Interpretation ID: nht90-3.26

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 23, 1990

FROM: Timothy Murphy -- Chairman Engineering Committee - Lights, Transportation Safety Equipment Institute, Peterson Manufacturing Company

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated August 31, 1990 from P.J. Rice to T. Murphy (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The Engineering Committee of the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI) has reviewed your letter of February 26, 1990 to the Bargman Company. This specific letter was in response to a question from Bargman dated December 13, 1989 in which they specifically asked if an amber reflex reflector was permitted as an additional reflector on the rear of vehicles covered by FMVSS108.

Your conclusion was that the installation of an amber tail lamp lens with an amber reflector would not constitute a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. We respectfully disagree for the reasons stated below.

You are correct in your statement that no additional reflective device may be installed that impairs the effectiveness of reflective equipment required by Standard No. 108. You then state, "It does not appear to us that an amber tail lamp lens with an a mber reflector would create an impairment."

While amber is a permissible color for rear turn signal lamps, the referenced rear turn signal lamp is a flashing device. We are unaware of any state law or federal law which permits a steady burning amber signal to the rear and, therefore, your interpr etation is a distinct departure from past practice.

We respectfully suggest that a steady burning lamp or reflector to the rear clearly would create confusion for following drivers. For example, on vehicles under 80 inches wide, the only devices required on the rear are two tail lamps and two rear red re flectors which are, in effect, operable at all times. That is, they are steady burning and represent a continuous signal.

If one now introduces two additional amber reflectors, following motorists would then see the two required red tail lamps and two amber reflectors which would be about 2 1/2 times brighter than the required red reflectors if we consider the luminous tran smission difference between the red and amber colors. In short, the amber auxiliary add-on reflectors would normally be much brighter (by a factor of 2 1/2 times) than the required red reflector. It is our strong and unanimous conclusion that this woul d certainly represent an impairment of a required device.

The states of California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and many other

states, clearly specify that reflectors, visible from the rear of a vehicle, shall be red. We know of no instance where amber rear reflex is specifically permitted by any state.

The last sentence in your February 26th letter to the Bargman Company states, "This agency presently has no plans to specify yellow as an alternate color for rear reflex reflectors." We suggest that an agency interpretation letter which permits yellow o r amber reflex reflectors on the rear of a vehicle could be the source of considerable confusion. For example, a manufacturer might elect to install an auxiliary amber reflex on the rear of a vehicle manufactured in a state where the law is silent on th e subject of rear reflex color. However, when the user then travels to one of the many states which clearly prohibit steady burning amber lamps or reflex to the rear, they may find themselves subject to violations of specific state laws. You should als o consider that if amber rear reflex is permitted as an auxiliary add-on device, the next logical step might well be a steady burning amber auxiliary lamp on the rear of vehicles. We submit that such color to the rear would create an obvious impairment of the required devices. For the reasons outlined above, we would ask that you review the February 6, 1990 interpretation.