Search Interpretations

Interpretation ID: 22652B.ztv



    AIR MAIL


    Mr. Richard King
    Manager/Director
    Wheel Lighting Devices, Ltd.
    Downs Road South Brydone R.D. 4
    Gore, New Zealand

    FAX: 64 3 2066786


    Dear Mr. King:

    This is letter will supplement our letter of April 12, 2001, on the legality of HubLites under the laws administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

    In that letter, we informed you that we considered HubLites to be similar to a device that we had previously reviewed and which we had concluded could possibly impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (letter of March 15, 1989, to Byung M. Soh). That device was a self-lighting hub cap which included a motion-activated LED light whose intensity varied according to the speed of the vehicle. HubLites appeared to be similar in color and location to the Soh system, though without varying intensity.

    On April 25, you e-mailed Taylor Vinson of this Office asking that we review our interpretation, and, in response to our question, explained in your e-mail of April 30, 2001, that HubLites "are self-illuminating hubcaps . . . and revolve at a fixed diameter with the hubs and wheels of the vehicle." We found that we needed further information, and you responded on June 21, 2001, providing, for the first time, several photographs of HubLites installed and in operation. Later you explained that what appeared to be an interrupted ring of light in one of the photos was due to the way the wheel was photographed and that, in fact, the system produces a continuous ring of light.

    You have called to our attention our letter of June 29, 1994, to R.H. Goble in which we concluded that the wheel well lighting system he described "would not appear to have the potential of confusion." In your view, HubLites is essentially not different from the Goble system in its function.

    We have reviewed our earlier letter to you, and the Soh and Goble interpretations. The Goble system consisted of small lights mounted at the top of the wheel well. These lights were intended to supplement existing turn signal, clearance, stop, and hazard warning signal lamps, and to operate in conjunction with them to convey the same message. The small lamps at the top of the wheel well flash when the turn signal and hazard warning signal lamps operate, and are steady burning when the clearance and stop lamps are activated. When these lamps are inoperative, the wheel well lamps do not illuminate.

    There is no such supplementary intent with either the Soh system or HubLites. Their function is purely ornamental. The pictures you provided show that HubLites consist of several small lights midway on the hub of the wheel. At night, these appear to provide a ring of light on both the front and back wheels. We believe that this novelty has the potential to distract drivers approaching the vehicle from the side and from some other angles, so that they would not immediately perceive the signal and marker lamps that are required under U.S. Federal law. Thus, we must confirm our original interpretation to you.

    Please note that the agency is growing increasingly conservative in its views about the permissibility under Federal law of novelty lighting items which have no discernable safety benefit, given the possibility of these devices causing confusion to drivers and distracting them from the safety messages sent by required lighting equipment.

    I am sorry that we are not able to help you further.

    Sincerely,

    John Womack
    Acting Chief Counsel

    Ref:108
    d.7/5/01