Interpretation ID: nht92-7.30
DATE: April 23, 1992
FROM: C. Scott Thiss -- Chairman & CEO, S&W Plastics, Inc.
TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA
COPYEE: Congressman Jim Ramstad; Taylor Vinson
TITLE: None
ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to C. Scott Thiss (A39; Std. 108)
TEXT:
On April 16, 1992 we met with Mr. Taylor Vinson and other representatives from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to discuss a new product which we plan to manufacture and market. This meeting was initiated because of two letters sent to us on January 23, 1992 and March 31, 1992 from NHTSA, regarding objections to our aftermarket tail light product.
The purpose of this letter is to request NHTSA to formally reconsider and review its position as presented in your earlier letters.
BACKGROUND
S&W Plastics, Inc. has developed an auxiliary safety signaling device for trucks and semi-trailers. The name of this product is High Light. This product would be sold in the aftermarket to independent haulers, fleet operations and OEM suppliers.
Our master distributor, Cycle Country Accessories Corp. requested a review of this product in December 1991. Your agency responded with a letter dated January 23, 1992. In order to arrange a meeting with NHTSA S&W requested the help of Congressman Jim Ramstad's office. The response to Mr. Ramstad's letter on March 31, 1992, reiterated the objections raised in the January letter.
Because several changes had been made to the product since NHTSA's January letter, we requested a meeting with Mr. Taylor Vinson. At that meeting S&W was able to demonstrate the light, address NHTSA concerns and discuss the changes we have made.
The result was Mr. Vinson's suggestion that S&W request a reconsideration of the issues raised in previous letters.
NHTSA CONCERNS
The previous documentation provided by NHTSA raised concerns regarding High Light. These concerns centered on the issue as to whether our safety signaling device could possibly "render inoperative" the required lighting equipment on a trailer by impairing its effectiveness. Three objections were raised.
- the device did not meet the locational requirements of Standard 108, and
- the hazard warning system, by operating through the brake system, could send a confusing message to following vehicles, and
- the stop lamp signal formed an inverted "V", which could be confusing to following vehicles.
By rendering inoperative the required lighting systems, it is be a violation of Federal law for a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair shop to install our light. This would greatly limit our market potential and we would not proceed with production and marketing.
PRODUCT CHANGES
As we demonstrated during the meeting with Mr. Vinson, the current version of High Light has undergone several revisions. In fact, based upon comments from the meeting, we have made additional changes to more fully meet Standard 108 and to eliminate the "render inoperative" issue.
First, while our device cannot be centered exactly on the centerline of a truck or semi-trailer, it is located only slightly off-center. Because of door openings and locking mechanisms, it would be impossible for our device to be placed on centerline. Its placement slightly off center to the left makes it very visible to a following driver, who would be in a direct line of sight.
A second change is the brake light signal. We have changed the lighting configuration from an inverted "V" to only the two horizontal lights in the center. This should not create an interpretation problem.
Third, we have dropped entirely the hazard warning lighting plans. This is to avoid a confusing message. Also there are many other warning devices and signals which a driver can use to indicate a hazard situation.
CONCLUSION
Based upon our meeting with NHTSA and product changes already made, we believe High Light complies with Standard 108. We believe this product will reduce truck accidents by providing better visibility of turn signals and brake lights to following vehicles.
In order that we may proceed with the manufacture and sale of the product, we ask you to review NHTSA's previous position. S&W does not intend to consciously violate any Federal law, and therefore we request a reconsideration in writing of your objections.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.