ID: nht89-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/89

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

TO: MARK F. HOLMES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM MARK F. HOLMES TO STEVE WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 3980; LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM MARK F. HOLMES TO STEVE WOOD -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Holmes:

This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1989, with respect to two lighting devices known as the Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarm. You are interested in selling these devices in the aftermarket, and have asked whether they would be in violatio n of any of the standards and regulations of this agency.

These devices are "designed to be used only when a vehicle is parked or broken down." As we understand your letter and the materials you enclosed, both devices can be incorporated into existing alarm systems, to indicate when an attempted theft is in pro gress. The "locator" feature of the devices allows activation from a distance of 400 feet, enabling an approaching owner to easily identify his vehicle. With the use of a pink colored lens, the Strobalarm is intended to serve as an "emergency distress flare." You have enclosed two color renderings of these devices, titled "Interior/Strobe Alarm Light," and "Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light."

The Federal law and regulation that must be considered to answer your question are the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 1381 and following), and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Ref lective Devices and Associated Equipment (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.108), and Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). Under Section 1397(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repa ir business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any item of equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You will note that this prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner.

Thus, the question to be addressed is whether the installation of either device by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would affect the performance of required safety equipment. The "Interior Strobe/Alarm Light" appears intended as a "dome" light, mounted centrally on the headliner above the passenger seats. In this position it has the potential to affect the field of view of the inside rear view

mirror required by Standard No. 111, as prescribed by paragraph S5.1.1 (copy enclosed). If the field of view is not met, an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger side. You have not provided the dimensions of this device, and we are unable to advise you further. Other than this cautionary note, the "Interior Strobe/Alarm Light" does not appear affected by the laws and regulations of this agency. It would, however, be subject to state and local laws where it is sold and used. We a re unable to advise you on these, and suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

The "Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light" raises another consideration. The collision avoidance portion of the lamp appears intended to serve as a center highmounted stop lamp. Under paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108, the center lamp may not b e combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Thus, removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device by a person other than the vehicle owner would be regarded as partially rendering inoperative the original safety equ ipment, even if your device complied with all other requirements for the center lamp. The center lamp has been required on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985.

The restriction does not apply, of course, to installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, or other types of motor vehicles regardless of date of manufacture. Consideration must still be given, however, to continued compliance w ith Standard No. 111, and to whether any state specifications exist covering aftermarket center stop lamps. Again, the AAMVA may be able to help you.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

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

TO: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TIRE DIVISION RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, OCC 3994; LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO E. H. GALLOWAY -- UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING TEST FACILITY, RE INFLA TION PRESSURES FOR TRACTION GRADING PROCEDURES IN UTQGS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Timmons:

This responds to your September 28, 1989 letter requesting that NHTSA reconsider its August 30, 1989 interpretation (copy enclosed) of the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards ("UTQGS," 49 CFR @ 575.104). In that ear lier interpretation, the agency was asked by E. H. Galloway about the correct interpretation of the UTQGS provisions requiring one to "inflate the tire to 24 psi, or, in the case of a tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals, to 180 kPa." See @@ 575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Specifically, Mr. Galloway asked whether tires with inflation pressures expressed in both English units (psi) and metric units (kPa) should be inflated to 24 psi or 180 kPa during the testing to determine the tires' trac tion grades under the UTQGS.

In its August 30 interpretation, the agency concluded that tires whose inflation pressure is expressed in both English and metric units should be inflated to 24 psi for the UTQGS traction testing. That interpretation explained its conclusion as follows:

The language of the regulation sets forth a general requirement for an inflation pressure of 24 psi, and a subordinate requirement that "tires with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals" use an inflation pressure of 180 kPa. An examination of the b ackground of this language shows that the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa is to be used only for tire sizes that have inflation pressures specified only in kilopascals.

Your letter asked that the agency reconsider this interpretation. You stated that P-metric tires generally are labeled with a maximum inflation pressure of 240 kPa. However, section S4.3.4(a) of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars se ts forth an additional labeling requirement for tires whose maximum inflation pressure in expressed in kPa, as follows: "If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300, or 340 kPa, then each marking of that inflation pressure . . . shall b e followed by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next higher whole number." This requirement in Standard No. 109, therefore, prohibits any passenger car tire from being sold or offered for sale in this country with the inflation pre ssure specified only in kPa.

By specifying conditions for use of the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa that are impossible for any tire to satisfy, because of the requirements of Standard No. 109, the effect of the August 30, 1989 interpretation is to remove the alternative inflation pressure from the UTQGS traction testing procedures. A correct interpretation of a regulation gives effect and meaning to all of the language in a regulation. For this reason, I believe the August 30, 1989 interpretation of the UTQGS traction testing procedures was incorrect.

I conclude that any tire with its inflation pressure expressed first in metric units, with the equivalent pressure in English units shown in parentheses, is a "tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals," as that phrase is used in 49 CFR @ 575. 104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Accordingly, any such tire would be inflated to 180 kPa for UTQGS traction testing.

I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that might have been caused by the August 30 interpretation.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

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

TO: KARL-HEINZ FABER -- VICE PRESIDENT PRODUCT COMPLIANCE SERVICE AND PARTS MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA TO STEPHEN P. WOOD; REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, FMVSS 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; OCC 3823

TEXT: Dear Mr. Faber:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1989, with respect to the interpretation of the word "headlamp" as it appears in paragraph S7.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In pertinent part, this paragraph specifies that certain markings shall be placed on the lens of each headlamp, with "each headlamp" to be marked with the voltage and part or trade number. Noting that "headlamp" is not a defined term but "replaceable bu lb headlamp" is, you have asked for confirmation that marking the lens, the reflector, or the light source with the voltage would be in compliance with paragraph S7.2.

The agency intends that the voltage be indicated on the exterior of the headlamp. If the manufacturer does not wish to put it on the lens, Standard No. 108 will permit, as of December 1, 1989, voltage marking to be on an exterior part of the headlamp bo dy, but not on the light source.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely

ID: nht89-3.27

ID: nht89-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

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

TO: SAMUEL KIMMELMAN -- PRODUCT ENGINEERING MANAGER IDEAL DIVISION PARKER HANNAFIN CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/22/89 FROM SAMUEL KIMMELMAN -- PARKER HANNIFIN TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA; OCC 3309

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kimmelman:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this office. I regret the delay in responding. You express your understanding that Standard No. 108 "allows vehicles with combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps to operate in either of two modes when both the hazard switch and brake switch have been actuated." You have expressed these two modes as follows:

"1. The hazard switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps.

a. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will cause the rear lamps to change from steady on, stop signal, to flashing, hazard signal.

b. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will not change the flashing lamps, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal.

2. The brake switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps.

a. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will cause the rear lamps to change from flashing, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal.

The front flashing hazard lamps will also become steady on.

b. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will not change the rear steady on lamps, stop signal, to flashing, hazard, while the front hazard lamps go from off to steady on."

You ask for confirmation of your understanding, and if it is correct, whether NHTSA is presently considering rulemaking "to specify a specific signal from the combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps when both the hazard and brake switche s are actuated."

Neither of these modes are correct, for the reasons discussed below. Initially we note that systems with combined-function lamps are those that use red lenses for the rear turn signals lamps, and not the amber lenses that Standard No.

108 allows. The second point we wish to make is that you may have confused hazard warning lamps with turn signal lamps. The basic Federal requirements for stop lamps are those of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970, which is incorporated by refe rence in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 4.2 of J586c states "When a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing." The identical provision is found in paragraph 4.4 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, which is also incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. This clearly means that a turn signal cannot be overriden by a stop lamp. In addition, you should note that re gulations of the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety forbid the optical combination of a stop lamp with a turn signal lamp unless the stop lamp function is deactivated when the turn signal lamp is activated (49 CFR 393.22(b)(2 ).

Assuming, however, that you meant hazard warning system lamps, there is no provision in Standard No. 108 for hazard warning system operation (those of SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher, February 1968, incorporated by r eference in Standard No. 108) specifying priority of operation with respect to the stop lamp system. Because paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires the stop lamps to be activated upon application of the service brakes, we interpret this as allowi ng the stop lamp system to override the hazard warning system. This opinion, of course, relates only to the rear lamps. The hazard warning system at the front of a vehicle must operate at any time the system is actuated.

In response to your question about the possibility of rulemaking, please note that the agency does not plan any rulemaking on this subject.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

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

TO: ROBERT N. LEVIN -- HUDOCK & LEVIN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/06/89 FROM ROBERT N. LEVIN -- HUDOCK AND LEVIN TO NHTSA, RE SUN ROOFS; OCC 3625

TEXT: Dear Mr. Levin:

This responds to your letter on behalf of one of your clients, seeking information on how our law and agency regulations might affect the installation of sun roofs in vehicles. You stated that your client is an automobile repair facility. According to your letter, you recently discovered this agency's regulation (49 CFR @ 567.7) requiring vehicle alterers to affix to the vehicles they alter a label certifying that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. You as ked whether such certification labels must be affixed by your client to those vehicles on which it installs a sun roof. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Two of those safety standards could be relevant to a r epair shop's installation of sun roofs on motor vehicles. Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR @ 571.205) sets performance requirements for glazing materials installed in new motor vehicles and for new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles . Any glazing incorporated in a vehicle's sun roof would have to conform to the applicable performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. In addition, installation of a sun roof could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216, Roof C rush Resistance - Passenger Cars, (49 CFR 571.216), which sets forth strength requirements for roofs of passenger cars.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies 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 motor veh icle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Because of this statutory requirement, any person or business that installs sun roofs in new motor vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 216.

The form and contents for this certification are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Any manufacturer that installs a sun roof on a new motor vehicle is required by @ 567.4 or @ 567.5 to certify that the vehicle conforms to the requirements of a ll applicable safety standards. Any person or business that adds a sun roof to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale would be required to certify the vehicle's continuing compliance with all appl icable safety standards, in accordance with @ 567.7. Such a person or entity is an "alterer" for the purposes of Part 567. (Persons or entities that modify vehicles by using a "readily attachable component" or performing a "minor finishing operation" ar e not considered "alterers." Modifications involving a readily attachable component or a minor finishing operation are instead subject to the requirements of 49 CFR @ 567.6. However, NHTSA does not consider a sun roof to be a "readily attachable componen t" nor is the installation of a sun roof a "minor finishing operation." Hence, this exception is not relevant to your client's activities.).

In addition to these certification requirements, an "alterer" is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle saf ety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards arising from the alterations, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1411-1420). I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that g enerally describes our statutory and regulatory requirements, and explains how to obtain copies of those statutes and regulations.

The certification and labeling requirements set forth in section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and in Part 567 apply to vehicles only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. Thus, once a vehicle has been purchased by a consumer, persons that modify that vehicle for its owner (e.g., by installing a sun roof) are not required to certify or label the vehicle by this agency's statutes or regulations. A different statutory provision applies to modifications made by a re pair shop to vehicles after the first purchase. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that, "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in pa rt, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, . . ."

To comply with the obligations imposed by this "render inoperative" provision, your client should examine the sun roofs it installs and the means of installation for those sun roofs, and compare those with the

requirements of Standards No. 205 and 216. After such an examination and comparison, your client should be able to decide if the sun roof installations it performs result in any apparent violations of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act . If your client decides there is no apparent "render inoperative" violation, Federal law does not require any additional actions, such as labeling or certification, on your client's part in connection with the installation of sun roofs in vehicles afte r the first purchase of those vehicles. You should be aware that NHTSA may reexamine your client's decision and make its own determination of whether your client's sun roof installations may have violated the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/89

FROM: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- DEPUTY DIRECTOR TIRE DIVISION RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 109, PART 575.104; LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO E. H. GALLOWAY -- UNIFORM T IRE QUALITY GRADING TEST FACILITY, RE INFLATION PRESSURES FOR TRACTION GRADING PROCEDURES IN UTQGS

TEXT: Dear Sir:

On behalf of domestic manufacturers of tires, the RMA requests that you reconsider the NHTSA position taken in your August 30, 1989 letter to E. H. Galloway concerning UTQG traction test inflation pressures. Your interpretation that metric designated ti res (including P-metric tires) which are labeled for maximum pressure in both kilopascals (kPa) and common english (psi) units should be treated the same as those labeled with english values only is contrary to long standing industry interpretation and p ractice.

The following is offered in support of our request:

1. All tires designed using the metric system are required by FMVSS 109, para. S4,3,4(a) to show not only kPa pressure information, but the equivalent value in english units (psi) in parenthesis. Thus, no tires can be sold or offered for sale in the U. S. market with pressures specified only in kilopascals.

2. Load Range B alpha-numeric and numeric tires are labeled 32 psi maximum inflation pressure as required by FMVSS 109. The design test pressure for these tires is 24 psi. Standard load P-metric tires are labeled 240 kPa (35 psi) maximum inflation pre ssure as required by FMVSS 109. The design test pressure for these tires is 180 kPa (26 psi). Since P-metric tires are normally used at slightly higher pressures by consumers in accordance with vehicle manufacturers recommendations, it is logical that they be tested at slightly higher pressures.

3. Industry and private testing organizations have been testing P metric tires for UTQG traction using 180 kPa at the NHTSA test facility in San Angelo, Texas for 10 years with no prior comment from NHTSA.

4. In summary, our members sincerely believe the intent of the regulation is to test alpha-numeric tires at 24 psi and P-metric tires at 180 kPa. We ask your timely reconsideration of your August 30, 1989, interpretation to minimize confusion within th e industry.

5. NHTSA has specified variations in test pressures for UTQG treadwear and temperature tests and in FMVSS 109 bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance and high speed tests to accommodate the differences between P- metric (240 kPa) and alpha numeric /numeric (32 psi) tires. The same philosophy should apply to traction testing.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/89

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

TO: FRAU MARGRET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: TELEFAX DATED 09/06/89 FROM MARGRET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH TO R. VAN IDERSTINE -- NHTSA RE HIGH MOUNTED STOP LAMP

TEXT: Dear Frau Schmock:

This is in reply to your FAX of September 6, 1989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, asking four questions with respect to requirements for the center highmounted stop lamp.

"1. Is it allowed to use 6 wedge-base-bulbs (3cp) on one high mounted stop lamp?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not prescribe the number of bulbs to be used in the center highmounted stop lamp. Although paragraph S5.1.1.27(e) (formerly S4.1.1.41(e)) states that "the bulb" shall be replaceable without the use of s pecial tools, the intent of this language is not to restrict the number of light sources in the center lamp, but to ensure that any and all light sources are readily replaceable. Therefore, it is acceptable in principle to use 6 bulbs. The sole limitat ion is that the maximum candlepower limitation of the lamp specified in Figure 10 must not be exceeded.

"2. SAE J186 Nov. 82 says that the effective projected luminous area shall not be less than 29 square centimeters. How would you measure the projected luminous area of a lamp with 6 bulbs?"

It is acceptable to measure the area as if the lamp contained only a single bulb. Incidentally, the November 1982 version of SAE J186 has not been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 as the requirement for center highmounted stoplamps. The correct reference is J186a, September 1977 (which does not contain the 29 square centimeter specification; that specification is expressed as 4 1/2 square inches in paragraph S5.1.1.27(a)).

"3. Must each bulb reach the required photometric values?"

No. Photometrics are a measure of the light output at specified test points measured from outside the lamp. Therefore, it is the lamp that meets the photometric requirements, and not the light source or sources.

"4. What will happen, if one bulb is defect?"

The specification for the lamp applies at the time it is sold to a retail customer. Thus, all bulbs in a lamp must be functional at that time. If a manufacturer chooses to design a lamp to meet the photometric specification when one bulb is not functio ning, that would provide an extra measure of safety that is not required by Standard No. 108. Obviously, an inoperative light source should be replaced at the owner's earliest convenience, and the requirement that the light source be replaceable without special tools is intended to add to the convenience of replacement.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/89

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

TO: WOLFRED FREEMAN -- FREEMAN & COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/22/89 FROM WOLFRED FREEMAN TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Freeman:

This is in reply to your letter to June 22, 1989, to the Administrator-Designate, General Curry, in which you "petition . . . for permission to produce a color coded (Green-Amber-Red) rear light device for all types of motor vehicles." You have designed "a workable auxiliary system that can be adopted to cars and trucks on the road."

We are treating your letter as a request for an interpretation of whether your device would be permissible for sale and use as an item of aftermarket equipment under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency. By aftermarket, we mean sale of the device for installation on cars and trucks in use, as contrasted with sales by dealers for installation on new cars. The principal regulation of this agency pertaining to motor vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard N o. 108. The only requirements it establishes for the aftermarket is for equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment specified by the standard (for example, headlamps and stop lamps). As your device is not a required item of mo tor vehicle lighting equipment, there is no Federal standard that applies to it.

However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act has a direct relationship to the acceptability of aftermarket equipment. The Act prohibits modifications by persons other than the owner of the vehicle if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment that is installed pursuant to a safety standard. Under Standard No. 108, this equipment includes stop lamps, turn signal lamps, hazard warning signals, turn signals, backup lamps, taillamps, and the license plate lamp. On large trucks, it also includes identification lamps and clearance lamps. If the potential effect of an auxiliary lighting device is to create confusion as to the intended message of any lighting device required by Standard No. 108, we regard the auxiliary light as h aving rendered the required lamp partially inoperative within the prohibition of the Act.

Thus, the question is whether your device has the potential to create confusion so that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor,

dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would be a violation of the Act. We do not conclude that the device has this potential. In your device, a steady-burning amber light would signal that the accelerator had been released (and that neither the acce lerator nor brake pedal were being applied). Amber is the recognized signal for caution. This signal will extinguish when either the accelerator (green signal) or brake pedal (red signal) is applied. Furthermore, it is steady burning whereas other rear lamps where amber is an optional color (turn signals and hazard warning signals) flash in operation. Therefore, it does not appear that your device would create confusion with required items of lighting equipment.

You must also consider whether the device would be acceptable under the laws of any State where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. However, we believe that in several Western States, there has been specific legislation that would permit your device.

We appreciate your interest in enhancing vehicle safety through improvement in rear lighting systems. We believe that improvements, such as the center highmounted stop lamp, should be introduced as standardized, mandatory lighting equipment on vehicles, rather than as optional aftermarket devices. Contrary to your understanding, our studies of a system similar to yours showed no discernible improvement in reaction time or accident avoidance over current systems.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/89

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

TO: S. WATANABE -- MANAGER AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD., JAPAN

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This is in reply to your FAX of September 14, 1989, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, with respect to a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD), as shown in the drawing attached to your letter.

You have two questions:

"1) Does a VHAD without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope satisfy FMVSS No. 108 S7.7.5.2(a)(1)(v)?"

Paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(v) states that "Means shall be provided in the VHAD for compensating for deviations in floor slope not less than 1.2 degrees from the horizontal that would affect the correct positioning of the headlamp for vertical aim." If a VHAD is "without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope" it would not satisfy Standard No. 108.

"2) This Head Lamp is designed to be aimed vertically by means of observing only one spirit level placed on the movable reflector, as shown in the drawing. Does this structure of VHAD satisfy FMVSS No. 108 S7.7.5.2(a)(1)(v)?"

The answer is yes, if observation of the simple spirit level is coordinated with an off-vehicle measurement of floor slope. As located, the spirit level with the range of +/- 1.2 degree range will allow aim of the headlamp, even though the vehicle may n ot be level, and will

compensate for floor slopes of up to 1.2 degrees, thus fulfilling the requirement that there be compensatory means when the vehicle upon which the headlamp is mounted is not resting upon level ground.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

[DIAGRAM OF VEHICLE HEADLAMP AIMING DEVICE OMITTED]