ID: aiam3970

Dear Mr. Tuel: This responds to your letter of February 4, 1985, inquiring about th applicability of 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*, and 49 CFR Part 573, *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*, to your client, Stockton Dodge. I regret the delay in our response.; You asked whether Stockton Dodge, as a vehicle alterer, would b considered a manufacturer under the statutory definition of 'manufacturer' in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, *et seq.* (the Act). Based on the information given, the answer is yes.; You state that Stockton Dodge purchases previously certified Dodge van from Chrysler Corporation and converts them into school buses which are intended to be sold directly to school districts. The modifications made by your client include adding seats, strengthening the roof structure, and adding required warning lights and emergency equipment. You state that Stockton Dodge will certify the altered vehicles according to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.7, as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.; Stockton Dodge sent a letter to the Administrator, dated March 7, 1985 stating that, beginning February 15, 1985, its school bus division would become a final-stage manufacturer. Stockton Dodge stated that they would purchase Dodge B350 vans from Chrysler Corporation which school bus options and would add equipment to alter these vehicles to Type 2 school buses, weighing under 10,000 GVWR. Under our regulations, your client is not considered a final-stage manufacturer because the definition of final-stage manufacturer in 49 CFR Part 568 applies to a person who finishes an incomplete vehicle.; This agency considers Stockton Dodge an alterer of previously certifie motor vehicles, as indicated in your letter, who must comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. Your client's alterations change the vehicle type from a multipurpose van to a school bus and affect components necessary for compliance with safety standards. For these reasons, Stockton Dodge is a manufacturer within the meaning of the Act, as stated above. Stockton Dodge's letter dated March 7, 1985, contains the information required to be submitted under 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. The agency will consider this letter as the manufacturer identification for Stockton Dodge as an alterer.; This agency has also determined that an alterer is considered manufacturer for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*.; Please note that, under paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 115, *Vehicl Identification Number--Basic Requirements* (VIN), Stockton Dodge, as the alterer, should use the VIN assigned by Chrysler Corporation, the original manufacturer of the vehicles.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-1.15

DATE: 01/20/78

FROM: F. BERNDT FOR J. J. LEVIN -- NHTSA

TO: Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated November 29, 1977, asking about the procedures for obtaining approval of hydraulic brake hoses. Your company is altering the labeling on some of its hose and asks whether the hose must be retested and whether notice of the changes must be given.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve in advance motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. It is up to manufacturers to certify that their products comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations. The NHTSA conducts compliance testing for purposes of enforcement.

It is, therefore, up to your company to decide whether to test its hose according to the procedures specified in Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. The NHTSA only requires that you determine in the exercise of due care that the hose meets all requirements specified in the standard. Further, you do not have to give the NHTSA notice when you change the labeling information on your hose, unless you change the designation identifying your company. In that case, the new designation would have to be filed with the NHTSA according to the specifications of paragraph S5.2.2(b) of Standard 106.

You will have to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators directly to determine their requirements for approval and notification following your labeling changes.

Please contact me if our office can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

November 29, 1977

Richard B. Dyson -- Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson,

Subject: Inquiry about the procedure for equipment approval for hydraulic brake hose assembly

This company is a maker of brake hoses, and has received the following certificates of equipment approval from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators as the equipment approval of its products now. Certification No. Dated 741092 November 27, 1974 750423 April 8, 1975 750449 April 22, 1975 761132 November 12, 1976 761133 November 16, 1976

This company implements the labeling of brake hoses prescribed in FMVSS No. 106, S5.2, according to the following two ways.

a. One side: DOT NCRN (date) 1/8 HL

Other side: (stripe)

b. One side: DOT NCRN (date) 1/8 HR

Other side: NCRN 1/8 (date) SAE J1401

Other side: NICHIRIN RUBBER JAPAN 1/8 SAE J1401 AAA

(private lot No.)

In this connection, please instruct us in the procedure for this change.

1. In case of changing the indication of labeling from HR (Regular expansion hydraulic hoses) to HL (Low expansion hydraulic hoses),

(1) Is it necessary to obtain again the original report by the approval test organization?

(2) Or, is it enough to obtain the appendix report by undergoing the test of the concerned test item only (expansion test)?

(3) Or, the test report is not required, and is it enough only to submit the notice about the change?

2. In the FMVSS No.106, S5.2.1, of labeling on the other side, when the labeling prescribed as the additional information at the manufacturer's option is changed, this company interprets that the test is not required, but is it right?

Moreover, also in case of changing the content of labeling on the other side, is some notice required?

Would you please instruct and answer us in the above-described points?

Sincerely yours, Takashi Shimoda -- Technical department

ID: 12157-3.pja

Mr. Kenneth D. MacArthur
Farm Bed Manufacturing, Inc.
Box A, Eisenman Road
Boise, Idaho 83705

Dear Mr. MacArthur:

This responds to your letter requesting that your vehicle be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, your vehicle is not excluded from the regulation.

Your company manufactures self-unloading bulk trailers that have small conveyer belts at the lower rear of the trailer to unload potatoes and other agricultural products. The rear shaft mount for the conveyor belt protrudes 24 inches from the rear of the trailer in order to drop the potatoes onto another conveyer belt (called a piler) that resides at the unloading site. You believe that the small conveyor belt should be considered "work performing equipment," thus making the trailer a "special purpose vehicle" that is excluded from the requirement to have an underride guard.

After January 1998, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear impact protection, will require most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with an underride guard. An excluded category of vehicle is special purpose vehicles. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment . . . that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard . . . ." (Emphasis added.)

Your vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. The small conveyor belt at no time passes through the area where the horizontal member of the underride guard would be located, and it certainly does not do so while the vehicle is in transit. Therefore, your trailers are not excluded from the standard as special purpose vehicles.

As you pointed out in your letter, NHTSA addressed this issue in the January 20, 1996 final rule on underride (61 FR 2004). The National Potato Council commented that an underride guard would impair the function of the conveyor, without explaining how. NHTSA responded that, if this were true, the vehicle would probably be a special purpose vehicle (61 FR at 2022). However, it now appears that the conveyor function would not be impaired in a manner that would exclude it under the rule as written (i.e., the conveyor does not reside in or move through the guard area while the vehicle is moving).

This letter merely applies the existing regulatory language to the question you posed, and does not constitute a judgment that your trailers could operate with a conventional underride guard in place. There may be engineering solutions that you have not yet explored that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of your vehicle.

If there are solutions that you would not be able to implement before the January 26, 1998 effective date of the rule, you can apply for a temporary exemption. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. I have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. Please note that it takes three to four months from the date of submittal before a decision can be made on such an application because it has to be submitted for public comment. You may also submit a petition for rulemaking (see 49 CFR Part 552, copy enclosed) requesting that NHTSA amend the standard to exclude these vehicles.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:224
d.8/22/97

ID: 7252

Mr. Timothy C. Murphy
Chairman, TSEI Engineering Committee (Lights)
Transportation Safety Equipment Institute
P.O. Box 1638
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632-0638

Dear Mr. Murphy:

This responds to your letter of April 30. 1992, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked "whether the lens leg of various lamp assemblies may be included in the calculation" of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area required of certain lamps by Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you have enclosed "Figure 1" which "shows that the last optic against the lens leg projects light outward beyond the lens leg and yet the light may be beneficial to meeting the twenty degree outward test points for stop, tail, turn lamps." Accordingly you have concluded "that this light, though low in intensity due to its distance from the filament, may be significant as far as meeting the photometric requirements of the lamp."

NHTSA adopted a definition of "effective projected luminous lens area" on May 15, 1990 (55 FR 20158), to mean "that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of that portion of the light-emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test pattern. . . ." No exceptions were made to the definition. In rejecting a petition for reconsideration to include lens parts, such as the rim (or leg), in the calculation of lens area in those instances where the rim transmits unobstructed light, NHTSA explained on December 5, 1990 (55 FR 50182), that areas that do not contribute "significantly" to light output should not be included in the lens area calculation. It commented that "the optical parts of the reflector and lens are designed to achieve that purpose", and that "lens rims or legs do not contribute to the optical design" but instead "take up surface area that can reduce the area of the optically designed part of the lens if they are allowed to be included in the computation of minimum lens area."

In the comments that both you and we have quoted above, NHTSA has tried to differentiate between optical parts that are specifically designed to contribute to the optical design of a lamp and those whose contribution is only incidental and secondary. Those comments express clearly the agency's opinion that a lens leg, such as shown in your Figure 1, is an optical part that contributes only incidentally to the optical design of a lamp. However, the agency's opinions, as expressed in the preambles on this subject, are not the most definitive answer to your question. Instead, with reference to Figure 1, whether the additional lens area may be included in the computation of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area is determined by the definition of that term set forth in S4 of Standard No. 108. If the lens leg in Figure 1 meets that definition, it may be included in the computation. If not, it may not be included in the computation.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref.108 d:5/27/92

ID: nht92-6.32

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Timothy C. Murphy -- Chairman, TSEI Engineering Committee (Lights), Transportation Safety Equipment Institute

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/30/92 from Timothy C. Murphy to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7252)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 30, 1992, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked "whether the lens leg of various lamp assemblies may be included in the calculation" of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area required of certain lamps by Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you have enclosed "Figure 1" which "shows that the last optic against the lens leg projects light outward beyond the lens leg and yet the light may be beneficial to meeting the twenty degree outward test points for stop, tail, turn lamps." Accordingly you have concluded "that this light, though low in intensity due to its distance from the filament, may be significant as far as meeting the photometric requirements of the lamp."

NHTSA adopted a definition of "effective projected luminous lens area" on May 15, 1990 (55 FR 20158), to mean "that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of that portion of the light-emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test pattern. . . ." No exceptions were made to the definition. In rejecting a petition for reconsideration to include lens parts, such as the rim (or leg), in the calculation of lens area in those instances where the rim transmits unobstructed light, NHTSA explained on December 5, 1990 (55 FR 50182), that areas that do not contribute "significantly" to light output should not be included in the lens area calculation. It commented that "the optical parts of the reflector and lens are designed to achieve that purpose", and that "lens rims or legs do not contribute to the optical design" but instead "take up surface area that can reduce the area of the optically designed part of the lens if they are allowed to be included in the computation of minimum lens area."

In the comments that both you and we have quoted above, NHTSA has tried to differentiate between optical parts that are specifically designed to contribute to the optical design of a lamp and those whose contribution is only incidental and secondary. Those comments express clearly the agency's opinion that a lens leg, such as shown in your Figure 1, is an optical part that contributes only incidentally to the optical design of a lamp. However, the agency's opinions, as expressed in the preambles on this subject, are not the most definitive answer to your question. Instead, with reference to Figure 1, whether the additional lens area may be included in the computation of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area is determined by the definition of that term set forth in S4 of Standard No. 108. If the lens leg in Figure 1 meets that definition, it may be included in the computation. If not, it may not be included in the computation.

ID: aiam4738

"Dear Ms. Birenbaum: This responds to several letters asking whethe various products are items of motor vehicle equipment: (1) 'SNAP fix-a-flat', an aerosol container of liquid latex and a highly flammable propellant of pressurized gas which can be used to temporarily seal and inflate flat tires, (2) an electric windshield de-icer and windshield scraper which can be inserted into the cigarette lighter receptacle in a motor vehicle, and (3) a bicycle rack. In response to your request regarding the de-icer and rack, we will not disclose information regarding those items to the public. As explained in detail below, each of these three items would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). In reaching these conclusions, we were cognizant of that fact that, as you noted, section 3(a)(1)(c) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)(c), excludes items of 'motor vehicle equipment' from the definition of 'consumer product.' Before I respond further to the substantive points in your letters, I would like to express my regret for the delay in this response. While preparing our response to your letters, we conducted an extensive review of our past interpretations regarding whether a product is an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Safety Act. After that review, and in response to the issues raised in your letters, we have decided to clarify and revise our interpretation of what constitutes 'motor vehicle equipment.' As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), defines, in relevant part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added). In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an 'accessory . . . to the motor vehicle,' NHTSA has in the past generally applied not only the relevant statutory language, but also the following two criteria: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle (e.g., a battery charger that could be used for marine batteries as well as motor vehicle batteries would not qualify) and second, whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles (e.g., items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance personnel would not qualify). In most cases, the agency concluded that a product was an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' only if it met both criteria. However, in several instances, the agency found products to be items of motor vehicle equipment without an explicit finding that they satisfied the first criterion (e.g., a June 11, 1986 letter to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, concerning a tow strap, and an August 18, 1987 letter to Ziemke, concerning window shades). Your recent requests have led us to review our approach to this issue. We have concluded that the first criterion stated above for determining whether a product should be regarded as an 'accessory . . . to the motor vehicle' has been too restrictive. Neither the Safety Act nor its legislative history limits that category to items used exclusively in conjunction with motor vehicles. Moreover, we believe that a broader view of what comes within that term, and therefore what may be properly characterized as an item of motor vehicle equipment, is more consistent with the statutory language and with the Safety Act's purposes of enhancing motor vehicle safety. Therefore, we have decided that a product will be deemed to satisfy the first criterion whenever a substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We will determine the expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. We anticipate that products found to satisfy the first criterion will ordinarily, although not necessarily, be ones that are carried in a vehicle. If the product also satisfies the second criterion (which is directed to the nature of the likely users of the product), the product will be considered an 'accessory' and thus be subject to the provisions of the Safety Act. Applying these criteria to the three products about which you inquired, NHTSA has come to the following conclusions: SNAP fix-a-flat. You explained that while this product is primarily intended for use with motor vehicles, the product's label suggests it also can be used with tires on bicycles, tractors, and off-road all-terrain-vehicles. According to your letter, all but one of the reported injuries have been sustained by a mechanic rather than the vehicle owner. The agency considers this to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. First, although the product can be used to repair tires on bicycles and other vehicles not subject to the Safety Act, it is evident that a substantial use of the product is for the purpose of repairing motor vehicle tires. Second, based on the product's purpose as suggested by the statements on the can (e.g., 'Quick and easy to use. No jacks. No tools. No tire changing.' and 'Keep out of reach of children'), it appears that this product was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners. The fact that mechanics have typically been the ones being injured by this product may reflect, not the fact that the primary users are mechanics, but the fact that mechanics are more likely than other users to engage in practices that lead to problems with fix-a-flat. Bicycle rack. NHTSA considers these racks to be items of motor vehicle equipment. First, insofar as this agency is aware, bicycle racks are used exclusively in conjunction with motor vehicles. Even if bicycle racks were occasionally used on vehicles other than motor vehicles, use with motor vehicles is the primary use of these racks. Second, based on the product's function, which is to transport bicycles on motor vehicles, and their typically simple method of installation, it appears that this product was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners. De-icer. This agency considers the de-icer to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. First, several facts indicate that it is primarily intended for use in conjunction with motor vehicles. Its plug fits a type of outlet which we believe is most commonly found in motor vehicles. While that type of outlet may be found in some boats, boats are comparatively unlikely to be used in conditions in which ice may form. Thus, we conclude that use with motor vehicles is the primary use of this product. Second, based on the product's purpose, method of installation and operation, and likely circumstancs of its use, it appears that this product was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht75-6.3

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Royal Industries

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 3, 1975, request for confirmation that a final-stage manufacturer (as defined in 49 CFR @ 568.3) is responsible for certification of its motor vehicle products under Part 568 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (vehicles manufactured in two or more stages) and that it would be illegal for a final-stage manufacturer to complete a truck with a volumetric capacity which would accommodate more weight than the rated cargo load, causing the loaded vehicle weight to exceed the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) specified by the manufacturer. You also request confirmation that the cargo container designed for a specific commodity must have a load center of gravity (CG) that does not cause the total vehicle CG to exceed the chassis manufacturer's specified CG.

You are correct that Part 568 makes the final-stage manufacturer responsible for certification of a completed vehicle which is manufactured in two or more stages.

If a final-stage manufacturer specifies a rated cargo load for the completed vehicle, the weight of the vehicle when carrying that load must not exceed the GVWR. If you supply no rated cargo load, but only the volumetric capacity, the capacity would not on its face lead to a violation of the certification regulations, since the weight of specific commodities can vary considerably.

You should be aware, however, that completing the vehicle so that its apparent carrying capacity exceeds the stated weight ratings may create some risks of liability beyond the certification regulations themselves. If, for example, the vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction in use that can be traced to overloading, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402) and under common-law product liability doctrines. As you suggest, the final-stage manufacturer who completes a vehicle for a specific commodity is clearly on notice that providing "overload capacity" could constitute a safety-related defect if that vehicle is involved in an accident due to overloading. I enclose copies of two interpretations on this subject provided to a manufacturer and a trade association.

Part 568 contains no requirements for limitation of cargo load center of gravity. I assume your question about CG concerns completion of air-brake vehicles in a fashion which permits you to certify to Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. I enclose a copy of a notice which explains that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will test a vehicle under Standard No. 121, whether or not designed for a specific capacity, using a CG height which does not exceed that specified by the chassis manufacturer. I would note that the preamble of the enclosed notice points out that, if the NHTSA should discover vehicles being produced that do not perform safely when loaded in a normal manner and can establish that this condition is attributable to deficiencies in vehicle manufacture or design, it can proceed against their manufacturers under its safety-related defect jurisdiction.

ID: nht90-1.59

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 27, 1990

FROM: Don James -- Contracts, Stone Bennett Corporation

TO: Docket Section -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Docket No. 88-16; Notice 3

ATTACHMT: Attached to diagram of the toggle installation & envelope (graphics omitted); Also attached to diagram of control panel with auto-neutral (graphics omitted); Also attached to diagram of control panels (text and graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 10-12-90 from P.J. Rice (Signature by K.W. Weinstein) to D. James (A36; Std. 102); Also attached to copy of 54 FR 29042, 7-11-89 and 55 FR 1226, 1-12-90, regarding 49 CFR Part 571 and FMVSS 201 (text omitted)

TEXT:

The above referenced Docket concerns the FMVSS Standard No. 102 and the proposed changes as they relate to Automatic Transmissions without a Park Position.

Stone Bennett Corporation has been manufacturing transmission shifting mechanisms since 1973. These mechanisms utilize pneumatics, hydraulics, or, electromotive force or any combination of the three to shift the transmission on the demand of the operato r. In all cases the transmission ranges are indicated by a series of light indicators or a sunshine readable digital display that indicates only the range selected. The method of selecting ranges is not the classic floor mounted or column mounted shift levers. Stone Bennett Corporation uses a toggle mechanism or two pushbutton switches to effect the range to range shift operation. That is, to execute a shift to an adjacent range when in the Neutral position, it will be necessary to depress a shift bu tton (push the toggle lever) to move from neutral to reverse or from neutral to drive. It is necessary to depress the pushbutton or push the toggle lever and release to allow movement through the range sequence. An example is to shift three range posit ions from drive to second in a sequence of RND321. The operator must press/release to shift to 3rd and press/release to shift from 3rd to 2nd and simarily to shift the opposite direction.

The overriding purpose of this letter is to ask for a ruling on the acceptability of providing a label indicating the range sequence on the body of the shift control console. Please see the attached documents for a visual understanding of the request.

Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

ID: aiam0222

Dear Mr. Gardner: This is in response to your letter of February 18, 1970, in which yo asked whether Standard 111, *Rearview Mirrors*, was based on monocular or ambinocular viewing by the driver. Please excuse the delay caused by a corresponding routing error.; Standard 111 is based on ambinocular viewing. There was no intent t change this by the use of the singular in the phrase 'driver's eye reference point,' in the interpretation of April 4, 1967.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Rodolfo Diaz, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Programs

ID: 22734.ztv.wpd

Ms. Jacqueline Frohman
Chief Financial Officer
Astron Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 163126
Austin, TX 78716





Dear Ms. Frohman:

This is in reply to your letter of February 16,2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking whether your "AstronLaser" device would "be deemed permissible in the United States."

This device is intended to serve essentially as a rear fog lamp, "and can be adapted to both new vehicles as well as existing ones." The device is connected directly into the vehicle's electrical system "through the existing rear fog light or taillight wiring." The product literature that you enclosed shows that the laser projector is installed at the rear of a vehicle "and is calibrated at an angle where the light beam hits the ground at 220 feet or 70 meters." The device is "mounted in a housing that can be installed on a vehicle's rear window, rear license plate, or truck rear fender," as well as being mounted under the chassis of a truck or trailer.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, establishes the lighting requirements that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must meet. We have no requirements for fog lamps at this time. Under Standard No. 108, supplementary lighting equipment such as a rear fog lamp is permissible, provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. After reviewing your device, we do not believe that it would have an impairing effect upon stop lamps, taillamps, or rear turn signal lamps, provided that the connection through the taillamp wiring has no effect upon the performance of the taillamps. We are unable to judge the effect of AstonLaser upon the required license plate lamp were it to be mounted on the rear license plate. Otherwise, it appears permissible under Federal law for a manufacturer or dealer to equip a vehicle with the device prior to the vehicle's first sale.

Subject to the same cautions noted above, we also conclude that the device may be installed as aftermarket equipment on a vehicle in use without violating the statute that prohibits modifications to a vehicle that affect its original compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108 (49 U.S.C. 30122).

We have consulted with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which also confirms that use of the device is not prohibited on the trucks and trailers that are subject to its regulations.

However, our opinion that the device is permissible under Federal law does not supersede the right of any State to allow, prohibit, or establish its own requirements for a rear fog lamp. Indeed, you may find that many States prohibit such a device, and you should consult them for advice. We are unable to advise you further on State laws.

In closing, I want to express our concern about mounting the device on the rear window of passenger cars or in any other location where the lamp might be visible to occupants of other vehicles. It appears to be possible that, at some point, the downward projecting beam could shine in the eyes of the driver of an approaching vehicle, thus creating glare. Perhaps more importantly, your literature states that "momentary viewing is not considered hazardous." This statement implies that more than momentary viewing of the laser beam may be hazardous. For these reasons, we recommend that you evaluate the feasibility of relocating the device below the eye level of drivers approaching from the rear, as well as conduct whatever analysis may be necessary to ensure that your device does not create a hazard.

Because your device is intended as motor vehicle equipment, it is subject to the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120 in the event that either NHTSA or the device's manufacturer determines that it incorporates a safety related defect.

If you have further questions, you may call Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/11/01