ID: nht95-5.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Around 1985 * , NHTSA significantly reduced the Amber (Yellow) Photometric output minimals for all Rear Amber Turn Signal Lights. This reduction was implemented, I believe, partially as an act of Common Sense and partially as a positive Harmonization gesture to European Vehicle Safety people. Whereas these European Safety people did then and still do require "significantly less" Amber Photometric Output area, which was not correspondingly reduced when NHTSA reduced the required Photometric Output. Further, the Europeans still require significantly less Area for Amber lenses than the U.S. still requires.

* Presently I can't find the Federal Register Announcement with Details on this issue, however, I will attempt to send it later. I do know this data is readily available from your Docket Files.

European Safety leaders, I've been told, have "tests" that substantiate their position that a "Smaller" and less bright Amber Turn Singal yields "less conspicuosity", which is a desirable feature when compared to the Conspicuosity demanded by the Very Important Red Brake Lights . . . and rightfully so. As one can see for themselves . . . just the fact that a Turn Signal is Amber and not Red (as are all other Rear Safety Lights) makes it adequately "conspicuous", even if it is "smaller" and significantly less bright compared to the Brake Lights.

Also, European Scientists contend they have always had a "safer system" than the U.S. System as they have always required Two Brightly Lit Brake Lights, whereas the U.S. System allows only One Brake Light to be illuminated, leaving the other as a "Red" Turn (Blinking) Signal -- They contend that the U.S. approach can confuse the human mind and in fact, perhaps be comprehended as an Impending Turn and "not specifically" as a Braking Action whereas their system using. Two Brake Lights - both clearly Lit - means nothing but "Braking . . . Danger!"

They indicate that their smaller in size and brightness, Rear Amber Turn Signal "clearly indicates" to following traffic the situation when a Turn is occurring by itself or simultaneously with the Braking Action.

In any case, I believe our U.S. NHTSA Rulemakers of several years past were in error or experienced an oversight when they reduced and Harmonized the U.S.'s Rear Amber Turn Singal's required output but at the same time did not reduce the "Area" of output which would have kept the "Density * "of U.S. Amber Lights output about the same as the Europeans have found to be effective . . . thus making the U.S. more or less completely Harmonized with the New EU Specifications effective January 1, 1996.

* "Density", a better layman's term than getting into Luminesec and Luminous intensity . . . at this time.

Any American that is actively involved in the Manufacturing of Vehicle Lights knows it is ludicrous to require U.S. Manufacturers to Design Amber Turn Singal lenses in the 12in<2> range * , and then ask them to try and Balance our Trade by attempting to sell larger than necessary (therefore more expensive Lights) in Europe whereas European Manufacturers enjoy the advantage over U.S. Manufacturers of less expense simply because of size.

* which is what is now required for Big Rig and RV Rear Amber Turn Signals

I am asking that a better Trade Balance Policy be adopted as well as seeing that Common Sense reasoning prevails at NHTSA by asking that this situation be corrected.

If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a "Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request" and given consideration for "rapid processing" through the Public Commenting period. I seriously doubt if any American Company or Engineer is in possession of any Scientific Data that would refute what reasoning and facts I have presented here. By reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 in<2> to approximately 8 in<2> or 6 in<2>, the U.S. would have more practical Rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety.

Please handle this expendiently!

Yours truly,

Dennis G. Moore President

P.S. Please understand that I believe I speak primarily for the "Big Rig", Small Trailer and RV Type Lighting Manufacturers in the U.S., not for the typical S.A.E. Detroit Auto Designer and/or Auto Engineer.

My type of manufacturing is forced, through extreme competition pressure, to make Multi-purpose Rear Lights for about $ 3.00 each in order to be competitive here in the U.S., whereas, Detroit Auto Stylists know that small Amber Turn Signal Lights on Autos look puny and degrading to their potential customers. They know the bigger these Amber Lenses are, the better they look, the more they cost, and, therefore, the more overall profit is made on them as they are broken and replaced during the life of the Vehicle. Therefore, Detroit stylists and economists don't really want small sized Amber Turn Signals even if they know that small ones do the Safety Job they're intended to do -- they must compete in "Styling" whereas larger and more elaborate lights sell cars and makes them more money in the long run than what would be saved on small lights, whereas this is not at all true with "Other" Vehicle Lighting Manufacturers like I represent who are trying to Compete in the U.S. and Europe in the Non-Auto Vehicle Lighting business.

I believe, and apparently so do most European Safety people, that Location, Color and the Density * Output of a Safety Light is more important for "Conspicuosity" than a large lens with low output.

ID: 19994.ztv

Mr. F. Barry Hennegan
General Counsel
Atlas and Reusable Launch Systems
Lockheed Martin
P.O. Box 179
Denver CO 80201-0179

Re: SS-99-10099

Dear Mr. Hennegan:

This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1999, to the Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "regarding possible exemptions from certain of the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Sections 571.121 and 393.52" with respect to two trailers owned by Lockheed Martin.

The Office of Motor Carrier Safety, Department of Transportation, enforces 49 CFR 393.52. I am forwarding a copy of your letter to that Office for its response to you on this issue.

In brief, Lockheed Martin is the owner of two trailers manufactured for it by Martinez and Turek of Riato, California. These trailers were manufactured to your specifications, which included compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. The trailers also feature steerable rear wheels mounted on a removable bogie assembly. You inform us that "after completion of acceptance and road testing of both trailers, it appears that neither will fully meet Section 571.121, Paragraphs S5.3.3 Brake actuation Time and S5.3.4 Brake Release time."

However, you note that S3(a) of Standard No. 121 excludes trailers which exceed 102.36 inches in width and which are "equipped with two short track axles in a line across the width of the trailer." Your trailers are wider than this but don't meet the axle specification. Nevertheless, you believe that the intent of this exception is "not to have the requirements apply to oversize, slow, or specialty trailers such as ours." Accordingly, you ask that we exempt your trailers from S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121.

I am sorry to inform you that we have no authority to exempt these trailers from Standard No. 121 under the circumstances that you relate. Because they are not equipped with two short track axles across their width, the trailers do not qualify for the exclusion from Standard No. 121 provided by S3(a). The trailers, then, were required by 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to be certified by their manufacturer as conforming to those standards.

We have authority to exempt trailers from Standard No. 121 at any point up to and including their first sale for purposes other than resale, upon application by their manufacturer (49 U.S.C. 30113). Given the fact that these trailers are already owned by Lockheed Martin, it is too late for their manufacturer, Martinez and Turek, to apply for an exemption.

When either we determine, or a manufacturer determines, that a motor vehicle fails to comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the manufacturer is required to notify us and its dealers and purchasers, and to remedy the noncompliance (49 U.S.C. 30118-30120, as implemented by 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577). However, if the manufacturer believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, it may petition us for a decision to that effect. If we grant the petition, the manufacturer is relieved of its statutory obligation to notify and remedy (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), as implemented by 49 CFR Part 556).

Therefore, if the manufacturer, Martinez and Turek, agrees that Lockheed Martin's trailers fail to comply with S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121, the company is required, at a minimum, to notify us in the manner prescribed in 49 CFR Part 573. Within 30 days of notifying us, it may also submit an inconsequentiality petition with us under 49 CFR Part 556. In this particular instance, the manufacturer might want to discuss, as part of such a petition, whether this vehicle is operated only under special permit and with escort vehicles. If it does not file a petition (or if the petition is denied), it is required to remedy the noncompliance.

Although you did not address the issue, under our interpretations, the removable bogie assembly appears to be a trailer, and subject to compliance with Federal requirements. You state that the auxiliary axle was added after delivery of the trailers to ensure that the vehicles, when in use, would not exceed the maximum Colorado allowable rear wheel road loading for tandem axle trailers. A bogie/axle unit installed as part of a trailer's original equipment is considered to be part of the trailer itself, and covered by its manufacturer's certification and the trailer's VIN. However, a bogie/axle unit sold and installed after the trailer has been delivered to its owner is considered a trailer, and is required to comply with Federal requirements applicable to trailers, including compliance with Federal standards, the VIN regulation, and certification by the bogie/axle manufacturer. I am enclosing a copy of a letter we furnished Jay Reese on September 25, 1996, which explains this in further detail. If the bogie/axle units installed on your two trailers do not in fact comply with Federal standards applicable to trailers, the bogie manufacturer is subject to the same notification, recall, and inconsequentiality procedures discussed in the preceding paragraph.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure

cc: Martinez & Turek
Riato, CA

ref:121#573#555
d.11/9/99

ID: 1984-4.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sylvia A. Knouse -- Title Clerk, Truck World, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. According to your letter, you are in the business of remanufacturing trailers, stripping the original trailer down to the original frame and redoing the rest of the trailer, leaving the original braking system intact. You stated that a customer purchased two of these reconstructed trailers and then refused to pay for them unless you put maxi-brakes on them. According to your letter, the customer has argued that maxi-brakes are required by Standard No. 121, while you understand that the trailers meet Standard No. 121. In telephone conversations with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) personnel, a member of your company's staff indicated that the term "maxi-brakes" was meant to refer to a spring brake, i.e., a mechanically applied parking brake. As discussed below, remanufactured trailers must meet all applicable current safety standards, unless they fall within an exception set forth at 49 CFR 571.7(f). Standard No. 121 is applicable to the vast majority of air-braked trailers and requires such trailers to have a parking brake.

By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and in telephone conversations with NHTSA personnel.

49 CFR 571.7(f) reads as follows:

(f) Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer --

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle,

Thus, each trailer that you have remanufactured is considered new unless each of the following statements is true with respect to the trailer: (1) the trailer running gear assembly was taken from an existing trailer, (2) the identity of that trailer is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number, and (3) you are selling or leasing the trailer to the same person who owned or leased it prior to remanufacture. Assuming that the trailers are considered newly manufactured, they must meet all current safety standards.

Section S3 of Standard No. 121 provides that the standard is applicable to trailers equipped with air brake systems, with several very limited exceptions. (You can check that section to see if your trailers come within any of the exceptions. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your convenience.) Assuming that the standard is applicable, section S5.6 requires new air-braked trailers to have a parking brake. The requirement that air-braked trailers have a parking brake has been in effect since January 1, 1975. Manufacturers have met the requirement virtually exclusively by means of spring brakes. If your trailers are considered new under our regulations, they must have a parking brake regardless of whether they had a parking brake when they were originally manufactured.

If the trailers are not considered newly manufactured under 49 CFR 571.7(f), they would not be required to meet current safety standards. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does require that businesses such as yours not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with any safety standard.

ENC.

TRUCK WORLD, INC.

OCC-1061

August 15, 1984

Fred Berndt Office of Chief Council USDOT (NHTSA) NOA 30

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are requesting the legal opinion of your office concerning a current problem that has occured in the operation of our business.

We sell new Marmon tractors, used tractors, and used trailers. In the course of this business we have remanufactured trailers, stripping the original trailer down to the original frame and redoing the rest of the trailer, leaving the original braking system in tact.

These FRP's, as we call them, are then inspected by one of our licensed inspection mechanics and registered with the state of Pennsylvania as reconstructed trailers.

Our problem arises in the fact that a customer purchased two of these FRP trailers and will not pay for them unless we put maxi-brakes on them. He states that under the 121 braking system maxi-brakes are required by Federal law. We have constructed the FRP's with the understanding that they meet FMVSS121.

I have called and discussed this situation with Pat Quigley with the Federal Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety in Harrisburg, Pa., John Shaw with the same bureau in Washington, D.C., and Mr. James Clements with the National Highway Traffic System. These gentlemen are of the opinion that I need the assistance of your bureau to resolve this problem.

Any help that you can render in this situation will be greatly appreciated. Time is of the essence, and I would need a reply as soon as possible. Thank you.

Sylvia A. Knouse Title Clerk

ID: aiam3801

Dear Mr. Roberson: This responds to your letter of November 29, 1983, to the Office o Vehicle Safety Compliance, which was forwarded to this office for reply, concerning the legal requirements regulating the manufacture of motorcycle windshields. You requested information on how you as a manufacturer may obtain certification of your product under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has th authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (FMVSS No. 205), *Glazing Materials*. FMVSS No. 205 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). These requirements for glazing used in vehicles and motorcycles, such as minimum levels of light transmittance and abrasion resistance. Copies of FMVSS No. 205 and ANS Z26 have been enclosed in the letter sent to you by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance dated January 10, 1984.; You should be aware that the NHTSA does not pass approval on th compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your windshields comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination.; There are other regulations and standards affecting manufacturers o motor vehicle equipment of which you should be aware. For instance, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have specific responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety- related defects in their products. Sections 151 *et* *seq.* of the Act a copy of which is enclosed, requires manufacturers to notify purchasers about safety-related defects in their product and to remedy such defects without charge. In addition, Part 556 requires vehicle and equipment manufacturers to provide the agency with certain information concerning themselves and the products they manufacture. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of the agency's regulations. You should refer to the Act and its implementing regulations in order to understand the extent of your responsibilities as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4270

This is in reply to your letter of September 29, 1986, to Mr. Vinson o this Office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed a copy of a flyer for 'Ad-A-Lens,' the device appears to be an overlay with a dealer's name, intended to be placed over the lens of the center highmounted stop lamp. You have told us that 'the company selling this product says there is no problem legally or safety-wise....' You have also furnished us with a portion of a preamble to the standard discussing the visibility requirements for the lamp in which the statement is made that beyond the specified test points 'no requirements are established other than that the signal be 'visible,' which means any portion of the signal, without regard to lens area or candela.'; Standard No. 108 does not prohibit adding an overlay to the cente highmounted stop lamp that contains a dealer's name. However, the addition of the overlay must not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Paragraph S4.1.141(a) requires each center highmounted stop lamp t have an effective projected luminous area not less than 4 1/2 square inches. Application of dealer identification to an original equipment lamp not designed for the overlay could well reduce the luminous area below the minimum required by the standard. Further, there is the possibility that the overlay could affect photometric compliance as well. The lamp must meet the photometric requirements at the 13 test points specified in Standard No. 108 up to the maximum specified 10 degrees right and left. Beyond 10 degrees, up to 45 degrees right and left, the overlay must not obscure the signal so that no portion of it is visible.; Should the overlay create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, an person offering for sale or selling a vehicle with it would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as would any dealer adding an overlay to the lamp of a vehicle after it is sold. The Act provides that a penalty of up to $1000 per violation may be imposed, up to a maximum of $800,000 for any related series of violations. You should also seek the advice of State motor vehicle authorities on this matter.; We are providing a copy of this interpretation to Ad-A-Lens, an appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5006

"Dear Mr. Chun: This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992 requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below. First, you asked about the meaning of 'manufactured date,' in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the 'manufactured date' would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance. For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the 'manufactured date' for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea. Second, you asked whether 'manufactured date,' as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as 'model year.' The answer is no. The term 'model year' is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) as 'the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.' As explained above, the concept of 'manufactured date' refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer. Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years. See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars. I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2708

Dear Mrs. Foster: Your recent letter to President Carter concerning the installation of bench seat in a cargo van was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for reply. You were apparently told by your local Ford dealer that Federal law prohibits the installation of a seat in the cargo area of a van vehicle.; The Ford dealer's representation to you was incorrect. There is n Federal law that precludes installation of a seat such as your letter describes, although, depending on the time and manner of the installation, the seat might be subject to Federal safety standards.; If the vehicle manufacturer (Ford) or your dealer installs the sea prior to the time you take possession of the vehicle, either will have to certify that the vehicle, including the seat, is in compliance with all applicable safety standards, as provided in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.). Specifically, the installation of the seat would require compliance with Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*. If done by your dealer, he would be required to attach a label or tag to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle was in compliance with all safety standards, including the three just mentioned (49 CFR 567.7).; If you first take possession of the vehicle, you or your dealer ma then install an additional seat without certifying compliance with Federal safety standards (15 U.S.C 1397). Your dealer would, however, be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that the dealer would not be permitted to destroy the vehicle's conformity to any safety standard by his installation of the additional seat. We do strongly recommend that, for the safety of your child, you assure the seat and safety belts conform to the minimum performance requirements of our safety standards.; Perhaps it is the policy of Ford Motor Company and its dealers not t install additional seats in cargo vans because of the responsibilities mentioned above. The policy is not, however, a Federal law. I suggest you show this letter to your local dealer.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4493

Dear Mr. Apple: This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1987 in which you ask whether a U-Turn Indicator 'is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product.' Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-turn indicator. However, a U-turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the importance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment. Standard No. 108 does not cover a U-turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment that was installed pursuant to Standard No. 108. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) The legality of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 120l Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, may be able to advise you further on State laws. Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the general type of crash for which U-turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-turn crashes is substantially less than the 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles. We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator 'will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent'. However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing our Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted. We appreciate your interest in safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel CC: Michael Finkelstein;

ID: aiam4406

Dear Mr. Patterson: This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1987, asking for ou 'acceptance and recommendation' of a safety device endorsed' by the government of the Province of Saskatchewan. This device automatically activates parking lamps, and the lower beams of headlamps 'with the touch of the Brake Pedal'.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority t accept, recommend, or endorse any item of motor vehicle equipment. We can, however, discuss the relationship of your device to U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('the Act') under which the standard was issued. This standard applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. A device such as yours is permissible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. There is no indication in your descriptive literature that the effectiveness of parking lamps, headlamps, or the stop lamps would be impaired by the installation and operation of your device.; With respect to sale in the aftermarket for vehicles in use, you device is not prohibited under the Act if its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner does not render inoperative in whole or in part any lamps installed to comply with Standard No. 108. We see no indication that this would occur. However, such an installer should be aware of the wiring requirement in Standard No. 108 that taillamps, parking lamps, side marker lamps, and the license plate lamp shall be activated when the headlamps are on.; The rules for operation of vehicles in use are established by th individual States, and several of these may have restrictions on the use of headlamps during daylight hours. For further information on this subject you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.; This agency has proposed that motor vehicles be equipped with daytim running lights, in a manner similar, though not identical, to the new requirement of the Canadian Ministry of Transport. If this proposal is adopted, the Act would prohibit any State from having a different standard than the Federal one. As of the effective date of such an amendment to Standard No. 108 daytime operation of frontal lighting should be permissible in all States.; If you have any further questions we will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2205

Dear Mr. Smith:#This in (sic) in response to a request by Mr. Willia Hall, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Regional Administrator for Region X, for a review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems* with special consideration of the comments of Mr. Robertson in his memorandum of November 24, 1975.#It is the opinion of this agency that Standard No. 104 is appropriate for the State of Alaska. The essential feature of a wiping system, as far as safety is concerned, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are washed and wiped. These areas are established in the standard and are determined by the angles from the driver's eye position over which the windshield must be kept clear to provide a proper field of view. While targets of driver attention and environmental conditions may differ from state to state, if the critical areas are clear, the field of view provided to the driver is sufficient. The 1976 Scirocco (sic) appears to provide the required field of view.#The question therefore becomes whether the Federal standard on windshield wipers is intended to cover all aspects of wiping systems. If so, the situation is analogous to that presented to the court in *Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger*, No. CIV S74-126(E.D.Cal. 1974) which resulted in a holding that Standard No. 108 did preempt an inconsistent state regulation in the field of lighting requirements. The NHTSA has determined that the standard on windshield wiping systems, No. 104, is intended to leave the number of wipers to the discretion of the manufacturers. Under *Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and *Chrysler v. Tofany*, 419 F2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir, 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is 'of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.' Thus, a state regulation differing from the standard would impair the Federal superintendence of the field within the meaning of the doctrine set forth in *Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul*, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142(1963) and be preempted under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, U.S.C. 1392(d).#Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;