ID: 14309.ztv

Mr. Kiyoshi Narabu
General Manager
Technical Department
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado, Isehara-City
Kanagawa, 259-11 Japan

Dear Mr. Narabu:

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1997, with reference to paragraph S7.7(e) of Standard No. 108 requiring permanent markings of ballasts used in high intensity discharge headlamps.

You have enclosed samples of labels to be stuck to ballasts and a sample of a plate to which the label is affixed, and ask whether these are "permanent" markings within the meaning of the standard.

We were able to peel back and remove in an undamaged condition the label on the sample plate that you enclosed. Therefore, it does not meet the requirement of paragraph S7.7(e) that the markings be permanent. We regard marking by labels as "permanent" if the labels cannot be removed without their destruction.

We note that the marking itself is in the Japanese language. We are unable to tell whether the marking conforms with the warning and other information required on ballast markings by the remainder of paragraph S7.7(e). Thus, the label must also be in the English language to comply fully with the requirements of this paragraph.

If you have further questions about this letter, you may FAX them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:5/22/97

ID: 14385a.ogm

Mr. Paul Wagner
President
Bornemann Products Incorporated
402 Industrial Drive
P.O. Box 427
Bremen, IN 46506

Dear Mr. Wagner:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, as it applies to a seat design having a reclining mechanism and an upper seat belt anchorage integrated into the seat. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Confirming your understanding, Standard 207 applies to an integrated seat "as currently provided." The integrated seat must meet the general performance requirements of S4.2, the requirements of S4.2.1 for seat adjusters, and unless excepted, the requirements in S4.3 for a restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs.

You are concerned that a reclining mechanism on an integrated seat that adjusts only for comfort would not be adequately evaluated under Standard 207. The seat would be excluded from S4.3 under the terms of that section because it would be "a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants." While the seat would be subject to the general performance requirements of S4.2, you state that the test procedure is inadequate for the recliner because much of the load placed on the seat and seat belt anchorage would be absorbed by the side struts described in S5. You state: "In real life, an integrated seat may experience movement from one adjustment position to another, as in a change in detent of the seat recliner due to the shearing of the recliner's teeth, but yet in the lab scenario, still comply with the test requirements in Standard No. 207."

The exclusion from S4.3 for seat backs which adjust only for the occupant's comfort is very limited. If a seat back also adjusts for any other reason, i.e. to allow access to other areas of the vehicle or to provide additional range of adjustment for seat belts, the seat would be required to have a restraining device which meets S4.3.

I also would like to take this opportunity to respond to your comment that a seat may experience movement from one adjustment position to another and still comply with Standard 207's requirements. As S4.2.1 applies to adjustment of the seat back as well as the seat itself, the seat back of an integrated seat with a reclining mechanism must remain in its adjusted position when tested under the procedures outlined in S5.

We also note that your letter suggests establishing test procedures for integrated seats. NHTSA is currently studying possible changes to Standard No. 207 as well as the October 28, 1997 petition for rulemaking submitted by your company.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:207
d.3/5/98

ID: 14386.drn

Mr. Ronald J. Hemmer
Engineering Manager
DuraTech
P. O. Box 1940
Jamestown, ND 58402-1940

Dear Mr. Hemmer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your company's mobile industrial tub grinders must be assigned vehicle identification numbers (VIN) pursuant to 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter stated that your company was asked to provide your "World Manufacturer Identification (WMI) Code." The WMI is the first three digits of a VIN and identifies a motor vehicle manufacturer. Your letter emphasizes that the grinders "are not used on the highway for commercial purposes." The grinders are mobile to facilitate towing from DuraTech to the buyer, which "may then use the highway system to get the machine from one jobsite to another." You enclosed six brochures, each describing a different model of an industrial tub grinder. The brochures describe the grinders as used for grinding timber and debris ranging from (depending on the model) tree limbs and yard waste, to large trees, construction debris, tires and demolition lumber.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time a grinder is at a job site depends on the task. The grinder could be at a tire dump or construction site for months at a time. You stated that the grinders very rarely stay at a job site for less than a week.

NHTSA's VIN requirement (49 CFR Part 565) applies only to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). That section defines "motor vehicle" as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Whether the agency considers your grinders to be motor vehicles depends on their use. The statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on your description, it appears that your company's grinders are not motor vehicles. This is because the grinders stay on job sites for extended periods of time (usually for months) and only use the highway to move from site to site. Therefore, your grinders need not be assigned VINs pursuant to 49 CFR Part 565. I note that, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that the grinders use the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

Please note that since a State may require equipment such as your grinders to be registered, you may wish to contact the States about the status of your grinder in that State.

You also informed Ms. Nakama over the telephone that the Canadian government would require your grinders to be assigned VINs for sale in Canada. NHTSA and the Canadian government have independent requirements, and our determination that your grinders need not be assigned VINs would have no effect on Canadian requirements. NHTSA cannot prohibit your company from assigning VINs (in accordance with the format prescribed in Part 565) to your grinders to meet Canadian requirements.

However, since the grinders are not "motor vehicles," I would recommend that your company ensure that grinders sold in the U.S. not be assigned VINs. For U.S. purposes, assigning VINs to your grinders may cause confusion as to whether the grinders are "motor vehicles." If a DuraTech grinder had a VIN, state officials, including law enforcement officers and highway inspectors, reviewing the VIN may question why the grinder has no certification label pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567 Certification (i.e., certifying that a vehicle meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)(at 49 CFR Part 571) applicable to the vehicle type), and why the grinder does not appear to meet such safety standards. Your U.S. customers may find it difficult to respond to such questions.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565#VSA
d:6/4/97

ID: 14387.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Section
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This responds to your letter of March 14,1997, asking for an interpretation of paragraphs 7.5(d)(1) and (e)(1) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Pargraph S7.5(d)(1) applies to headlamps equipped with dual filament replaceable light sources and requires that

"Headlamps designed to conform to the external aiming requirements of S7.8.5.1 shall have no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustments of each reflector."

Paragraph S7.5(e)(1) applies to a headlamp system equipped with any combination of replaceable light sources except those specified in S7.5(d), and requires that

"Headlamps designed to conform to the external aim requirements of S7.8.5.1 shall have no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two replaceable light sources, independent adjustments of each reflector."

You have enclosed a sketch of two headlamp designs, called "Example 1" and "Example 2." You believe that "Example 1" can meet both requirements and that "Example 2" cannot due to the independent adjustment of the two reflectors. You ask whether or not your interpretation is correct.

"Example 1" depicts a headlamp with two light sources (Type HB3 and Type HB4), and "Reflector" (Upper Beam & Lower Beam)" joined at the center, and a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) identified as "VHAD (Upper Beam & Lower Beam)". As noted above, S7.5(d)(1) applies to headlamps with dual filament replaceable light sources. Type HB3 and Type HB4 are single filament replaceable light sources. Therefore, S7.5(d)(1) does not apply to your "Example 1" headlamp design. Additionally, because "Example 1" has a VHAD, paragraph S7.5(d)(1) does not apply, being intended for externally-aimed headlamps. For the same reason, it does not need to comply with S7.5(e)(1).

"Example 2" depicts a headlamp with two light sources (Type HB3 and Type HB4), and with two separate reflectors. One light source is identified as "Upper Beam" and the other as "Lower Beam." Each light source has its own VHAD. As with "Example 1", paragraph S7.5(d)(1) does not apply to this headlamp design because it incorporates single filament light sources. Also, as with "Example 1", paragraph S7.5(e)(1) does not apply.

In summary, neither S7.5(d)(1) nor S7.5(e)(1) apply to the examples. Because both Examples appear to be equipped with "on-vehicle aiming" (see paragraph S7.8.5.2), either Example would appear to comply with the relevant provisions of S7.5(e).

If you have further questions on this letter, you may FAX Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-3820).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:4/25/97

ID: 14388.ztv

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-2247

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

This is in response to your letter of March 17, 1997, with respect to my letter of September 4, 1996, to John W. Cook of Pace American, Inc.

Mr. Cook had informed us that he had fenders that attached to the side of his trailers in widths that vary from 2 to 11 inches. He asked whether it was acceptable for the clearance lamps to be within 6 to 8 inches from the outermost part of the trailer including fenders. We replied that in our judgment, locating a clearance lamp within 6 to 8 inches of the outermost edges of a trailer does not indicate "overall width" within the meaning of Standard No. 108. You have asked whether this interpretation was intended to apply only to the Pace American design, or applicable to all trailers. You are presently recommending to your members that the front clearance lamps be located within 16 inches of the side of the trailer.

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires clearance lamps to be located to indicate the overall width of the trailer. The optimum location for clearance lamps is therefore at the extreme width of the trailer. The further inboard that clearance lamps are located from the extreme edge of the trailer, the less they indicate the overall width of the trailer.

The Pace American trailers were equipped with fenders, whereas your question pertains to front clearance lamps only, and mounted on trailers without fenders (designs on pages 12-18 of RP No. 9, which you enclosed). These designs show a location zone for front clearance lamps within 16 inches from the side of the trailer. The drawings also bear the legend "Center of front clearance lamps shall be within indicated zones." We don't believe that a lamp center, say, at 15 inches inboard represents location of a lamp that indicates "overall width". In our judgment, locating a clearance lamp more than 6 inches from the outermost edge of a trailer that is 80 or more inches in overall width does not indicate "overall width" within the meaning of Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions on this letter, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:6/9/97

ID: 14407.drn

[]

Dear [ ]

This responds to your request for an interpretation of S5.2.5, Footrests, in Standard No. 123 Motorcycle controls and displays. You ask whether the requirement that the footrest "fold rearward and upward when not in use" can be interpreted to require the passenger footrest to fold upward only. As explained below, the answer is no.

You requested confidential treatment for all information in your letter, and its attachment. Please note that when confidential treatment is claimed for material submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), our confidentiality regulation, 49 CFR Part 512, requires the submission of a certification stating that the submitter has made a diligent inquiry to ascertain that the information submitted has not been disclosed, or otherwise made public, (49 CFR 512.4(e)) and other supporting information (49 CFR 512.4(b)). However, in order to expedite our response to you, I will waive the requirement of the certification contained in 49 CFR 512. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that redacting your name, the name of your company, and the drawing of your motorcycle from publicly available copies of your letter and our response letter to you will satisfy your request for confidential treatment.

S5.2.5 Footrests in Standard No. 123 states in full:

Footrests shall be provided for each designated seating position. Each footrest for a passenger other than an operator shall fold rearward and upward when not in use.

In your letter, you state that in its current designs, your company uses passenger footboards for some of the larger motorcycles. Your footboards are hinged, and their basic design allows them to fold directly upward, rather than rearward and upward. Your company believes that the footboard location makes it impossible for the footboard to contact the road during turning maneuvers. You expressed the opinion that S5.2.5 is "design restrictive," and that safety will not be compromised by allowing passenger footboards that fold directly upward, as long the footboards "cannot possibly make contact with the road during normal driving conditions."

NHTSA has addressed S5.2.5 in past interpretation letters, but has never interpreted S5.2.5 to permit the passenger footrest to fold upward only. Because the provision plainly states "shall fold rearward and upward," we are unable to interpret S5.2.5 by disregarding the word "rearward," and to permit a passenger footrest to fold upward only. Please note that S5.2.5 states only that the passenger footrest "shall fold rearward" but does not specify the extent to which the footrest must fold rearward.

If you believe S5.2.5 should be amended, you may petition for rulemaking, as provided in our regulations at 49 CFR Part 552 - Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders. Please note that even if your petition should be granted and a rulemaking proceeding is commenced, it does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

This interp contains confidential information in brackets [ ].

ref:123

d:5/20/97

ID: 14414.ztv

Mr. Jack Z. Zhang
P.O. Box 10-A
San Carlos CA 94070-0316

Dear Mr. Zhang:

This responds to your letter of March 24, 1997, asking the agency to support your "courtesy light." You have stated five "needs" that you ask us to address. We shall be happy to do so.

1. Whether "it is legal to install the Courtesy Signal Light (the "Light") in motor vehicles in the U.S."

As you have described it, the Light is a green-flashing signal lamp installed in the front of a motor vehicle, on its vertical centerline. Further, "[i]t starts to flash when the driver of a car pushes a switch button and it stops flashing when the driver releases the switch button."

Your letter indicates that you are familiar with the prohibition in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 against original equipment that impairs required lighting equipment, as you have addressed this issue at length in your letter. In your view, the green color of the Light, its status as the only center-mounted front lamp, and its flash rate are such that the effectiveness of the other front lighting equipment won't be impaired. You cite other factors, such as ease of operation which we do not consider are relevant to the impairment issue.

It is imperative for safety that the messages sent by lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, whether signaling or marking, be clearly understood at the moment other drivers perceive them. Use of a flashing green lamp on the front of a vehicle has the potential to cause confusion for the very reason that it is unique. For example, in your Figure 5 you present the hypothetical situation of a driver signaling a left turn to a vehicle approaching on the other side of an intersection who is not sure to go or stop; at this point, the first driver can flash the courtesy signal to indicate that the first driver will yield, so that the second driver "will cross the intersection with more confidence." On the contrary, we believe that the second driver may well hesitate in confusion when confronting an unfamiliar vehicle. In a real life situation, the second driver has the right of way over a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction that is signaling a left turn. Thus, the second driver should need no further assurance to proceed through the intersection. In summary, we believe that an amber flashing turn signal's effectiveness could be impaired by a front-mounted flashing green light installed as original equipment.

For the same reason, we believe that the Courtesy Signal could not be offered as an aftermarket device. The test for aftermarket devices is whether their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would "make inoperative" a safety device such as turn signals. Failure to immediately perceive the intent of a turn signal would make its signal at least partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition.

The prohibition does not extend to the owner of the vehicle. Assuming that an owner has the capability of installing the Courtesy Signal, the question is whether the lamp is legal under the laws of the various states. We are unable to advise you of state laws and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles of the states for their opinion.

We also raise the question of the possible effect upon safety of a lamp that requires the driver's continuing attention to activate and deactivate. This mode of signal operation has the potential to distract the driver from critical driving tasks such as braking.

2. Whether you may "petition [NHTSA] to amend Standard 108 to permit the Light as an optional lighting device for motor vehicles."

You have the right to petition for rulemaking for an amendment of this nature, but you should be aware that the agency invariably denies petitions that involves optional vehicle signaling equipment because of the importance it places on standardization of signals. Denials of rulemaking must be published in the Federal Register where they become public information.

3. Whether to submit the Light idea as a candidate for NHTSA research and development project."

Your letter states that the Courtesy Signal Light would likely reduce "Right-of-Way" and "Improper Overtaking" accidents by 50%. We have already addressed our reservations on the ability of the lamp to prevent right of way collisions. We also have reservations about its ability to prevent improper overtaking, or lane-change collisions under the conditions shown in your Figures 2 and 3. You surmise that when a vehicle wishes to enter an adjacent lane and flashes its turn signal, the driver of a vehicle in the adjacent lane can flash the Light to indicate that it is all right for the vehicle to enter the lane. The only way that the lane-changing driver is going to be able to see the Light is in a rear view mirror. The sight of a flashing green light can create a momentary distraction which could result in a rear end collision by the lane-changing vehicle with a vehicle farther ahead in the lane into which the turning vehicle is entering. The Light may also be subject to abuse, used for false signals.

I'm afraid I must say that we see very little safety benefit to this device, and do not view it as a candidate for NHTSA research.

4. Whether you may have a letter from NHTSA supporting your effort to improve traffic safety through the "Courtesy Signal Light."

We very much appreciate the fact that you have devoted time and effort to improve traffic safety. We would be interested in discussing your safety ideas further at such time as you have actual data from field trials, etc., that can support your assertions that the Light will reduce vehicular crashes and resulting deaths and injuries.

5. Whether you may present the Light and a prototype to NHTSA.

At the present time, I don't see the value of such an idea. We believe that it is an unproven concept with a possible negative impact upon safety. As I indicated above, at such time as you have actual data demonstrating that the invention will enhance traffic safety, we will be pleased to talk with you further.

I regret that we are unable to share your enthusiasm about the potential of the Light. If you have further questions about this letter, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:4/14/97

ID: 14516.ztv

Mr. Larry C. Lavender
Fleetline Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 298
Springfield, TN 37172

Dear Mr. Lavender:

This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You state that you have received "verbal" answers to certain questions from the Office of Safety Performance Standards and need a written confirmation of these answers from the Office of Chief Counsel. You wish to supply parts to "heavy duty truck manufacturers" that meet Standard No. 108, and are concerned with sheeting to be applied to the rear fenders, mud flaps or mud flap support brackets.

My initial comment is that we encourage manufacturers to seek written interpretations directly from the Office of Chief Counsel. Only the written interpretations of the Office of Chief Counsel are binding.

My second comment is to note that the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108 apply only to heavy trailers and to truck tractors that are 80 or more inches in overall width. Thus, a manufacturer wishing to add conspicuity sheeting to rear fenders, mud flaps or mud flap brackets of a straight truck need not follow Standard No. 108. Nevertheless, in the belief that standardization enhances safety, we encourage voluntary compliance with the conspicuity requirements for straight trucks as well.

The interpretations for which you seek confirmation are:

"The sheeting must be in a pattern of alternating red and white segments. The individual segments must be 300mm long plus or minus 150mm, i.e. from 150mm to 450mm long."

Yes. The specifications stated in paragraph S5.7.1.3(a) and (b) for the side and rear of trailers and truck tractors apply also to rear fenders, and mud flaps and their support brackets.

"There is no requirement for the color pattern to begin or end in either color. The inboard and outboard segments may be either red or white."

You are correct. The text of Standard No. 108 speaks of "alternating white and red color segments" (S5.7.1.3(a)) while Figure 30-1 through Figure 30-4 show red and white segments installed. However, there is no requirement that the color pattern begin or end with either color, or that inboard and outboard segments be red or white.

"There is no requirement for the tape to be completely free of discontinuities. On the brackets which have a 45 degree angle, the tape does not have to be cut in a miter joint."

Paragraph S5.7.1.4(a) specifies that sheeting "need not be applied to discontinuous surfaces" and provides several examples of these. We assume that this is what you mean by your statement. There is no requirement that tape be cut in a miter joint.

"Minor trimming of the tape to conform to the shape of a bracket is acceptable, provided the length measured on the center line of the tape is a minimum of 600mm. On the drawing included with this memorandum one corner of the tape is trimmed. This is acceptable."

Minor trimming of the tape is acceptable, as shown on your drawing. The length measured on the center line of the sheeting may be any length from 600mm to 900mm. (300mm +/- 150mm x 2).

"The drawing included with this memorandum illustrates a proposed bracket satisfying FMVSS 571.108."

The drawing shows an acceptable solution to mounting conspicuity material on a mud flap bracket.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:5/28/97
d:5/28/97

ID: 14520toy.2

Mr. James G. O'Neill
Clever Living Products
P.O. Box 274
Rancocas, N.J. 08073

Dear Mr. O'Neill:

This responds to your March 26, 1997, letter asking whether an August 5, 1993, interpretation to you reflects current National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) law and policies.

The answer is yes, the general policies, legal principles and requirements discussed in that letter have not changed. You wrote about an aftermarket toy holder that attaches to a child restraint system by a mounting bracket. Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," has been amended a number of times since 1993, but still does not apply to aftermarket accessories for child restraint systems. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on a child restraint system in compliance with Standard 213.

For your information, the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" to which the 1993 letter refers has been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the letter are outdated; however, the substantive requirements it describes have not changed.

If you have other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213
d:5/6/97

ID: 14635.ztv

Mr. Mark Boykin
J&M Enterprises
1523 Grand Ave.
Spring Valley, CA 91977

Dear Mr. Boykin:

This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1997, telling us of your interest in manufacturing side marker lamps. You ask whether these lights are required to be "DOT approved". You also ask for information on state and local laws.

We are pleased to try to help you. First, the applicable laws do not provide authority for "DOT approval" of vehicles or equipment items. Under these laws, a manufacturer must satisfy itself, through testing for example, that its product conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The manufacturer then must certify its product. No permission or approval by DOT is needed.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement side marker lamps, which have been required on all new passenger cars since January 1, 1969. These requirements are those of SAE Standard J592e, July 1972. I enclose a copy for your information.

However, it is not immediately clear that these requirements would apply to you. The color photo you enclosed shows a side marker lamp installed on a contemporary Saab car, just behind the front wheelwell. The Saab also has a yellow lens before the front wheelwell that appears to be part of the front lamp assembly. We take this to be the front side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108. The second lamp which you indicate by an arrow, the lamp you are interested in manufacturing, is a side-mounted turn signal, not a side marker lamp in this photo. On this vehicle, the lamp in question flashes in phase with the required front and rear mounted turn signal lamps. Supplemental lamps, regardless of their purpose, need not meet any Federal specifications.

If you intend to sell the lamp for installation as original or replacement equipment on vehicles, trailers for example, then even this lamp would not have to meet any specifications because side-mounted turn signal lamps are not an item regulated by Standard No. 108. However, other requirements would come into play: the necessity to file a one-page manufacturer identification statement with the agency, and the obligation to notify and remedy in the event that a noncompliance or safety-related defect is found to exist in the lamp.

A state may impose its own requirements for aspects of performance not covered by Standard No. 108, in this case, with SAE Standard J914 Side Turn Signal Lamps. We are not able to advise you on state laws and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in states where you intend to market the device.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.6/16/97