ID: GF007547

Mr. Scott Comisar
General Manager
Doran MFG, LLC
2851Massachusetts Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45225

Dear Mr. Comisar:

This responds to your e-mail dated October 17, 2003, asking whether LED red and amber strobing warning lights "are safe to use on school buses."

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. I note that this interpretation does not offer an opinion as to whether your particular lighting system is "safe." However, I will identify the federal regulation applicable to school bus signal lamps.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to school bus signal lamps is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 requires each school bus to be equipped with a system of four red signal (or four red and four amber) lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, July 1964 (a copy is enclosed for your information).

Previously, we were twice asked whether a school bus warning system consisting of LED strobe lights met the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. I enclose copies of our letters in response to those inquiries. You may use these previous interpretations as a guideline for determining whether your LED system could comply with FMVSS No. 108.

We assume that you wish to offer your product as original equipment on school buses. Please note, however, that FMVSS No. 108 also applies to replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. [1] Thus, a manufacturer of both original equipment and replacement LED red and amber strobing warning lights is required to certify that the equipment meets the standards requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.12/4/03





---

[1] See S3(c) of FMVSS No. 108.

ID: GF007569-2

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your letter asking us to reconsider our May 22, 2003, interpretation letter to Mr. Babcock of Hyundai concerning whether a multi-component rear reflex reflector configuration would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

Table III of Standard No. 108 requires that each passenger car (and certain other specified vehicles) be equipped with 4 red and 2 amber reflex reflectors. Table IV of the standard requires that two red reflex reflectors be located on the rear of the vehicle, one on each side of the vertical centerline, and as far apart as practicable. The applicable photometry requirements for reflex reflectors are incorporated by reference from SAE J594f, "Reflex Reflectors," January 1977.

In our letter to Mr. Babcock, we addressed a rear reflex reflector configuration which consisted of three separate reflex reflectors. One reflector was installed on the fender and a second reflector was located adjacent to it, on the deck lid. The third reflector was hidden by the deck lid and was not visible until the deck lid was raised. No single reflector fulfilled the photometric requirements for a rear reflex reflector, but these requirements were met when the reflector on the fender and either of the other two reflectors were measured.

We explained that this design was not a permissible configuration under Standard No. 108. We stated that the text and setup for testing set forth in SAE J594f clearly indicate that the requirements of this standard apply to a single reflex reflector, and may not be met using a combination of separate reflex reflectors.

In requesting reconsideration, you state that our interpretation is potentially inconsistent with a prior interpretation of Standard No. 108, sent to Mr. Bataini of DBM Reflex Enterprises on July 19, 2000. In that interpretation, we addressed a configuration where side mounted reflective devices were incorporated into a headlamp housing and visible from the side when light is reflected from them. We stated that the relevant question was "whether Standard No. 108 permits a front side marker reflector to consist of two reflective devices molded separately and assembled on the same housing." We concluded that the answer is yes, provided that when assembled they meet the requirements of SAE Standard J594f.

You suggest that the standard should be interpreted to "permit a reflex reflector to consist of two (or more) reflective devices molded separately and installed on a single, rigid part of the vehicle (such as the fender or bumper) as long as the devices are mounted closely enough together that they meet the test requirements of SAE J594f." You noted that SAE J594f allows reflex reflectors to "have any linear or area dimensions," as long as the photometric performance is met with a specified maximum projected area contained within a 10 inch diameter circle.

We are pleased to clarify Standard No. 108s requirements for reflex reflectors. After considering your letter, it continues to be our opinion that for each reflex reflector required by the standard, all of the standards requirements for that reflex reflector must be met by a single reflex reflector.

We interpret the word "reflector" to refer to a single reflector, that must fully comply on its own. In other situations where Standard No. 108 allows the requirements for an item of lighting equipment to be satisfied by more than one item, it explicitly says so. See, e.g., section 3.1 of SAE J585e (tail lamps), section 5.1.5.2 of SAE J586 (stop lamps), and section 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 (turn signal lamps). (These SAE recommended practices are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.)

We do not believe there is any inconsistency between our letters to Mr. Babcock and Mr. Bataini. In our letter to Mr. Bataini, we addressed the issue of "whether Standard No. 108 permits a front side marker reflector to consist of two reflective devices molded separately and assembled on the same [headlamp] housing."(Emphasis added.) We were not addressing the issue of multiple reflectors.

We note that Standard No. 108 does not specify that all of the reflective elements of a reflex reflector need to be contiguous. Our view when we issued the letter to Mr. Bataini was that whether the reflective elements of the reflex reflector were molded to each other and then mounted on a headlamp housing, or instead separately mounted on the headlamp housing, the finished product was a single item (both a single reflector and a combination lamp). By contrast, multiple unconnected reflective devices installed on the vehicles fender or bumper would not constitute a single reflector.

Finally, we note that the use of multiple reflectors in place of a required single reflector would not only raise testing issues but also concerns related to replacement of broken reflectors. Standard No. 108 specifies requirements only for single reflectors. If a vehicle manufacturer used multiple reflectors in place of a single reflector, there would be no way of knowing the apportioned contribution of each of the separate reflectors. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for an aftermarket manufacturer to supply parts that have the same reflectivity as the original parts, and there would be certification problems for these manufacturers. Therefore, if one of the separate reflectors became broken and the vehicle owner replaced it (but not all of the reflectors), the vehicle might not provide the minimum required performance in this area.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/14/04

ID: GF007705

[ ]

Dear Mr. [ ]:

This responds to your letter of October 7, 2003, regarding certain trailer lighting requirements. You intend to install a set of two lamps at the top rear corners of the trailer. The outer-most lamp would have a dual function of a clearance lamp, and an "auxiliary" turn signal lamp. The horizontally adjacent (inboard) lamp would function as an "auxiliary" stop lamp and, possibly, as a second clearance lamp. [1] You ask whether such a lamp configuration is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108. Further, you are aware that FMVSS No. 108 limits the number of rear identification lamps to three. You ask at what horizontal distance from these identification lamps would supplemental lamps be deemed "auxiliary" and not a part of this identification lamp cluster.

Before I address your questions, I note that you requested confidential treatment for the identity of your company and for yourself. I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [      ] will be kept confidential from the public. Your incoming interpretation request will be redacted before being made publicly available.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

With respect to your first question, the dual function "auxiliary" lamps described in you letter are permissible under FMVSS No. 108 with certain limitations. First, Table II of FMVSS No. 108 requires that the rear clearance lamps be red. Accordingly, the outer-most clearance lamp (that will also function as a turn signal lamp) must be red. Second, the stop lamp that is adjacent to the clearance/turn signal lamp, cannot also function as an additional clearance lamp, because Table II of FMVSS No. 108 requires that clearance lamps indicate the overall width of the vehicle. Accordingly, only the outer-most turn signal lamp can function as a clearance lamp, because it is the outermost lamp that indicates the overall width of the vehicle. We note, however, that it would be permissible for the adjacent inboard lamp to have a dual function of an auxiliary stop lamp and an auxiliary tail lamp.

In response to your second question, Table II of FMVSS No. 108 provides precise guidance for the location of the five lamps that are required at the top rear of the trailer. Specifically, Table II requires that the three identification lamps be located as close as practicable to the top and center of the trailer, spaced between 6 and 12 inches apart. Similarly, Table II requires that the two clearance lamps be located as close as practicable to the top of the trailer and as close to the edges as would be necessary to indicate the overall width of the trailer.

While the location of auxiliary lighting on the top rear of the trailer is not regulated by FMVSS No. 108, S5.1.3 of the standard does prohibit installation of lamps that would impair the effectiveness of required lighting. Therefore, your auxiliary lamps must be located far enough away from the three identification lamps, that they do not impair their effectiveness. In a recent interpretation letter, the agency stated that the function of this three-lamp identification cluster is to indicate the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. The agency has long maintained that highway traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly recognize the meaning the lamps convey and respond accordingly. Therefore, any auxiliary lighting on the top rear of the trailer must be located such that it would not interfere or be confused with the three-lamp identification cluster.

After studying your diagrams, it appears that your auxiliary lamps would not impair the effectiveness of the required three-lamp identification cluster. The three-lamp identification cluster is located at the top center of the trailer. By contrast, your two auxiliary lights are located toward the edges of the trailer, adjacent to the clearance lamps. Thus, your rear lighting configuration would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. [2]

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.1/21/04





---

[1] You have enclosed drawings and a description of two versions of a rear lighting configuration. In one of the two versions, the lamps adjacent to the outer-most turn signal supplemental lamp also functions as a second clearance lamp.

[2] You may also want to review our Interpretive Rule on the proper location of identification lamps and clearance lamps, which NHTSA published on April 5, 1999 (64 FR 16358). A copy is attached.

ID: GF007915

Mr. Derek Dean
ACDelco
2506 Frederick Drive
Conway, AK 72034

Dear Mr. Dean:

This responds to your e-mail regarding various issues related to aftermarket brake pads. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

First, you ask about Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to brake pads on new vehicles, as well as aftermarket brake pads. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) specifically applicable to new brake pads. Instead, several FMVSSs regulate entire brake systems. Specifically, Standards No. 105, 121, 122, and 135 regulate brake systems for various types of motor vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers are responsible for certifying that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSSs, including relevant brake system requirements. Accordingly, brake pad manufacturers are not directly responsible for any certification requirements.

Although NHTSA does not directly regulate brake pads, any brake pad designed to be used on a motor vehicle is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" and is subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Thus, defective aftermarket brake pads could be subject to our recall provisions.

In you letter, you discuss the obligations of repair businesses. Although our regulations do not address brake pad replacement procedures, we note that states may regulate repair businesses and how they perform their work.

In your letter, you ask about NHTSA research related to brake quality and causation of rear impact crashes, and about complaints pertaining to poorly performing brake pads. We note that NHTSA conducts various research projects related to braking performance, and our Office of Defects Investigations maintains a publicly accessible database of complaints filed with NHTSA. We suggest that you visit our web site at www.NHTSA.gov, where you may be able to find helpful information pertaining to your questions.

Finally, you ask for our opinion on the "D3EA certification that GM has voluntarily adopted for use on DuraStop our Aftermarket Brake line to help ensure our brake parts do indeed keep the vehicle in compliance with the FMVSS". As discussed above, NHTSA does not provide approvals or endorsement for motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:105
d.1/3/05

ID: GF007935

Terence McBride, Manager
City of Memphis Motor Vehicle Inspection Bureau
590 Washington Avenue
Memphis, TN 38015

Dear Mr. McBride:

This responds to your e-mail of November 4, 2003, to George Feygin of my staff. In your e-mail, you inform us that the State of Tennessee has passed a bill (No. HB1819/SB1765) permitting oscillating stop lamps on motorcycles. You ask whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) permit oscillating stop lamps on motorcycles. As discussed below, the answer is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements prior to the initial sale of the vehicle.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment in motorcycles is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. The relevant section of that standard reads as follows:

"S5.5.10      The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning" [emphasis added].

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 mandates that all lamps be steady burning, unless otherwise permitted. In the present case, stop lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c). Accordingly, motorcycle stop lamps must be steady burning and cannot be oscillating.

With respect to Federal preemption of State laws, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) provides in pertinent part:

"Preemption. When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter"

This means that, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a State cannot authorize oscillating motorcycle stop lamps since the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard prohibits such lighting devices.

We further note that installation of a non-steady burning lamp by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business after the initial sale is subject to the restrictions of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Depending on the circumstances, installation of a non-steady burning lamp after the initial sale of the motorcycle could be viewed as a violation of this "make inoperative" provision.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/14/04

ID: GF007944

The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4904

Dear Senator Feingold:

Thank you for your October 7, 2004, letter on behalf of your constituent regarding bumper and lighting regulations. Specifically, your constituent is concerned about vehicle compatibility and the height of bumpers and lamps on certain vehicles. I appreciate the opportunity to address your constituents concerns.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues standards and regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA regulates bumpers on passenger cars (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 581), but not on multipurpose passenger vehicles (sport utility vehicles), because such regulation could significantly reduce their utility. For vehicles subject to our bumper standards, the bumper must be located at the height of not more than 20 inches above ground.

We note that the agency is very concerned with vehicle compatibility in multi-vehicle crashes. Bumper height is one of the factors affecting vehicle compatibility. In June of 2003, NHTSA published a report describing the scope of the safety problem represented by vehicle incompatibility and outlined strategies the agency plans to pursue in improving vehicle compatibility. See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-11/aggressivity/IPTVehicleCompatibilityReport/. We have enclosed a copy of the report for your information. Currently, NHTSA and its global partners are conducting research to determine the best regulatory approaches in the area of vehicle compatibility. NHTSA is also working with vehicle manufacturers to minimize the effects of vehicle incompatibility and to develop consumer information related to this issue.

With respect to headlamp location, the Federal lighting standard (49 CFR 571.108) requires that the headlamps for all new vehicles be located between 22 inches and 54 inches above the road surface. Subsequent reinstallation of headlamps at a different height by a dealer or a repair business is also prohibited.

We note that the bumper and headlamp height issues raised by your constituent may not be the product of improper installation of those items, but instead may stem from raising or otherwise altering the vehicle suspension system. While this agency does not regulate suspension alterations, some states may do so. Accordingly, we suggest that your constituent contact the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Office of General Counsel at (608) 266-8810 or ogc.exec@dot.state.wi.us to ascertain Wisconsin regulations pertaining to vehicles suspension systems, bumper height, and lighting.

If you or your constituent have any further questions regarding this issue, you may contact Scott Brenner, Associate Administrator for External Affairs, at (202) 366-2566.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:581#108
d.11/19/04

ID: GF007988

Ms. Amy Homan
Crown Energy Technologies, Inc.
3111 Shepard Place S.E.,
Calgary, Alberta
CANADA T2C 4P1

Dear Ms. Homan:

This responds to your October 21, 2004, e-mail to George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether two oilfield equipment rigs manufactured by your company would be classified as "motor vehicles" and subject to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems.

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

"[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."

NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. , airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

In the present case, the information you have provided describes two oilfield equipment rigs designed to service oil and gas wells. One is a tandem/tandem, which has four axles; the front two axles are steer axles. This units GVWR is 95,600 pounds. The second is a tandem/tridem, which has five axles; the front two axles are steer axles. This units GVWR is 120,600 pounds. Your letter indicates that these rigs travel on local roads and interstate highways between well locations. The period of time a rig spends at a single location varies depending on the end-user. You indicated that the rigs may be required to stay on a lease for a day, a week or a month at a time.

The vehicles you ask about appear similar to items of mobile construction equipment which are not considered motor vehicles. Given this similarity and the limited usage you describe, we believe that the vehicles are not "motor vehicles" subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

ref:571
d.2/2/05

ID: GF008126

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Mail Code 3C02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter of November 4, 2003, and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding applicability of certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201 "Occupant protection in interior impact," to sliding interior compartment doors. Specifically, you ask whether a sliding interior compartment door that does not project outward like a pivoting or hinged door would is subject to the requirements of S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201. In short, our answer is yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements prior to the initial sale of the vehicle.

FMVSS No. 201 establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201 specifies that doors to interior compartments must remain latched when subjected to certain forces that might be experienced in a crash. The determination of whether an interior compartment door is subject to the requirements of S5.3 is determined by both the location of the door and whether the door fits within the definition of "interior compartment door."S5.3 applies only to interior compartment doors located in the instrument panel, console, seat back or side panels adjacent to a designated seating position. We are assuming that the interior compartment in question is located in either the instrument panel, the console, the seat back or a side panel.

49 CFR 571.3(b) defines "interior compartment door" as "any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects" (emphasis added). For example, an ashtray is not normally used for storing personal effects, and therefore its cover is not considered to be an interior compartment door. [1] Similarly, the agency has also indicated that a fuse box door [2] and a cup holder door [3] are not interior compartment doors subject to the requirements of S5.3. In your phone conversation with George Feygin you indicated that the interior compartment in question is intended to store personal effects, thus making it subject to the requirements of S5.3.

The agency has never made a distinction between a sliding interior compartment doors and other, pivoting or hinged doors that project outward when opened. In your letter you assert that an open sliding compartment door does not present a potential for occupant injury because an open sliding compartment door does not project outward into the interior of the vehicle. S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201 requires that doors in the console or a side panel remain closed regardless of the method by which a manufacturer chooses to open or close them. The concern that an open door could cause occupant injury when there is a lateral or diagonal impact is not limited to a protrusion created by an open door. Rather, the concern addressed by the requirement is that a sharp or rigid surface does not expose an occupant to undue risk of injury.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.2/12/04

ID: GF008360

Mr. Jeff Thompson
Vice President
Timpte Trailer Co.
1827 Industrial Drive
David City, NE 68632

Dear Mr. Thompson:

This responds to your recent letter addressed to Richard Van Iderstine regarding installation of certain auxiliary lighting. Specifically, you ask whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, allows for installation of an auxiliary [1] three-light identification cluster between the taillamps at the lower edge of the trailer. With certain limitations, our answer is yes.

Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that 3 red identification lamps must be located on the top rear of a trailer with an overall width of 80 inches or more, and as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. Identification lamps must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J592e Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972, incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108. Paragraph 2.4 of SAE J592e defines identification lamps as "lamps used in groups of three." Your letter and an attached illustration indicate that your trailer satisfies these requirements. We assume that the auxiliary three-light identification cluster would also satisfy these requirements, except for those related to the cluster being at the top of the trailer.

With respect to additional lamps, FMVSS No. 108 does not prohibit installation of auxiliary lighting equipment so long as this equipment does not "impair the effectiveness" of lighting required by the standard. Thus, the three-light identification cluster located at the bottom of the trailer would be acceptable if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required identification cluster at the top of the trailer or the required lamps located at the outer edges of the bottom of the trailer.

After studying your illustration, it appears that the auxiliary cluster would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting. It would be located several feet below the required cluster, so it would be distinct from that cluster, e.g., it would not appear to be part of a six-lamp cluster. Moreover, it would be located close to the vertical centerline of the trailer, so it would be distinct from the required lamps at the outer edges of the bottom of the trailer. In addition, drivers are used to seeing identification lamps in the same basic location on certain kinds of trailers such as flat-bed trailers.

We note that States also regulate auxiliary lighting devices in various ways.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/14/04





---

[1] We use the term "auxiliary lighting" to refer to any item of lighting equipment that is not required by the terms of FMVSS No. 108.

ID: GF008483

Robert Strassburger, Vice President
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 Eye Street, NW - Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005-6562

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This is in response to your letter dated November 2, 2004, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. Specifically, you ask about certain target points located on the seat belt mounting structure.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is in the process of responding to petitions for reconsideration of the February 27, 2004, final rule that addressed issues related to the targets located on seat belt mounting structures (see 69 FR 9217). We will address the issue raised in your letter in our response to the petitions for reconsideration.

Should you have any remaining or additional questions once the response to the petitions for reconsideration is published, please feel free to submit them to the agency. If you have further questions in the interim, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.12/30/04