ID: nht89-2.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ALAN S. ELDAHR, -- OPTIMUM BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/08/88 FROM ALAN S. ELDAHR -- OPTIMUM BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES TO ERICA JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 2404

TEXT: Dear Mr. Eldahr:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to a "small LED display reader board for use in private vehicles." This device can be incorporated with the center highmounted stoplamp, or installed as a separate unit, also to be placed in the rear window. In the latter configuration, messages can be displayed continuously, or stop when the service brakes are applied. You have concluded that the device will not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar d No. 108. You have asked for our comments. I regret the delay in responding.

Our first comment is that the device cannot be combined with an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp, or with an aftermarket center highmounted stop lamp used to replace original equipment center lamps, installed on vehicles manufactured on an d after September 1, 1985. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 forbids combining the center stop lamp with any other lamp. We view the LED reader board as a type of signal lamp within the meaning of the prohibition.

The legality of a combined LED-center stop lamp for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, is not determinable under Standard No. 108, but under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Its installation by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses would be permissible under Federal law if the installation does not render inoperative in whole or in part any element of design, or device, installed in accordance with a safety standard. However, it would still remain subject to regulation by any State in which it would be sold or operated. We cannot advise you on State laws. You may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion (4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203).

As for the device's legality as a separate unit in the rear window area, when installed as an item of original equipment, it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. If it creates a noncompliance with the field of view requirements of

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors, an outside rear view mirror must be provided on the passenger's side. As an aftermarket item, it is subject to the render inoperative provisions of the Act. We believe that an additional original equipment light in th e rear window, whether red or amber, and whether or not operating simultaneously with the center lamp but sending messages unrelated to vehicle stops, could confuse and distract a driver following, and in that sense impair the effectiveness of the center lamp. For the same reason, we believe that as an aftermarket item installed on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, your device could render the original equipment center lamp on those cars partially inoperative by distracting att ention from its function. As for installation on vehicles that were manufactured before that date and thus lack center lamps, this again is a question to be answered under State laws. At all times, the field of view requirements of Standard No. 111 must be maintained, regardless of whether the car was manufactured before or after September 1, 1985.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: CARLOS CHAVEZ R. -- GENERAL MANAGER FRENOS HIDRAULICOS AUTOMOTRICES, S.A. (FHASA/WAGNER)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/04/89 FROM CARLOS CHAVEZ R -- FHASA WAGNER TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Chavez:

This responds to your letter requesting information on a DOT "registration" to enable you to sell your products in this country. You state that you manufacture brake fluid, hydraulic brake rubber cups and boots, brake hose and flashers. I regret the de lay in responding.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal standards for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake fluid, brake hose, and automot ive lamps) sold in or imported into this country. These standards are issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), which establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certi fying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' re sponsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.)

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) that would apply to the products you list are FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, and FMVSS No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. These standa rds are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. (Please note that the October 1988 revision of 49 CFR inadvertently omitted Standard No. 116's requirements in paragraphs S5.2.2.2(a) through (g), and S5.2.2.3(a) through (e), with w hich a packager still must comply. These paragraphs are reprinted at the end of the 1988 revision of 49 CFR @ 571.116.)

Your products must meet all applicable requirements of these FMVSS's, and be free from safety-related defects, to be sold in or imported into this

2

country. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle ma nufacturer in cases in which your products are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject t o a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

We aren't sure what you mean by the DOT "registration," but we believe you are referring to one of several procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification . This rule requires manufacturers of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ("covered equipment" -- e.g., brake fluid and hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA within 30 days after i t first imports its products into the United States.

Second, 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules (Subpart D) requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States Corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

Third, Standard No. 106 (Brake hoses) requires brake hose manufacturers to label their hose with a designation (consisting of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) that identifies the manufacturer of the hose. The designation assists NHTSA in ide ntifying the manufacturers of noncomplying or defective brake hoses. You would file the designation in

3

writing with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.

I hope this information is helpful. I have also enclosed an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of NHTSA's standards and regulations. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: RUSSELL STORMS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/23/88 FROM HARRY B. SKINNER -- DOT TO RUSSELL A. STORMS; LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM RUSSELL A STORMS TO FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Storms:

This responds to your letter asking that this Department "approve" or otherwise "recognize" your newly invented warning device. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you described your invention as a seven inch high, tetrahedral r eflective traffic marker that is non-flammable and easily stored. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this author ity to establish Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @571.125; copy enclosed). This standard specifies performance requirements and test procedures for warning devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle. Based on the description in your letter, your newly invented product appears to be a warning device subject to Standard No. 125.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate c ommerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Assuming your product is subject to Standard No. 125, it must conform to all the r equirements of that standard.

You are not required to get some "approval" or "recognition" from this agency before selling this product. In fact, NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of th e Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Therefore, the manufacturer of this new product must cer tify that it conforms to all applicable standards.

Section 108(b)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)) requires the manufacturer of this new warning device to exercise "due care" in certifying that it conforms to Standard No. 125. To comply with these legal obligations, I suggest that you careful ly examine the requirements of Standard No. 125 and determine if this new product conforms with those requirements. As you will see, Standard No. 125 contains specific requirements related to a warning device's material, container, labeling, configurati on, color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability. In particular, you should be aware that section S5.2.2 of the standard requires that:

each of the three sides of the triangular portion of the warning device shall not be less than 17 and not more than 22 inches long, and not less than 2 inches and not more than 3 inches wide.

Your letter states that your new warning device is seven inches in height. If that is the case, the new warning device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 125. You should further compare your proposed design with the other requiremen ts in Standard No. 125 to determine if your new warning device complies with all of the other provisions.

You should be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $ 800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their pro ducts if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards.

If you have aay further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 17, 1989

FROM: LINDA L. CONRAD -- NIVES FORD, INC.

TO: STEVEN WOOD -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED JANUARY 1, 1990 TO LINDA L. CONRAD, NIVES FORD, INC., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; VSA 1397(A)(2)(A); STD. 208; VSA 108(A)(1)(A); 108(A)(2)(A); 108(B)(1)]

TEXT: We took in on trade a 1989 Chrysler LeBaron that had an air bag.

This vehicle was in an accident and the bag has been used.

We would like to know if there is any law that says we must replace this bag before we sell this car.

We would appreciate a reply as soon as possible.

Have a great day!

ID: nht89-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 22, 1989

FROM: BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH -- HARTLEY ASSOCIATES INC.

TO: DEIRDRE FUJITA -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-2-90 TO GEN. JERRY RALPH CURRY, NHTSA, FROM CONGRESSMAN HENRY J. NOWAK; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-20-90 TO HENRY J. NOWAK FROM BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH, HARTLEY ASSOCS. INC., AND LETTER DATED 3-16-90 TO BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; STD. 213]

TEXT: I am a consultant to Century Products Co. for research, development, testing, and evaluation of child restraint systems. Century Products Co. has designed a sun visor for permanent attachment to the Century Model 580 rear-facing infant restraint system. The purpose of the sun visor is simply to protect the infant from the rays of the sun during travel.

This sun visor is constructed of polyester/cotton material with two polyethelene plastic ribs which hold the polyester/cotton material in-place above the infant's head. The forward plastic rib pivots about the shell and the mid rib pivots about the forw ard rib. The visor material is attached to these two stays but not to the restraint system shell itself. The sun visor is designed so that the polyester/cotton material slips over the rear of the infant restraint and is not permanently attached.

Mr. Stephen Kratzke, Office of Chief Counsel, has provided me with letters of interpretation concerning sun visors. These letters state that sun visors attached to child restraints recommended for use by children under 20 pounds must comply with Section 5.2.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213) - Child Restraint Systems when tested according to Section 6.1. Subsequent to receiving these letters of interpretation, a sled test was performed with the Century Model 580 infant res traint with the sun visor in place. During the sled test the sun visor folded back into the storage position and did not contact the infant dummy's head. The sled test was performed in accordance with the requirements of FMVSS 213, S6.1, with the excep tion that the sled pulse exceeded the upper bound of the FMVSS 213 acceleration versus time window, thus assuring that this was a more severe test than NHTSA would perform during the annual testing for enforcement of the standard.

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS 213 with regard to the Century 580 infant restraint system with sun visor. We request a meeting with you along with members of rulemaking and enforcement on Thursday or Frid ay, August 24 or 25, 1989 to provide you with the restraint system, photographs, test data documenting the sled test conditions, and high speed movies of the test which demonstrate the lack of dummy head contact with the sun visor during the sled test.

If you have any questions I can be reached by telephone at (716) 892-6313. Our telefax number is (716) 897-0515.

ID: nht89-2.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/23/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TAKAYOSHI CHIKADA -- MANAGER OF AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/16/89 FROM TAKAYOSHI CHIKADA TO RICHARD L. VANIDERSTINE -- NHTSA; RE REVISION OF FMVSS NO 108 [DOCKET NO 85-15 NOTICE 8]

TEXT: Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, by FAX as you requested. You have asked four questions with respect to the recently amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

We responded to your first two questions in a letter dated June 19 to Mr. Hasegawa of your office. A copy is enclosed for your reference. Since that time, however, in response to a petition by General Motors, we have changed the effective date of parag raph S7.7.5.1(a) to December 1, 1989, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamp systems. A copy of this notice is also enclosed.

Your third question is:

How should we prove the confirmation to the requirement of S7.7.2.2? We think the combination of Horizontal and Vertical angle within the aim range will be so huge and it is not practicable to test for all combinations.

This paragraph applies to headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa. The agency has frequently advised manufacturers that there is no legal requirement that conformance be demonstrated through the t est procedures stated in the standard. While the agency will use those procedures in its compliance testing, the manufacturer may certify compliance with the performance requirements of a standard through engineering studies, computer simulations, mathe matical calculations, or other means intended as an exercise of due care and affording a reasonable basis upon which to certify compliance.

Your final question is:

It is acceptable to set up initial "O" point of S7.7.5.2(a)(2) not mechanically but photometrically?

You may determine the "O" point by whatever means you deem appropriate for the headlighting system, as long as the method achieves a horizontal "O" point that may be used for the purposes of paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(2), and any other paragraph in which the horizontal "O" mark is required to be determined.

In the future, please address your requests for interpretations of Standard No. 108 to this office.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/23/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROLF DUERR -- PROJECT ENGINEER VOITH TRANSMISSIONS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/10/89 FROM ROLF DUERR -- VOITH TO DOT; RE DOT APPROVAL OF SWAGELOK FITTING; OCC 3123

TEXT: Dear Mr. Duerr:

This is in response to your letter requesting Department of Transportation "approval" of a fitting to be used in air brake systems in conjunction with your company's product, a driveline brake retarder. I apologize for the delay in this response. Your letter explained that your company's brake retarder is designed to be attached to the air brake system on trucks or buses by means of a fitting, and enclosed a sample of the fitting you plan to use. You asked for DOT approval of the fitting. As explain ed below, whether the fitting and associated air hoses are subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) depends upon how the fittings are attached to the vehicle's air brake system.

This agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 106 , Brake Hoses (49 CFR @ 571.106; copy enclosed), which applies to motor vehicle brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings.

Your letter did not provide sufficient information for us to offer an opinion as to whether or not the air lines and end fittings used with your product would be considered "brake hoses" and "brake hose end fittings" subject to the requirements of Standa rd No. 106. It has been NHTSA's long-standing position that accessory air lines and end fittings, such as those used in your product, are "brake hoses" and "brake hose end fittings" only if a failure of the line or fitting would result in a loss of pres sure in the vehicle's brake system. (See the enclosed June 5, 1987 letter to Albert Schwarz, and the August 3, 1984 letter to Terry Teeter).

Accordingly, if a failure of the accessory lines or fittings used with your product could result in a loss of pressure in the brake system, the hoses and fittings are subject to all the provisions of Standard No. 106. In this case, the Safety Act specif ies that no person shall

"manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any of those hoses or end fittings unless those hoses and end fittings comply with all of the applicable requi rements in Standard No. 106.

NHTSA has no authority to certify, endorse, or approve in advance any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including the hoses and end fittings used for this product. Instead, under the Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying th at its products meet all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests; the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care when making the certification. Once your company has determined th at these hoses and end fittings comply with the requirements of Standard No. 106, the Standard requires you to make these products with the symbol "DOT" to show your company's certification of compliance.

This agency enforces the requirements of Standard No. 106 by randomly purchasing brake hoses and end fittings that have been certified as complying with Standard No. 106. The certified products are then tested by the agency according to the procedures s pecified in the standard. If the products pass these tests, no further actions are taken.

On the other hand, if the accessory air line running to your product is isolated from the air brake system by means such as a check valve, the hoses and fittings used with your product are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106. In this case , your company would not be required to certify that the hoses and fittings used with your product comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 106. You would, however, be considered a "manufacturer" of motor vehicle equipment for the purpose s of the Safety Act and our regulations. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related de fect and must either:

(1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign. Similarly, if this product were subject to St andard No. 106, your company would be required to notify owners and remedy without charge to those owners any noncompliance of your product with the requirements of Standard No. 106, as well as remedying any safety-related defect.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment.

This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions or need additional information .

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/24/89 EST

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

TO: MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION -- WASHINGTON OFFICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/01/89 FROM MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT; OCC 3809; LETTER DATED 08/26/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO TAK FUJITANI; LETTER DATED 06/29/89 FROM SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DO T TO ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- SENATE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kastner:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) actions to extend certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) to light trucks and vans. The Secretary has asked me to r eply.

Your letter was especially concerned with NHTSA's November 1987 amendment to FMVSS 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, and our denial of NTEA's petition for reconsideration of that rule. I regret that I am unable to respond to your comments at this time. As you know, the Department and NTEA are presently involved in litigation concerning those actions. In view of the litigation, we feel it would be inappropriate to address your comments in this letter.

We appreciate your interest in informing the Department of your views. I can assure you that Secretary Skinner is actively interested in each of the letters he receives regarding NHTSA's mission to improve motor vehicle safety. Let me assure you also t hat the potential impacts on small businesses is one of our concerns in each of our rulemaking actions.

A copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed in NHTSA's docket section.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/24/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: THOMAS A. COZ -- SENIOR ATTORNEY NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES LAW DEPARTMENT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/28/89 FROM THOMAS A. COZ -- NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES TO NHTSA, RE HIGH MOUNTED TRAILER STOP LAMPS/TURN SIGNALS; OCC 3469; LETTER DATED 01/13/88 FROM L.F. ROLLIN -- DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL TO THOMAS A. COZ -- NORT H AMERICAN VAN LINES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Coz:

This is in reply to your letter of April 28, 1989, with respect to the legality under Standard No. 108 of supplemental lighting devices that North American Van Lines has installed on some of its trailers. To assist us in answering your question, you hav e enclosed a photograph of a trailer retrofitted with the supplemental devices, and a videocassette. However, the "Final Specs" sheets referenced in your letter were not enclosed.

The lamps in question are stop lamps/turn signal lamps which are mounted above the maximum mounting heights specified in Standard No. 108. You believe that this is permissible because they are supplemental to the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps which are mounted within the limits specified in the standard. However, the Department of California Highway Patrol has informed you that this agency does not differentiate between original and supplemental equipment, and requires that both origin al and supplemental lighting equipment must conform to the mounting requirements.

We are not aware of the basis of the California opinion. The only requirement of Standard No. 108 for supplemental lighting equipment on vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale is the restraint of paragraph @5.1.3 that they not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard.

Retrofit by North American Van Lines itself of its own vehicles after the first purchase for purposes other than resale is permissible under Federal law. However, if the retrofit were performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle rep air business, the operation would be subject to the restraint of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) that it not render inoperative, in whole or in part, lighting equipment installed in acco rdance with Standard No. 108. Subject to these constraints, a

mounting height that exceeds the maximum specified by Standard No. 108 is permissible for supplemental lighting equipment. We interpret "partially inoperative" as also meaning "partially ineffective". The location of your lamps as shown in the photogra ph you enclosed does not appear to "render inoperative" any other lighting device or affect its effectiveness.

We note that the retrofitted trailer in the videocassette does not appear to be equipped with the identification lamps required by Standard No. 108. Further, unless the clearance lamps are combined with the supplemental stop/turn signals in both the vi deocassette and the photograph you enclosed, they too appear to be missing. If the clearance lamps are combined with the supplementary lamps, care should be taken that the supplementary lamps do not "render inoperative" the clearance lamps. Although, a s noted above, the Act permits an owner to modify his vehicle in a nonconforming manner, the operation of your interstate highway trailer is subject to the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, which require t hat identification and clearance lamps be provided for these trailers.

We are returning your videocassette.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JAMES A. LUTES -- ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT KENTUCKY MANUFACTURING COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/09/88 FROM JAMES A. LUTES TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 10/28/88 FROM THOMAS A. COZ TO JIM LUTES RE CALIFORNIA CITATIONS HIGH MOUNTED TRAILER STOP LAMPS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lutes:

This is in reply to your letter asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the location of stop and turn signal lamps. I regret the delay in responding.

Your company has been installing supplemental stop and turn signal lamps approximately 12 feet above ground level on the rear doors of van-type trailers. The standard stop and turn signal lamps are located within the mounting range (15 to 72 inches above the road surface) specified by Table II of Standard No. 108. The photocopies you have enclosed indicate that on at least three occasions the State of California has cited trailers with this lighting configuration because the supplemental lamps are moun ted at a height in excess of 72 inches. You have asked for our interpretation and clarification of this matter.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits the addition of supplemental lighting equipment, before delivery of a vehicle to its first purchaser, provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. Although your high mounted stop and turn signal lamps are located in the vicinity of the identification lamps, we see no problem of impairment (the vehicle in the photo does not appear to have clearance lamps; for purposes of this interpretation we sha ll assume that they are mounted at the same height as the identification lamps, and at either side of the vehicle above your supplemental lamps). When activated, the clearance and identification lamps are steady burning and serve as presence lamps. The supplemental lamps, on the other hand, are activated only when a change in vehicle motion or direction is occurring. If the activation of the supplemental lamps could be said to distract attention from the clearance and identification lamps, the distra ction occurs only at a time when the most important information being communicated by the vehicle's rear lights is that a change in vehicle motion or direction is occurring. Under those circumstances, the required stop and turn signal lamps tend to have the same distracting effect. Further, on heavily-traveled highways where

lamps at standard locations may be hidden by intervening vehicles, signal lamps mounted at higher locations can alert drivers farther to the rear that a large vehicle ahead may be stopping or changing lanes, thus reducing the likelihood of a chain co llision. In summary, your installation of the supplemental lamps is acceptable to this agency under Standard No. 108.

We surmise that the California citations were given on the belief that supplemental lighting equipment must meet the same locational requirements as original equipment. While that is an understandable interpretation, this letter provides the proper inte rpretation of paragraph S4.1.3. We are providing a copy of this letter to the California Highway Patrol in order that the State interpretation may accord with the Federal one.

If you have any further questions we shall be pleased to assist you.

Sincerely,