ID: 2661y

Satoshi Nishibori, Vice President
Industry-Government Affairs
Nissan Research & Development, Inc.
750 17th Street NW
Suite 902
Washington, DC 20006

Dear Mr. Nishibori:

This responds to your letter dated June 28, 1990 requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, would apply to two vehicle systems Nissan is considering using.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and during a discussion between Kazuo Iwasaki of your staff and Mary Versailles of my staff in our offices on July 13th.

I. Car Phone

Nissan is considering introducing a car phone in certain passenger cars which has five illuminated displays. The first display shows the number being dialed. The display is illuminated whether or not the phone is in use, and the number dialed continues to be displayed while the phone is in use.

The second display illuminates the push buttons. The display becomes illuminated when the first button is pushed, and remains illuminated for 10 seconds.

The remainder of the car phone displays are LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is "in use". The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when cellular phone service is not available. The third indicator (RM) is illuminated when outside the system's local operating area if the system is able to lock onto an available phone line. It is our understanding that there will be times when none of these three LED's will be illuminated and times when more than one of the LEDs could be illuminated (for example, both the IU and RM indicators).

None of the car phone displays can be turned off while the ignition switch is in the "ON" position. The illumination is not variable in any display.

You asked whether the car phone displays are "telltales" or other "sources of illumination," within the meaning of section S5.3.5, and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101.

Based upon our understanding of their functioning, the three LED indicators (IU, NS, and RM) would appear to be telltales. Both the IU and RM displays "indicate the actuation of a device", while the NS display indicates "a failure to function". Because the displays are not listed in the standard, and because they are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5 because they are telltales, they are not subject to any illumination requirements.

The other displays are not telltales. The functions of both the first display ("number dialed") and the second display ("push button") are not among those listed in the definition of a telltale. The "number dialed" display provides information in much the same way as a fuel gauge. The illumination of the push buttons functions to facilitate dialing.

Because these displays are not among those listed in Standard No. 101, and because they are not telltales, they are subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. Therefore, these displays must "have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off." Based upon your description, none of these requirements are currently met.

II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light

In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated only if both the air-conditioning operating switch and the ignition switch are in the "ON" position. You indicate that you believe the indicator is a telltale, and that if it is a telltale "it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions."

Because the indicator light indicates actuation of a device, i.e., the air conditioner, you are correct that it is a telltale. NHTSA would like to clarify that, with the exception of the requirements of section S5.3.5, FMVSS 101 regulates only controls and displays listed in the standard. Since the air-conditioning indicator light you describe is not listed in the standard, and because telltales are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5, there are no illumination requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:101 d:9/l8/90

ID: 1983-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Libby-Owens-Ford Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard P. Keim Manager of Automotive Glass Replacement Services Libby-Owens-Ford Company 811 Madison Avenue P.O. Box 799 Toledo, Ohio 43695

Dear Mr. Keim:

This responds to your letter of September 26, 1983, regarding the certification and marking requirements for glazing under S6 of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You stated that you are interested in "out-sourcing some of your replacement auto glass requirements" to other manufacturers and sought clarification on four points concerning glazing identification.

Section 6 of Standard No. 205 deals specifically with the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.6-1966 (ANS Z26). You ask whether it is permissible under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to allow another manufacturer, using its own DOT code mark, to put an LOF trademark and logo on its glass.

Section 6 of ANS Z26 states that a manufacturer shall mark safety glazing materials with its own "distinctive designation or trademark." The purpose behind these markings was to aid in the tracing of glazing materials and the enforcement of applicable standards. Your letter states that the other manufacturer will place their DOT code mark on the safety glass. Since the other manufacturer is using its own DOT code mark, the tracing and enforcement policies will not be circumvented. Therefore, under these circumstances, the use of LOF's logo and trademark is not violative of Standard No. 205.

Further, you ask whether another glass manufacturer can use LOF's "M" number on his glass with LOF's permission. As long as the model number is an accurate description of the specific glazing material being produced, the other manufacturer may use it.

Lastly, you ask if the name of the country of manufacture must appear on the safety glass if not manufactured in the United States. The standard does not mandate that the country of manufacture be marked on the safety glazing materials.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 26, 1983

Mr. Steven Oesch Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration 400-7th Street S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

This is in regard to our phone conversation of September 22, 1983. We are contemplating out-sourcing some of our replacement auto glass requirements with other manufacturers but we feel we need a clarification of the requirements of manufacturers identification on the actual glass parts.

LOF's "DOT" registration No. is 15. This number along with the LOF logo "AS" number "M" number, etc. appears in the monogram on each piece of glass we produced in accordance with DOT regulations.

Our scenario is this. We have been told by other glass manufacturers that they could produce glass for LOF using LOF's logo ( or name ) and glass description in combination with their "DOT" registration number. An example of this is depicted below:

Typical monogram as currently placed on glass produced by LOF:

"INSERT"

Proposed alteration of monogram to be used by another manufacturer producing glass for LOF with LOF's permission, would be to substitute their own DOT Registration No. in place of DOT 15.

Questions which we have raised include:

1. Can another glass manufacturer put an LOF trademark on his glass with permission from LOF?

2. Can another glass manufacturer put the LOF logo on his glass with permission from LOF?

3. Can another glass manufacturer use LOF's "M" number on his glass with permission from LOF?

4. Must the name of the country of manufacture appear on the glass if manufactured in a country other than the U.S.? For example - Made in U.S.A does not have to appear on our glass.

If the answer to any of these questions is no, please explain if there is any other substitution(s) that could be made which would make it permissible for another manufacturer to put the name LOF on glass he manufactures.

It has been indicated to us that some manufacturers are already producing glass using other companies names on their glass, but using their own DOT number.

Your consideration of this issue and prompt reply will be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Richard P. Keim Manager of Automotive Glass Replacement Services

RPK/slj

cc: A. E. Riggs J. M. Oathout R. E. Miller C. C. Washing J. W. Leonard G. C. McNaul

ID: nht90-3.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1990

FROM: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.; Signature by Kazuo Iwasaki

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawing (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-18-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Nishibori (A36; Std. 101)

TEXT:

This letter is to request NHTSA's interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101 (Controls and Displays) would apply to two vehicle systems that Nissan is considering using. These systems are described below.

I. Car Phone

Nissan is considering offering a car phone for use in certain of its passenger cars. The car phone would be installed in the vehicle's console, in the lower, forward portion of the driver's field of vision. The car phone would have five visual displays, each of which is bright enough to be seen under all ambient lighting conditions. The illumination for these displays is not variable and the system may not be turned off while the vehicle ignition switch is in the "ON" position.

The first display shows the number that is being dialed (see Figure) through an LED. This display is illuminated whether or not the telephone is in use, and the number being dialed is shown during the time that the phone is in use.

The second display illuminates the push buttons for dialing numbers. This display is illuminated when the first button is pushed when dialing a number, and the display remains illuminated for a period of ten seconds.

Finally, the system uses three LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is "in use." The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when the system is outside an area where cellular phone service is available (i.e., "no service" ), as determined by the failure of the system's "roaming" function to lock on an available phone line. The third indicator (RM) is illuminated when this "roaming" function is operating, when outside the system's local operating area.

It is our understanding that this phone system would comply with FMVSS 101 requirements if the five information displays are considered to be "telltales." The term "telltale" is defined in section 4 of FMVSS 101 as "a display that indicates the actuatio n of a device, a correct or defective functioning or condition, or a failure to function." Since the displays used in the phone system indicate operation of various functions of the phone system, the displays may meet the definition of "telltale" in sec tion 4 of the standard. If so, the system would appear to be consistent with the requirement for telltales in section 5.3.4(a) of FMVSS 101, since the illumination of the displays is bright enough to be visible under all ambient lighting conditions. On the other hand, the system would not appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.5 of the standard

if the displays are considered to be other "sources of illumination," since the displays do not have variable illumination, are brighter than "barely discernible" in night conditions, and may not be turned off without shutting off the vehicle.

Please inform us whether the displays used in this car phone system are "telltales" or other "sources of illumination," and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101.

II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light

In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated whenever the air-conditioning system operating switch and the ignition switch are in the "ON" position. When the air conditioner or the ignition switch is turned "OFF," the indicato r light is extinguished.

Nissan believes that the air conditioner indicator qualifies as a "telltale," since it indicates the "actuation of a device." If the air conditioner indicator display is considered to be a "telltale," it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions.

On the other hand, this display would appear to be comparable to the radio display that is described in NHTSA's January 7, 1988, letter to Isuzu. In that letter, the Agency concluded that the illuminated radio display is considered to be one of the other "sources of illumination" in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 101. Since the radio display can be turned off by turning off the radio, NHTSA considered it to be consistent with section 5.3.5(3). In the same manner, the air conditioner indicator display can be tu rned off by shutting off the air conditioner system. The radio display referred to in the Isuzu interpretation would also seem to meet the "telltale" definition, although the radio display serves the function of aiding tuning of the radio in addition to indicating whether the device is operating.

Please inform us as to whether the proposed air conditioner lighting display is considered to be a "telltale" or an "other source of illumination" under section 5.3.5 of the standard, and whether the display would be consistent with applicable requiremen ts.

If you require further clarification regarding the proposed Nissan systems, please contact Mr. Kazuo Iwasaki of my staff at 202/466-5284.

(Drawing attached).

ID: nht71-5.48

DATE: 07/06/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On June 29, 1971, you submitted on behalf of Ford Motor Company an Amendment to Petition for Reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. In this amendment of your petition you seek a stay of the effective date of the rule and the reopening of the administrative proceedings on the grounds that (1) Ford might make "specific responses, rebuttals and comments" regarding materials not placed in the docket until after issuance of the rule in question, and (2) Ford's own continuing work has resulted in material information which it could not until quite recently have made available. You request that the "amendment be decided" concurrently with Ford's petition for reconsideration.

As you know, the safety standards are promulgated under informal rulemaking procedures of Section 4(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. @ 553(c)). Automotive Parts & Accessories Association, Inc. v. Boyd, 407 F.2d 330 (D.C. Cir. 1968). Under informal rulemaking procedures, an agency "may act not only on the basis of the comments received in response to its notice of rulemaking, but also upon the basis of information available in its own files, and upon the knowledge and expertise of the agency." California Citizens Band Association v. United States, 375 F.2d 43, 54 (9 Cir., 1967). Under section 105(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, judicial review of our rulemaking takes place on the basis of the "record," which consists of all relevant materials available to the agency and considered by it in connection with the action in question. The certified list of the record in this matter filed in the Sixth Circuit is composed of just such a record. We emphatically deny that the assembling of the record in this manner constitutes "stacking" of

2 the record. On the contrary, we maintain that such action is entirely proper, a regular adjunct to informal rulemaking conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and is consistent with action taken in previous similar judicial review proceedings involving this agency.

Under the informal rulemaking procedures utilized by the NHTSA, the "record" is never really closed. When a final rule is issued, petitions for reconsideration may be filed pursuant to 49 CFR 553.35. When a final decision is issued on petitions for reconsideration, further submissions are placed in the public docket and are treated as petitions to establish, amend, or repeal a rule pursuant to 49 CFR 553.31. Thus, Ford and any other interested person are free at all times to submit relevant information to any rulemaking docket; and these submittals are regularly brought to the attention of concerned personnel for appropriate action.

Under 49 CFR 553.35(b) of the Administration's procedural rules, a petitioner for reconsideration may submit additional facts if he states the reason why they were not presented within the prescribed period. In your request to amend your petition for reconsideration you did state two such reasons (the same reasons advanced in support of the merits of your amendment): (1) the addition of materials to the docket by NHTSA, and (2) the possession by Ford of new material information only recently made available. Although we cannot agree with your contention that the Administration acted in a manner inconsistent with informal rulemaking procedures, you are nevertheless free to submit at this time whatever information you think is relevant to the record, including information only recently made available through Ford's continuing research. Accordingly, your June 29, 1971, amendment to your petition for reconsideration will be accepted as such and considered along with the petition pursuant to your request. If you have other material you wish to submit in addition to that already submitted under date of June 29, 1971, please submit it as soon as possible. Under informal rulemaking procedures this Administration is eager to receive such additional information and strongly urges Ford to make a prompt submission of any such material. Material submitted after a decision has been made on the petitions for reconsideration will, of course, be placed in the public docket pursuant to 49 CFR 553.31 of the Administration's procedural rules.

Ford Motor Company

June 29, 1971

Douglas W. Toms Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Toms:

Amendment to Petition for Reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 -- Occupant Crash Protection -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses

We are transmitting herewith for your information a copy of an amendment to the Ford Motor Company's pending Petition for Reconsideration in the above matter. The amendment has been formally filed in NHTSA's docket. In our view, the points discussed in this document raise grave questions as to the procedure followed in promulgating the occupant crash protection standard.

As you will note from the first page of the enclosure, Ford requests, because of the urgent matters set forth therein, that the amendment be decided with utmost dispatch, concurrently with Ford's pending Petition for Reconsideration.

Respectfully submitted,

J. C. Eckhold Automotive Safety Director

ID: nht87-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Sally P. Tate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Sally P. Tate Adaptive Driving Service 2818 Ronco Drive San Jose, CA 95132

Dear Ms Tate:

This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1987, with reference to the following problem: an owner of a 1987 Toyota Corolla has multiple sclerosis, and instead of walking must use a powered scooter. The scooter is transported by a lift platf orm mounted on a trailer hitch in the rear of the car. However, this lift unit "obstructs direct view of -- the factory installed high rear brake light." You propose to install another stop lamp on the post of the lift "so that it will be in dir ect view of the drivers behind....," leaving untouched the original center highmounted stop lamp. You have informed us that California will not sanction the additional lamp unless this agency authorizes it. Vehicles in use are subject to the prohibition in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard may not be rendered inoperative, in whole or in part, by a person other than the vehicle owner. Installation of any equipment that obstructs the light output of a highmounted stop lamp would render it partially inoperative in our opinion. Because photometric compliance of the lamp is determined from a distance of not less than 10 feet, and b ecause the distance between the Toyota rear lamp and lift unit would appear to be less than that distance, it is probable that one or more of the requisite photometric test points might be obscured by the device.

However, it appears that the prohibition against rendering inoperative may not be violated by the modification you propose. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment allows an exception for modifica tions made during the manufacturing process or before sale. Under Paragraph S4.3.1.1, if motor vehicle equipment prevents a lamp from compliance with photometric requirements, an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements shall be provided. Wher e a standard provides alternative methods of compliance, alteration of a vehicle or item of equipment so that it meets a different alternative from the one which it originally met does not constitute rendering inoperative within the meaning of the prohib ition.

We believe that your situation is sufficiently similar so that your addition of an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements would not violate the prohibition. In this instance the fact that the new lamp would not be located directed on the rea r vertical centerline of the vehicle, but slightly to the left of it, would not be of great concern to us. In conclusion, we have no objection to the proposed installation of the lamp.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 13, 1987

Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel F.M.V. #108, Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SouthWest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Erika Z. Jones,

As per my conversations with Mr. Kevin Cabey and Mr. Taylor Vinson, I have been advised to write directly to you to have you assist us with our request.

I will try to be as brief as possible. I work with Physically Disabled individuals and I have been contracted by the State of California to work with a client who has Multiple Sclerosis. She purchased a 1987 Toyota Corolla liftback which obviously has th e high center rear brake light feature. This light in itself poses no problem. However, our client uses a powered scooter since her ability to ambulate is minimized and this scooter can only be transported through the means of a special lift unit mounted on a trailer hitch in the rear of the car. (Please refer to the brochure of Tiger Lift enclosed.) When this lift unit is mounted on the car, it abstracts direct view of the factory installed high rear brake light. We have come up with a solution of moun ting another high rear brake light" on the post of the lift so that it will be in direct view of the drivers behind our client. Our State Chief of Automotive Inspection insists that this rear brake light be visible.

Our snag hinges on the fact that the California State Department of Automotive Inspection will not sanction any location of the high rear brake light (only factory installed), in our case on the post of the lift, unless we receive a letter of authorizati on directly from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

We are therefore requesting and greatly appreciate your efforts in assisting us with this client's need. Our automotive chief has stated that this unit will not be installed unless we are able to receive a written letter of authorization addressing the a cceptance of the installation of another high rear brake light, which can be mounted on the post of this lift unit. The factory installed unit will remain untouched.

Thank you for your prompt attention in this unusual request.

ID: aiam2959

Dear Mr. Tedesco: This is in response to your letter of February 8, 1979, requestin confirmation of your understanding of an October 7, 1976, letter of interpretation by our office concerning Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*. You are correct in your assumption that the standard applies only to completed vehicles and not to vehicle seats as individual equipment.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5533

"Dear Mr. Shetler: This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995 asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123 permit a motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator to be green. You have noted that, under Table III of Standard No. 108, SAE J588 NOV84 is the appropriate standard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorporated by reference for motorcycle turn signal lamps. You have further noted that the SAE standard specifies requirements for turn signal pilot indicators if the front turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Finally, paragraph 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 specifies that the indicator, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow-colored light. On the other hand, Standard No. 123, which specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification, does not specify a color for turn signal pilot indicators. You believe that SAE J588 was written with passenger cars in mind and that its color and area requirements are specified because the location of an outside indicator lamp is further away than a lamp located inside the vehicle on the instrument panel. You also believe that Standard No. 123 does not need to address distance from the driver's eye because the turn signal lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the driver's eye. Thus, you have concluded that any pilot lamp color would be acceptable. We have reviewed specifications of both the SAE and Standard No. 123. SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and, under Table III, is the standard specified for motorcycle turn signal lamps. Because paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 does not contain a section modifying the applicability of J588 to motorcycles, all the requirements of J588 apply to motorcycles, including turn signal pilot indicators and their color. All that Standard No. 123 does, through Table III, is to specify the shape of the turn signal indicator. It is silent as to the color of the indicator. We believe that you are correct in your conclusion that J588 was not written with motorcycles in mind, at least for two-wheeled motorcycles such as Kawasaki makes. Two colors are prescribed by SAE J588, the choice of which depends on the location of the indicator. Under paragraph 5.4.3.2, a green-colored light 'with a minimum area of 18 sq. mm.' must be used 'if the illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle.' Under 5.4.3.3 a yellow-colored light with 'a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 sq. mm.' must be used 'if the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for example on the front fenders.' Since two-wheeled motorcycles do not have enclosed cabins, all references to 'inside' and 'outside' the vehicle are inapposite. Since you brought this matter to our attention, we have conducted an informal survey of the color of turn signal indicators on motorcycles sold in the United States. We find that the predominant color is amber, though Harley-Davidson, accounting for 12% of the market, uses green. We view the use of either color as in accord with J588. Therefore, if Kawasaki wishes to change its indicator color from amber to green, it will not violate Standard No. 108 by doing so. As J588's color specifications are coupled with those for the minimum illuminated area of the display, and you have not raised the question of an appropriate size for a green turn signal indicator, we call your attention to paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard No. 123 which requires that the display for turn signal lamps and other equipment 'be visible to a seated operator under daylight conditions.' If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to answer them for you (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht80-2.38

DATE: 05/21/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Safety and Security Consultants

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 21, 1980

Mr. D. J. Hitt Vice President Safety and Security Consultants 702 Candy Mountain Road Birmingham, Alabama 35217

Dear Mr. Hitt:

This is in reply to your letters of April 11, and April 25, 1980, respectively to this agency and to Mr. Vinson of this office, These letters reference requirements for side marker reflectors and clearance lamps for trailers used to carry agricultural products over the public roads.

You say that your trailers travel "as much as several hundred miles on the highways at all hours of the day and night". Therefore, they are "motor vehicles" subject to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

I enclose a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, section 571.108). You will see that marker lamps and reflectors are required on all trailers, while rear clearance lamps need be added only if the overall width of a trailer is 80 inches or more. A clearance lamp facing to the rear may be combined with a rear side marker lamp; we assume that is what you mean by a "side clearance lamp" as the standard speaks only in terms of "front" and "rear" clearance lamps.

You have also asked for the "early history" of why these lamps are required pursuant to "Regulation #393.15". As a matter of clarification that section of Title 49 is enforced by a different agency, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, and covers lighting equipment required for commercial vehicles being used in interstate commerce. Our lighting standard, essentially identical, must be met before the vehicle is used, i.e., from time of manufacture until time of sale. To answer your question, clearance lamps must indicate the overall width of the trailer, in order that other drivers may be alerted to the presence on the road of a large vehicle. Side markers help identify the presence of a vehicle whose head lamps or taillamps may not be seen by a driver approaching it from a 90 degree angle, such as at an intersection.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood for

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

SAFETY & SECURITY CONSULTANTS 702 Candy Mountain Road Birmingham, Alabama 35217

Telephone: 853-9525

April 25, 1980

Mr. Taylor Vinson Chief Counsel Room 5219 Department of Transportation Headquarters 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

In reference to my telephone conversation with Mr. Brooks of your office, I am sending the additional information you requested. We are interested in side markers and side clearance lamps for farm hauling equipment such as peanut haulers, cotton haulers and other typed of trailers which are not self propelled. These trailers would be used to carry the product from the farm to market or other distribution point. Sometime traveling as much as several hundred miles on the highways at all hours of the day and night. We would like to know what the legal requirements are for this type of equipment. Also the early history of why side markers and side clearance lamps are used on small semi-trailers and full trailers as required by the Department of Transportation, Regulation #393.15.

If you can not supply this information, could you direct us to where we can find it.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

D. J. Hitt Vice-President

DJH/dc Enclosure

SAFETY & SECURITY CONSULTANTS 702 Candy Mountain Road Birmingham, Alabama 35217

Telephone: 853-9525

April 11, 1980

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Sir:

Our firm is conducting a research on Reflective side markers and body side clearan-ce lamps for agricultural and farm related equipment that is being towed.

We would like to know what the legal requirements for side markers are, also the early history of such requirement, and why side markers and side clearance lamps are required. If you do not have this information, can you direct us to where we might find it?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

D. J. Hitt Vice President DJH/dc

ID: nht90-4.10

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 17, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Samson Helfgott -- Esq., Helfgott & Karas, P.C.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-11-90 from S. Helfgott to S.P. Wood (OCC 4890)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of June 11, 1990 (Your file CAIN 8877), with respect to the permissibility under Standard No. 108 of the use of amber lamps on the rear of motor vehicles.

You have referenced our letter to you of March 30, 1989, on the use of a single amber lamp adjacent to, but separate from, the center highmounted stop lamp. Your client wishes to utilize the amber center lamp in conjunction with rear amber turn signal l amps to provide an amber triangular array on the rear. The array would be activated when the ignition is turned on, and remain activated except when the stop lamps were activated (which, with the red center lamp, provide a red triangular array). With r espect to the triangular amber lamp array you have asked the following four questions:

"1. The possibility of utilizing the amber turn signals as tail lights, instead of the red tail lamps. This is the same as is now in effect on the front of all vehicles."

Standard No. 108 requires that the color of taillamps be red. Therefore amber turn signal lamps could not serve as substitutes for taillamps. Your comment about frontal lighting is not exactly in point. A turn signal lamp may be combined with a parking lamp (provided the requirements for each are met) but Standard No. 108 requires that both be amber in color.

"2. The possibility of supplementing existing tail lamps with the presence of the amber lamps."

We do not regard this as a true supplement because the color of the array differs from that of the taillamps required by Standard No. 108. However, like taillamps, the array is intended to indicate the presence of a vehicle. The question is, whether an array of three amber lamps would impair the effectiveness of the required two red taillamps. As we advised in our letter of March 30, 1989, additional lighting equipment is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equ ipment that the standard requires. We cautioned that you should consider whether steady-burning amber lamps might confuse following drivers, who would probably be unused to seeing steady burning amber lamps on the rear of a vehicle. Because you have no t informed us as to the intended candela of the array, we cannot advise with any assurance whether the amber array would impair the effectiveness of the required red taillamps. Certainly if the candela of the triple amber arrray exceeded that of the red taillamps a basis would appear to exist for a judgment of impairment.

"3. The possibility of using the amber lamps as daytime running lamps on the rear of a vehicle.

Under this scenario, the amber array would function as daytime presence lamps, a function not provided by any rear lighting system required by Standard No. 108. The question therefore is whether such a system would impair the effectiveness of the signal lamps required by Standard No. 108. These are hazard warning signals, turn signals, and stop lamps.

With respect to the hazard warning signals, these operate through the turn signal lamps, and, although operable when the vehicle is in motion, they are designed to operate when the ignition is not on (i.e., when the triple array would be deactivated). T herefore, we do not believe that the triple array would impair the effectiveness of the hazard warning signals.

As for impairment of the turn signals, we must distinguish between those that are amber and those that are red. Again, we raise the possibility that confusion could exist if the candela of the triple array exceeds that of an amber turn signal system. I t is imperative that following drivers understand without hesitation the signals provided by other vehicles in front of them. Confusion may be less likely to exist if the required signal lamp and the triple array differ in color.

Concerning the stop lamps, you have informed us that the triple array is deactivated when the stop lamps come on. In this event, there would be appear to be no impairment of the stop signals.

"4. The possibility of utilizing the 'amber triangular array' as described above."

In our view, no specific Federal rulemaking appears required for your client to offer its system for installation on motor vehicles, subject to the constraints expressed in this letter and the letter of March 30, 1989. As the earlier letter explains, the determination of whether there is impairment is initially made by a manufacturer who wishes to offer the system as new vehicle equipment. In the aftermarket, installation of the system must not, in effect, result in impairment of required lighting equi pment, but nevertheless the system is subject to State and local lighting laws.

We have forwarded a copy of your letter and our response to the agency's Office of Research and Development for their information. We appreciate your client's interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: 2663y

Samson Helfgott, Esq.
Helfgott & Karas, P.C.
60th Floor
Empire State Building
New York, NY l0ll8-0ll0

Dear Mr. Helfgott:

This is in reply to your letter of June ll, l990 (Your file CAIN 8877), with respect to the permissibility under Standard No. l08 of the use of amber lamps on the rear of motor vehicles.

You have referenced our letter to you of March 30, l989, on the use of a single amber lamp adjacent to, but separate from, the center highmounted stop lamp. Your client wishes to utilize the amber center lamp in conjunction with rear amber turn signal lamps to provide an amber triangular array on the rear. The array would be activated when the ignition is turned on, and remain activated except when the stop lamps were activated (which, with the red center lamp, provide a red triangular array). With respect to the triangular amber lamp array you have asked the following four questions:

"l. The possibility of utilizing the amber turn signals as tail lights, instead of the red tail lamps. This is the same as is now in effect on the front of all vehicles."

Standard No. l08 requires that the color of taillamps be red. Therefore amber turn signal lamps could not serve as substitutes for taillamps. Your comment about frontal lighting is not exactly in point. A turn signal lamp may be combined with a parking lamp (provided the requirements for each are met) but Standard No. l08 requires that both be amber in color.

"2. The possibility of supplementing existing tail lamps with the presence of the amber lamps."

We do not regard this as a true supplement because the color of the array differs from that of the taillamps required by Standard No. l08. However, like taillamps, the array is intended to indicate the presence of a vehicle. The question is, whether an array of three amber lamps would impair the effectiveness of the required two red taillamps. As we advised in our letter of March 30, l989, additional lighting equipment is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. We cautioned that you should consider whether steady-burning amber lamps might confuse following drivers, who would probably be unused to seeing steady burning amber lamps on the rear of a vehicle. Because you have not informed us as to the intended candela of the array, we cannot advise with any assurance whether the amber array would impair the effectiveness of the required red taillamps. Certainly if the candela of the triple amber arrray exceeded that of the red taillamps a basis would appear to exist for a judgment of impairment.

"3. The possibility of using the amber lamps as daytime running lamps on the rear of a vehicle."

Under this scenario, the amber array would function as daytime presence lamps, a function not provided by any rear lighting system required by Standard No. l08. The question therefore is whether such a system would impair the effectiveness of the signal lamps required by Standard No. l08. These are hazard warning signals, turn signals, and stop lamps.

With respect to the hazard warning signals, these operate through the turn signal lamps, and, although operable when the vehicle is in motion, they are designed to operate when the ignition is not on (i.e., when the triple array would be deactivated). Therefore, we do not believe that the triple array would impair the effectiveness of the hazard warning signals.

As for impairment of the turn signals, we must distinguish between those that are amber and those that are red. Again, we raise the possibility that confusion could exist if the candela of the triple array exceeds that of an amber turn signal system. It is imperative that following drivers understand without hesitation the signals provided by other vehicles in front of them. Confusion may be less likely to exist if the required signal lamp and the triple array differ in color.

Concerning the stop lamps, you have informed us that the triple array is deactivated when the stop lamps come on. In this event, there would be appear to be no impairment of the stop signals.

"4. The possibility of utilizing the 'amber triangular array' as described above."

In our view, no specific Federal rulemaking appears required for your client to offer its system for installation on motor vehicles, subject to the constraints expressed in this letter and the letter of March 30, l989. As the earlier letter explains, the determination of whether there is impairment is initially made by a manufacturer who wishes to offer the system as new vehicle equipment. In the aftermarket, installation of the system must not, in effect, result in impairment of required lighting equipment, but nevertheless the system is subject to State and local lighting laws. We have forwarded a copy of your letter and our response to the agency's Office of Research and Development for their information. We appreciate your client's interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:9/l7/90