Interpretation ID: nht90-3.76

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Timothy Murphy -- Peterson Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-23-90 from T. Murphy to S.P. Wood (OCC 5037)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1990, to Stephen Wood of this Office, in your capacity as Chairman, Engineering Committee--Lights, Transportation Safety Equipment Institute. You have asked that we review an interpretation furnished The Bargm an Company on February 26, 1990. Bargman's customer wished an amber reflector around the edge of an amber turn signal lens, and the company had asked "if an amber reflex reflector was permitted as an additional reflector on the rear of vehicles" covered by Standard No. 108. We stated that amber reflectors would be permissible.

You quote from our letter the sentence that "It does not appear to us that an amber tail lamp lens with an amber reflector would create an impairment", and you disagree with this conclusion. We are in error. Bargman asked its question only with referenc e to turn signal lamps, and our letter should have used the words "turn signal lamp", not "tail lamp." We have no intention of allowing amber as an alternate color for a tail lamp.

Notwithstanding the error, you are also concerned that amber reflectors in conjunction with red reflectors and red tail lamps could be the source of confusion. You point out that the amber reflectors would appear 2 1/2 times brighter than the red reflec tors, and conclude that "this would certainly represent an impairment of a required device."

Our letter to Bargman was in the context of an amber reflector surrounding an amber lens, and did not reach the question of separate amber reflectors on the rear. It is true that SAE Standard J594f Reflex Reflectors January 1977 specifies values for amb er that are 2 1/2 times those for red. Whether supplementary amber reflex reflectors that are not required to conform to Standard No. 108 would nevertheless be manufactured to meet the SAE specifications is a question that we cannot answer. However, as we have advised inquirers from time to time in the past, the determination of impairment is initially made by the manufacturer who certifies that its vehicle meets Standard No. 108 (and the other standards). If that determination appears clearly erroneo us, the agency will question it. If a manufacturer concludes that an amber reflector would impair the effectiveness of other rear lighting equipment, the agency would not question that determination.

You also call our attention to the fact that several States "clearly specify that reflectors, visible from the rear of a vehicle, shall be red", and raise the possibility that drivers of vehicles with amber reflectors could be cited in States with the re d-only specification. We had advised Bargman, a company located in Michigan, that the appropriate

remedy appeared to be to seek an amendment of the Michigan law as we did not view Standard No. 108 as preemptive in this instance, and as this agency had no plans to specify amber as an alternate color for rear reflex reflectors.

We believe that it is the responsibility of truck operators to ensure that their equipment is in conformance with all applicable State and Federal laws. Familiarity with State reflector laws is part of this responsibility.

I hope that this answers your questions.