicle, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

These facts illustrate that the fastest and most effective way to save the greatest number of lives and prevent the greatest number of injuries is to convince the public to use the safety belts, including the rear seat lap belts, that are in their vehicl es every time they ride in those

vehicles. Because of these facts, I do not accept your assertion that GM's policy of not providing rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits for a few of their past models will "kill people." To the extent that reckless assertions like this tell the pub lic that they should not wear their rear seat lap belts, it is unfortunate that you have chosen to divert attention away from the overriding issue of convincing the public to use their safety belts, and instead chosen to mislead the public about the qual ity of their safety belts.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this r eason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. Additionally, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in prov iding retrofit kits to interested consumers. As you may know, every domestic manufacturer and many foreign manufacturers now offer retrofit kits for many of their vehicle models.

You objected to General Motors' (GM) statement in its Information Bulletin that retrofit kits are not offered for its 1978-88 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Buick Regal, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, or Pontiac Grand Prix, "because GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered by the lap belt alone." You asserted that since Leonard Evans, a GM employee, has concluded that lap/shoulder belts are significantly more effective than lap be lts and since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, there is no "possible scientific basis" for GM's conclusion.

NHTSA's proposal reflects our tentative conclusion that rear seat lap/shoulder belts that are designed and installed at the factory have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone for vehicles in general. However, any parti cular vehicle model's floor pan design, seat stiffness, and seat design (as it relates to occupant posture) can affect the possibility of an occupant submarining under a lap/shoulder belt system in a crash. During the design and production of the vehicl e, the vehicle manufacturer can take these factors into account to minimize the likelihood of such submarining and its associated consequences.

However, this is emphatically not true for vehicles that were not originally engineered and designed to use rear seat lap/shoulder belts as original equipment. With respect to these vehicles, the effectiveness of a retrofitted rear seat lap and shoulder safety belt system may well depend on the belt system's compatability with the vehicle and the installation of the belt system. The suitability of a particular vehicle for retrofitting is therefore a complex question. It is our view that the judgment a s to whether a retrofit lap/shoulder belt system should be installed in a particular vehicle is best made by a vehicle manufacturer, which is most familiar with the detailed seat and structural design and crash performance of the car.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

ID: 3317o

Mr. Clarence M. Ditlow III
Executive Director
Center for Auto Safety
2001 S Street, NW
Suite 410
Washington, DC 20009

Dear Mr. Ditlow:

This responds to your most recent letter to me concerning retrofitting of cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. In my November 1, 1988 letter to you, I explained that we have sought the voluntary cooperation of manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them and that the vehicle manufacturers have responded positively to our efforts. I also explained that the fact that retofit kits are not available for all model lines produced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy to encourage the manufacturers to make such retrofit kits available.

In a November 7, 1988 letter, you asserted that my November 1 letter "reflects such callous disregard and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers." You stated that you would welcome a "substantive response" to this letter. I am happy to be able to give you such a response.

Let me begin by emphasizing that the lap belts in the rear seat of most vehicles on the road today are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on our analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode in a vehicle, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

These facts illustrate that the fastest and most effective way to save the greatest number of lives and prevent the greatest number of injuries is to convince the public to use the safety belts, including the rear seat lap belts, that are in their vehicles every time they ride in those vehicles. Because of these facts, I do not accept your assertion that GM's policy of not providing rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits for a few of their past models will "kill people." To the extent that reckless assertions like this tell the public that they should not wear their rear seat lap belts, it is unfortunate that you have chosen to divert attention away from the overriding issue of convincing the public to use their safety belts, and instead chosen to mislead the public about the quality of their safety belts.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this reason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. Additionally, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. As you may know, every domestic manufacturer and many foreign manufacturers now offer retrofit kits for many of their vehicle models.

You objected to General Motors' (GM) statement in its Information Bulletin that retrofit kits are not offered for its 1978-88 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Buick Regal, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, or Pontiac Grand Prix, "because GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered by the lap belt alone." You asserted that since Leonard Evans, a GM employee, has concluded that lap/shoulder belts are significantly more effective than lap belts and since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, there is no "possible scientific basis" for GM's conclusion.

NHTSA's proposal reflects our tentative conclusion that rear seat lap/shoulder belts that are designed and installed at the factory have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone for vehicles in general. However, any particular vehicle model's floor pan design, seat stiffness, and seat design (as it relates to occupant posture) can affect the possibility of an occupant submarining under a lap/shoulder belt system in a crash. During the design and production of the vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer can take these factors into account to minimize the likelihood of such submarining and its associated consequences.

However, this is emphatically not true for vehicles that were not originally engineered and designed to use rear seat lap/shoulder belts as original equipment. With respect to these vehicles, the effectiveness of a retrofitted rear seat lap and shoulder safety belt system may well depend on the belt system's compatability with the vehicle and the installation of the belt system. The suitability of a particular vehicle for retrofitting is therefore a complex question. It is our view that the judgment as to whether a retrofit lap/shoulder belt system should be installed in a particular vehicle is best made by a vehicle manufacturer, which is most familiar with the detailed seat and structural design and crash performance of the car.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:12/22/88

ID: 1985-01.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Horiyoshi Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Horiyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48018

Dear Mr. Horiyoshi:

This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1984, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it would apply to a contemplated parking lamp system.

Usually passenger cars are designed with two parking lamps, one on each side of the vehicle front. Mazda would have two such lamps on each vehicle side, each of the two lamps flanking the headlamp. You have asked whether, in determining the H-V axis, one takes the axis as the center of each lamp, or should one consider the pair a single device and place the H-V axis at the midpoint between them.

Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars to be equipped with a minimum of two parking lamps, located "as far apart as practicable." Therefore, the outermost parking lamp, (the one located between the turn signal lamp and the headlamp) is the lamp that must meet the parking lamp requirements of Standard No. 108, and the H-V axis for purposes of compliance would be determined at the center of the lens of that lamp. Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. 108 and does not have to meet the standard's requirements, but it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). Because of the difference in candela between parking lamps and headlamps, information available to us does not indicate that your supplementary parking lamp would have this effect, and consequently, the design would be permitted.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable William Proxmire

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable William Proxmire United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Proxmire:

This is in reply to your recent inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Todd Suer of Janesville.

Mr. Suer, in his letter to you of April 15, 1987, refers to cars "that have extra clear head lights besides the ones that are built in" and asks if there is a law against them.

We are not familiar with the lighting equipment that Mr. Suer mentions. It is not part of the front lighting equipment required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It appears to be aftermarket, accessory equipment, and as such, its use is subj ect to regulation under State law. We suggest that Mr. Suer direct his complaint to State or local authorities.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Todd Suer Rt Dunbar Road Janesville, Wi. 53545

April 1, 1987

The Honorable William Proxmire United States Senate

Dear Senator Proxmire

I am writing to you about people that drive cars that have extra clear head lights besides the ones that are built in. Is there a law against them? If they have them they should only be on when the brights are on. When they have there dims on they should be off. The little lights are ok. Some people have fog littles on all the time, they should only be used in the fog. Some people have there dims on, and they shine right in your face.

I think the police should stop people that have these light problems because they blind you. Please inform me of this problem. Thank you very much.

Yours truly,

Todd Suer