ID: aiam0699

Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 to various components of motor homes. You raise numerous questions in your letter which are restated (rephrased in some cases to facilitate our response) and answered below>; >>>1. (Page 1) 'When speaking of wheel housing and engine compartmen covers we assume this applies only to such coverings on the interior of the vehicle occupancy compartment.'; That is correct. 2. (Page 2, first paragraph) You list several components which yo assume are subject to the standard. We concur that each of these components are subject to the standard with the exception of 'gaucho and daveno' seat cushions, but only because we are not familiar with these terms.; You are also correct in your conclusion that the standard applies t the foam or other material used in seat cushions even though they may also be converted into beds.; 3. (Page 2) 'It would also appear that the standard is applicable t the mattress itself, i.e., the filling material . . . if the mattress cover is 'bonded, sewed, or mechanically attached' to the mattress itself . . .'; S4.2 of the standard lists mattress covers only, and does not apply t the filling of the mattress.; 4. (Page 2) You ask whether seat frames, constructed of plywood o similar materials, are subject to the standard. The standard is not intended to apply to seat frames, and these components need not meet its requirements.; 5. On the bottom of page 2 you refer to the language of the propose amendment to the standard (36 F.R. 9565, May 26, 1971), and ask whether mattress filling and seat frames would have to be tested under the proposal irrespective of whether they are attached to the surface material.; As stated above, neither seat frames nor mattress filling is subject t the standard and would not be required to meet the proposed requirements.; 6. (Page 3) You ask for an interpretation of the phrase 'compartmen shelves.' We consider this term to apply to open shelves, and to not include shelves which are found in cupboards or closets. However, if a shelf is a 'compartment shelf' under the standard, it must meet the requirements as it appears in the vehicle, either with or without coverings, whatever the case may be. Your statement that the standard applies 'only to such shelves if there is a shelf covering' is incorrect.; 7. (Page 3, second paragraph) We agree with your statement that th standard does not apply, with the exceptions noted, to storage cabinets or compartments. We disagree, however, with your statements regarding wall or other compartment panelling, lavatory tops, commodes or toilets, and your discussion of trim panels. We would consider walls to be side trim panels and subject to the standard. Similarly, lavatory tops may be compartment shelves under the standard, and toilets seats are included under the terms seat cushions and seat backs. Moreover, 'trim panels' include trim on walls as well as on instrument panels and doors, and they are subject to the standard.<<<; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4572

"Dear Mr. Wolpe: Thank you for your letter to former Secretary Burnle on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr of Lansing, Michigan. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety. Mr. Furr is concerned about the potential safety problems that may result if school bus seats are being overloaded. In particular, Mr. Furr asks whether NHTSA's Highway Safety Program Guideline (HSPG) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR /1204.4), is consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222), with regard to seating specifications. Mr. Furr is particularly interested in how manufacturers are calculating the number of seating positions on a bench seat. I am pleased to address your constituent's concerns. Before I begin, I want to note that we have answered a number of similar inquiries from Mr. Furr in past years. We have two sets of 'regulations' for school buses. The first, issued under the Vehicle Safety Act, includes our motor vehicle safety standards which apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Compliance with these standards is mandatory for new vehicle manufacturers, and is enforced by this agency with civil penalties. FMVSS No. 222, with which your constituent is concerned, is one such safety standard. The second set of 'regulations,' or guidelines, for school buses was issued under the Highway Safety Act. Guidelines issued under this Act are not mandatory for the states, rather, they are recommended practices. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, to which Mr. Furr frequently refers in his letter, consists of recommendations to the States for operating their school buses and pertains to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Both FMVSS No. 222 and Guideline No. 17 contain specifications for school bus seating. Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 states: 'The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.' The guideline for seating accommodations in HSPG 17 states: Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufacturers to provide seating accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Mr. Furr appears to see a conflict between the formula used in calculating the forces to be applied to the seats of large school buses under FMVSS No. 222, on the one hand, and the use by States and manufacturers of 13-inch seating positions for rating the capacity of a 39-inch seat, on the other hand. I believe that Mr. Furr's belief in the existence of a conflict rests on a misunderstanding. We view Standard No. 222 and HSPG 17 as complementary, not inconsistent. HSPG 17 reflects NHTSA's belief that all school bus passengers should be seated in the interest of safety. To that end, the guideline provides that there should be a seating position for each passenger and that the position should be at least large enough to accommodate a 5th percentile adult female. The hip width (sitting) of a 5th percentile adult female is 12.8 inches. The figure '15' in FMVSS No. 222's compliance formula is not a minimum requirement for the width of a seating position. It is the number which is used to establish the number of designated seating positions and ensures that the forces applied to the seat during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash. It is also the number which ensures that the width of the smallest seat is approximately equal to the hip width of the 5th percentile female. That is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female. Use of the figure '15' in the FMVSS No. 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (for a 38-inch wide seat.) That is only slightly smaller than the 12.8 inch hip width of the 5th percentile female. For a 39-inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger than the hip width of a 5th percentile female. It should be remembered, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the FMVSS No. 222 formula is not meant to be a measure of the absolute capacity of the bus for all size occupants. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of widely varying ages and sizes, reasonable accommodations may vary between those values. The decision on how many passengers may be comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passengers involved. NHTSA does not have the authority under either the Highway Safety Act or Vehicle Safety Act to regulate how States use school buses. Therefore, NHTSA could not preclude a State from carrying more passengers on a bench seat than there are designated seating positions. However, this agency agrees with Mr. Furr that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalization. We believe that Mr. Furr's concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by his working with the local school board and state officials. Mr. Furr is also concerned about a reference in our occupant crash protection standard (No. 208) to a 95th-percentile adult male occupant size. He asks why FMVSS No. 222 uses a 15-inch seat dimension, when FMVSS No. 208 references the 95th-percentile adult male occupant size in specifying occupant sizes which safety belts must adjust to fit. Both FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 222 are directed at providing occupant crash protection. Both of these standards set forth comprehensive requirements that are directed at protecting occupants likely to be inside a vehicle in a crash. With regard to school buses, the agency determined that the crash protection requirements should be developed taking into account the full size range of passengers typically riding on school buses. If we designed the force and deflection (energy-absorbing) characteristics of the seats for the 95th percentile males, the seats may be too stiff for a small child. Finally, Mr. Furr asks whether, when voluntarily installing safety belts on large school buses, States are violating Federal law by using S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 in determining how many positions (and belts) there are on a bench seat. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 222 requires safety belts only for the passenger positions of small (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) school buses. Under S5 of the standard, belts on a small school bus bench seat are installed at 'W' seating positions, as determined under S4.1. If a State wishes to order belts on its new large school bus and to use the same method for determining the number of belts to be installed, the State may do so. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed";

ID: aiam5438

"Dear Mr. Frink: This responds to your letter and telephone call askin several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206). Your letter stated that your company manufactures a door and frame system designed for installation on a 'recreational motor home,' which you described as a self-propelled, self-contained recreational vehicle seating six and with a gross vehicle weight rating of under 10,000 pounds. The door system is installed on the right front side of the vehicle and is the primary means of ingress/egress. You stated that the door's latch/striker assembly is purchased from Tri-Mark Corporation, and that Tri-Mark assures you that the latch/striker assembly conforms to the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. You ask what the classification of the vehicle would be and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply to the door in question. By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The statute establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency ensures compliance by purchasing vehicles and/or equipment in the retail market and testing them as set forth in the applicable standards. If the vehicle or equipment is found to meet the requirements of the standards, no further action is taken. If the vehicle or equipment fails to meet the standards, the manufacturer is responsible for correcting the noncompliance(s) at no cost to the purchaser. NHTSA also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the defect free of charge. For the purposes of the FMVSSs, NHTSA classifies motor vehicles as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, motorcycles, and trailers. From your description, the vehicle concerned would be classified as an MPV, which is defined in the definitions section of our FMVSSs (49 CFR 571.3, see enclosed) as a motor vehicle 'designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' You first ask about the classification of the vehicle and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply. FMVSS No. 206 (copy enclosed) applies to passenger cars, MPVs and trucks. Since the vehicle on which your door and frame system will be installed is an MPV, the standard would apply to the vehicle. The standard requires that, with certain exceptions not applicable here, components on any side door leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating accommodations must comply with the requirements of the standard (see S4 of FMVSS No. 206). The door in question meets this description of S4. According to your letter, there is a step area extending from the door opening into the coach and the passenger seat closest to the door is behind this step area. The presence of the step area does not negate the fact that the door in question leads directly into a compartment that contains passenger seating accommodations. Thus, the components of the door must comply with the requirements of FMVSS 206. To clarify your understanding of the applicability of FMVSS No. 206, the standard applies to new completed vehicles. Therefore, it would be the vehicle manufacturer who would 'certify' compliance with the standard, not the various manufacturers of the components of the door lock system. Sometimes the vehicle manufacturer will rely on the assurances of the suppliers, such as Avionic and Tri-Mark, that the components conform to the requirements of the applicable standards, in making the certification to FMVSS No. 206. However, the vehicle manufacturer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 206, and therefore must determine whether those assurances are bona fide. Also enclosed for your information are fact sheets issued by this agency entitled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment' and 'Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations,' respectively. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you need any additional information or have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 571.108--Convertible CHMSL Beam Angle--Magna

April 3, 2023

Doris C. Schaller 

Homologation

Magna Steyr Engineering AG & Co KG

Liebenauer Hauptstrasse 317

8041 Graz Austria 

Dear Ms. Schaller:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the permissibility, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, of two proposed variants for mounting the center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) on a soft top convertible. Based on the information you provided in your letter, as explained in more detail below, we have concluded that mounting the CHMSL on the “service lid” is permissible under FMVSS No. 108, whereas mounting the CHMSL on the “soft top cover” is not.

Background
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does  not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and NHTSA does not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following represents NHTSA’s opinion regarding the applicability FMVSS No. 108 requirements to your CHMSL designs based on the information you have provided.

FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Paragraph S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 contains requirements for the mounting location of all required lamps, including CHMSLs, and states specifically that:

Each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment must be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle, other than glazing, that is not designed to be

removed except for repair, within the mounting location and height limits as specified in Table 1, and in a location where it complies with all applicable photometric requirements, effective projected luminous lens area requirements, and visibility requirements with all obstructions considered.

You ask how S6.1.3.1 applies to two possible lighting design variations. Although you ask that certain information in your interpretation request be treated as confidential, we do not need to reveal or reference the information other than in general descriptive terms in order to answer your questions. What follows is our interpretation based on our understanding of the facts you provided.

Variant 1: CHMSL mounted on the “service lid”
The first variant you describe places the CHMSL on the vehicle’s “service lid,” which we understand to be an access panel that is fixed in place during normal vehicle operation and that can be opened only with a specialized tool by technicians at certified repair shops. From the illustrations provided with your request, it appears that the service lid is located between the trunk and the passenger cabin at the rear of the vehicle.

You state that you believe that a configuration in which the CHMSL is located on the vehicle’s service lid complies with the mounting location requirement in S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108. We agree. As noted above, S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 states that required lamps “must be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle, other than glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair.” NHTSA believes that the service lid is “a rigid part of the vehicle,” based on the information that you have provided, which suggests that the service lid is similar (albeit adjacent) to a trunk lid. NHTSA has previously interpreted a vehicle’s “deck lid” (i.e., trunk lid) as a rigid part of the vehicle,[1] and while the service lid you describe is not a trunk lid, we believe that interpretation covers other similar lids on a vehicle, such as the service lid, that are solid and cannot be easily removed. Additionally, you expressly describe the service lid as “only [able to] be moved with special tools in qualified garages,” which is consistent with the “not designed to be removed except for repair” requirement.  Therefore, so long as the CHMSL meets all photometric and other requirements, NHTSA believes that it would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108 to mount the CHMSL on the vehicle’s service lid.

Variant 2: CHMSL mounted on the “soft top cover”
The second variant you describe places the CHMSL on the “soft top cover,” which we understand to be the lid that covers the compartment at the rear of the vehicle in which the convertible soft top is stored while it is open (i.e., retracted). In this variant, the CHMSL would comply with all applicable photometric requirements while the soft top cover is fully open or closed.  However, for the approximately 20-second duration of the soft top opening or closing process, the soft top cover tips backward, causing the CHMSL to be temporarily out of compliance with photometric requirements. The driver can initiate the opening or closing process when the vehicle is traveling at speeds of up to 50 kilometers per hour. From your description, there is no auxiliary CHMSL in operation while the soft top cover is in the process of opening or closing.

Based on the information you have provided, this second variant is not permissible. As noted above, S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 states that a required lamp must be mounted “in a location where it complies with all applicable photometric requirements, effective projected luminous lens area requirements, and visibility requirements with all obstructions considered.” If there are obstructions that would cause the lamp to fail to meet photometric and visibility requirements, S6.2.2 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that “the vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp or device of the same type which meet[s] all applicable requirements of this standard, including photometry and visibility.”

In a past interpretation request, a vehicle manufacturer sought to install a CHMSL on a movable rear spoiler, such that it would occasionally not comply with the photometric requirements for CHMSLs. The manufacturer stated that it would employ an additional CHMSL that met the requirements when the “primary” CHMSL on the movable spoiler did not. NHTSA responded[2] that this approach to compliance would be permissible under what is now S6.2.23 of FMVSS No. 108, which states that “If any required lamp…is obstructed by motor vehicle equipment…, and cannot meet the applicable photometry and visibility requirements, the vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp … which meet[s] all applicable requirements of the standard, including photometry and visibility.”4 The situation you describe, where the CHMSL on the soft top will occasionally not comply with FMVSS No. 108, is similar to the one described above, except that it does not appear that your vehicle is equipped with an auxiliary CHMSL. Accordingly, it is our conclusion that the “soft top cover” CHMSL mounting variant is not permissible under FMVSS No. 108.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Ann Carlson

Chief Counsel

Dated: 4/3/23

Ref: FMVSS No. 108

[1] See letter to M. Iwase (Sept. 15, 1988), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/2954o

[2] Letter to Michael Love (July 7, 1992), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht92-528. 3 The original reference was to S5.3.1.1.

ID: NCC-220915-001 Speedometer Conformity Interp Letter

March 21, 2023

Chris Cowen
Port Intelligence Officer
Customs and Border Protection Tactical Operations
104 Bridge Approach Plaza
Ogdensburg, NY 13669 

Dear Mr. Cowen: 

This responds to your email to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting a determination as to whether certain vehicles imported into the United States from Canada comply with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) relating to speedometers. Specifically, you ask whether vehicles equipped with both an analog speedometer that displays only in kilometers per hour (km/h) and a multifunction display that is capable of displaying in miles per hour (MPH) if the driver selects that option would be permissible for importation into the United States without modification. 

Based on the requirements of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and displays, the answer is no. These vehicles do not conform to NHTSA’s requirements and thus are not eligible for importation without modification. Please note that our answer is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your email. 

Background 

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards and investigates alleged safety-related defects. 

Page 2
Mr. Chris Cowen 

Of relevance to your request, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101 (49 CFR § 571.101), which primarily ensures the accessibility, visibility, and recognition of motor vehicle indicators, including speedometers, to reduce safety hazards caused by diversion of the driver’s attention. This standard specifies performance requirements for location, identification, color, and illumination of motor vehicle indicators. It applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. 

Discussion 

The questions inherent in your request, as we understand it, are below:  

1. Do the speedometers meet the FMVSS No. 101 definition of an indicator?  
2. If so, does each indicator meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 101? 

Regarding the first question, paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 101 defines an indicator as “a device that shows the magnitude of the physical characteristics that the instrument is designed to sense.”  Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101 specifies that speedometers are, in fact, indicators. 

Regarding the second question, paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 101 states that all covered vehicles fitted with indicators listed in Table 1 must meet the requirements for the location, identification, color, and illumination of those indicators. 

Based on our review of the photographs you provided, the speedometers at issue appear to satisfy the requirements for location and color, in accordance with paragraph S5.1 “Location” and paragraph S5.4 “Color.”  

We now turn to the identification requirement. Table 1 specifies that speedometers must be identified with units of measurement, using either “MPH” or “MPH and km/h.” You provided pictures of two speedometers: an analog gauge displaying only metric units (km/h) and a digital display that allows the driver to select U.S. customary units (MPH). The analog gauge clearly does not meet the identification requirement of Table 1 because it is marked only in km/h. Next, we consider whether the digital display, defined as a multi-task display in paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 101, meets the requirement. A multi task display is a display on which more than one message can be shown simultaneously. For example, the display here reportedly presents a layered menu of functions that the driver can change. If the driver selects the digital “MPH” display, the speedometer appears to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 101. If, however, the driver selects a different menu option (or no menu option), the speedometer no longer displays “MPH.” Therefore, the multi-task display, by itself, does not meet the identification requirement that “MPH” always be displayed, and in the absence of an analog speedometer that displays MPH, this vehicle would not be compliant with FMVSS No. 101.  

We have not evaluated the “illumination” requirement, as your correspondence does not provide sufficient information to allow us to do so. 

Page 3
Mr. Chris Cowen 

In sum, an indicator, including a speedometer, must meet all requirements of FMVSS No. 101. For the reasons enumerated above, the requirements of the FMVSS are not met and the vehicles are noncompliant. Therefore, vehicles containing these instruments are not eligible for importation into the United States without modification. 

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Terrence Sommers of my staff at this address or at terrence.sommers@dot.gov.  

Sincerely,

John Donaldson
Acting Chief Counsel

Dated: 3/23/23
Ref: Standard No. 101

ID: aiam5497

"Dear Mr. Anthony: This responds to your inquiry about Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Container Integrity, which takes effect on March 27, 1995. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you manufacture CNG containers for OEMs. You further stated that some of your customers have requested that containers they purchase prior to FMVSS No. 304's effective date be labeled with a statement that they comply with FMVSS No. 304. Specifically, you asked whether your containers could be labeled with the statement 'This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS No. 304 effective March 27, 1995' or 'DOT effective March 27, 1995.' As explained below, prior to the effective date, you are prohibited from labeling a container with information that could appear to be a certification to the FMVSS. In the preamble to the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 304, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer may not certify a container as meeting the equipment standard until the standard goes into effect. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a certification is a statement that a vehicle or item of equipment meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are then in effect. Therefore, until a standard is effective, manufacturers may not certify compliance with it (59 FR 49010, 49020 September 26, 1994). Based on this discussion, you acknowledge that it would be impermissible for a manufacturer to include the symbol DOT on CNG containers manufactured prior to March 27, 1995. Nevertheless, you wish to specify information on the container that the container will comply with the soon to be effective FMVSS. As discussed in our September 1994 notice, a manufacturer may not certify a container as meeting the equipment standard until the standard goes into effect. Any label on a product about meeting a standard tends to create the appearance of a certification. It is therefore our opinion that, along with not using the symbol DOT, any such statement on a container label must affirmatively indicate that (1) no standard applies to the container, and (2) the statement is not a certification. With these considerations in mind, your suggestion to include the statement 'This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS No. 304 effective March 27, 1995' would not be permissible because it might be read as constituting a certification. Moreover, the symbol DOT may not be included in your statement because its inclusion might be misinterpreted as implying that the container has been certified to an FMVSS that is in effect, since use of the DOT symbol is the usual method by which certifications are made. You may, however, label a container with the following statement: 'This CNG container would comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 304, that takes effect on March 27,1995. However, since this container was manufactured before the effective date of FMVSS 304, it cannot be certified to comply with that standard. No FMVSS applies to the container.' I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5400

"Dear Sir/Madam: This responds to your letter to this office regardin your reconstruction of an accident involving a 16-passenger school bus. I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter that the original latch/hinge mechanism of the right front entrance door of the bus in question was disabled by removal of the striker plate and equipped instead with a remote door opening/closing apparatus and latching mechanism. The bus was involved in an accident in which the driver was ejected through that door. You then asked a series of questions concerning the classification of the vehicle and the Federal safety standards pertaining to the door in question. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for certifying that the vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Once the vehicle or equipment has been sold to the first customer for purposes other than resale, Federal jurisdiction over the manufacture and sale of the vehicle or equipment generally terminates and use of the vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state jurisdiction. You first asked, 'Would this vehicle be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle, a bus, or a school bus?' The answer to your question is that each manufacturer classifies its vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in the Safety Act and in NHTSA's regulations. The Safety Act defines a 'school bus' as A passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools. 15 U.S.C. 1391(14). Our regulations define a 'bus' as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further define a 'school bus' as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school and related activities, but does not include a bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, whether a vehicle is a school bus under our regulations depends on the purpose for which it was originally sold. Although you did not indicate who purchased the bus originally and for what purpose, you referred to the vehicle in your letter as a 'mini school bus,' you stated that the body was manufactured by Mid Bus, a school bus manufacturer, and the descriptive literature you enclosed with your letter depicts different models of small school buses manufactured by Mid Bus. Accordingly, it appears the vehicle in question would have been classified as a school bus under 49 CFR 571.3. Our regulations require the vehicle manufacturer to state the vehicle type classification on the vehicle's certification label. The certification label of the vehicle in question should have that information. Your second question asks, 'Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?' With respect to FMVSS 206, Door locks and door retention components, the answer is no. Standard 206 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. The standard does not apply to buses. With respect to FMVSS 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the standard specifies requirements for window retention other than windshields in buses, except buses designed to transport persons under restraint, and establishes operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits. The glazing requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 217 would apply to the right front entrance door, and if the door was also used as an emergency exit, it must also have complied when new with the emergency exit requirements of S5.2.3, S5.3, S5.4.2, and S5.5.3 of the standard. Your third question asked, 'Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door (particularly its loading requirements)?' The answer is that apart from the provisions of FMVSS 217 discussed in our answer to your second question, there was no FMVSS in 1988 that specified performance standards for the right front entrance doors of buses. Effective September 1, 1993, however, the side door strength requirements of FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, will apply to 90 percent of the buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less produced after that date, and all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less produced on and after September 1, 1994, must comply with those requirements. I would like to make the following observation about the modification of the door in question. Modifications of new and used vehicles by commercial parties are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In this case, your letter did not indicate who disabled the original latch mechanism on the vehicle or who installed the remote door latch mechanism. If the work was done by a party listed in 108(a)(2)(A), the person modifying the vehicle was responsible for not degrading the performance of the door with regard to FMVSS 217. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, vehicle owners can modify the vehicle in any manner he/she chooses without violating any Federal requirements. I hope this information answers your questions. We have enclosed copies of FMVSS 206 and 217 that were effective in 1988, photocopied from the October 1, 1987 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, as you requested. Should you have other questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam3472

Dear Messrs. Sonosky and McConnell: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1980, in which yo petitioned the agency to withdraw its recommended definition of 'moped' and to define the vehicle commonly referred to as a 'moped' uniformly throughout the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your first petition requests the withdrawal of the recommende definition of 'moped', which the agency made available as part of its series of recommendations relating to this category of vehicles.; The principal issue relates to the agency's definition of moped as category of vehicles with pedals. In your view, the pedal requirement arbitrarily discriminates against vehicles which lack pedals but are otherwise identical to the vehicles defined in the current recommendations. To evaluate your position, the agency carried out a comparison of moped performance parameters to ascertain whether quantifiable safety differences exist between vehicles with and without pedals. The results of this analysis indicated that there are no significant differences, and the agency has therefore determined that it is appropriate to amend the definition of moped in the recommendation by removing the reference to pedals. In addition, the agency notes that the Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) regulations do not require mopeds to have pedals. Thus, to adopt your proposed definition will also aid international harmonization.; Consequently, the agency will shortly issue an advisory notice to th public of the amended definition, as it appears below, and seek additional public views for a period of thirty days.; >>>'Moped' means a motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mil is 30 mph or less, which is equipped with a motor that produces 2 brake horsepower or less. If an internal combustion engine is used, the piston displacement shall not exceed 50 cc and the power drive system shall not require the operator to shift gears.<<<; Your second petition relates to making uniform the various definition of low-horsepower motorcycles found in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571).; We agree that the time is now ripe to make consistent the variou definitions which apply to mopeds, and will issue shortly a notice of proposed rulemaking to add to 49 CFR 571.3(b) the definition of 'moped' stated above. Likewise, we propose to substitute the term 'moped' for the various phrases which define this class of vehicles in 49 CFR 571.108, 49 CFR 115, and 49 CRF (sic) 571.122. In the case of 49 CFR 567.4(g), the presence of the term 'moped' in 49 CFR 571.3(b) offers sufficient authority to identify a moped on the certification label when appropriate. Since the agency has indicated that it will soon propose rescinding Standard 127, it is unnecessary at this time to propose revisions to that standard.; Along with your petitions, you have asked a number of question relating to current NHTSA regulations. The first four questions and their answers appear below. The remaining two questions, relating to the effects on State law of FMVSS 108 and 127, are being considered separately and will be answered upon our completion of an overall review of the issue of preemption under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act,; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Question 1: The present definition of 'motor-driven cycle' is 'motorcycle' with a motor that produces 5 brake horsepower or less. 49 CFR S571.3(1979). Does this mean that a 'motor-driven cycle' must comply with all the regulations that affect motorcycles, unless it is specifically excepted?; Answer: Motor-driven cycles must comply with all regulations that appl to motorcycles unless specifically exempted. If a particular subcategory of motor-driven cycles is exempted, that subcategory of motor-driven cycles need not comply.; Question 2: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ('FMVSS') 123, 49 CF 571.123 (1979), requires that motorcycles be equipped with footrests at each seating position. If mopeds are subject to this standard, do the pedals on mopeds that are equipped with pedals satisfy the footrest requirement for the operator's seating position?; Answer: Yes. The pedals on the moped serve as footrests even when th moped is being propelled by the engine.; Question 3: FMVSS 123 also requires that motorcycle brake systems b operable either by a right foot control or by handlebar controls. If mopeds are subject to this standard, are mopeds with propulsion pedal operated brake systems in compliance?; Answer: Yes. Since such brakes are operable by the feet, they woul comply with the requirement.; Question 4: FMVSS 127, 49 CFR S571.127 at S.3 (1979) exclude motor-driven cycles from its requirement that each motor vehicle should have a speedometer. FMVSS 123 sets marking and illumination requirements for motorcycle speedometers, 49 CFR S571.123 at S.1, but does not exclude motor- driven cycles. If the manufacturer of a cycle that is excluded by FMVSS 127 decides voluntarily to equip its product with a speedometer, must that speedometer conform with the requirements of FMVSS 123? Must it conform with the requirements of FMVSS 127?; Answer: FMVSS 123 requires that if a motorcycle uses a speedometer that speedometer must meet all requirements of that standard. The fact FMVSS 127 requires certain vehicles to have speedometers does not affect the uniformity requirements of FMVSS 123. Therefore, the manufacturer of motor driven cycles whose maximum attainable speed in one mile is 30 miles per hour or less need not equip such cycles with a speedometer, but if it wishes to do so, the speedometer must comply with FMVSS 123.;

ID: aiam3471

Dear Messrs. Sonosky and McConnell: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1980, in which yo petitioned the agency to withdraw its recommended definition of 'moped' and to define the vehicle commonly referred to as a 'moped' uniformly throughout the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your first petition requests the withdrawal of the recommende definition of 'moped', which the agency made available as part of its series of recommendations relating to this category of vehicles.; The principal issue relates to the agency's definition of moped as category of vehicles with pedals. In your view, the pedal requirement arbitrarily discriminates against vehicles which lack pedals but are otherwise identical to the vehicles defined in the current recommendations. To evaluate your position, the agency carried out a comparison of moped performance parameters to ascertain whether quantifiable safety differences exist between vehicles with and without pedals. The results of this analysis indicated that there are no significant differences, and the agency has therefore determined that it is appropriate to amend the definition of moped in the recommendation by removing the reference to pedals. In addition, the agency notes that the Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) regulations do not require mopeds to have pedals. Thus, to adopt your proposed definition will also aid international harmonization.; Consequently, the agency will shortly issue an advisory notice to th public of the amended definition, as it appears below, and seek additional public views for a period of thirty days.; Question 1: The present definition of 'motor-driven cycle' is 'motorcycle' with a motor that produces 5 brake horsepower or less. 49 CFR S 571.3 (1979). Does this mean that a 'motor-driven cycle' must comply with all the regulations that affect motorcycles, unless it is specifically excepted?; Answer: Motor-driven cycles must comply with all regulations that appl to motorcycles unless specifically exempted. If a particular subcategory of motor- driven cycles is exempted, that subcategory of motor-driven cycles need not comply.; Question 2: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ('FMVSS') 123, 49 CF 571.123 (1979), requires that motorcycles be equipped with footrests at each seating position. If mopeds are subject to this standard, do the pedals on mopeds that are equipped with pedals satisfy the footrest requirement for the operator's seating position?; Answer: Yes. The pedals on the moped serve as footrests even when th moped is being propelled by the engine.; Question 3: FMVSS 123 also requires that motorcycle brake systems b operable either by a right foot control or by handlebar controls. If mopeds are subject to this standard, are mopeds with propulsion pedal operated brake systems in compliance?; Answer: Yes. Since such brakes are operable by the feet, they woul comply with the requirement.; Question 4: FMVSS 127, 49 CFR S 571.127 at S.3 (1979) exclude motor-driven cycles from its requirement that each motor vehicle should have a speedometer. FMVSS 123 sets marking and illumination requirements for motorcycle speedometers, 49 CFR S 571.123 at S.1, but does not exclude motor-driven cycles. If the manufacturer of a cycle that is excluded by FMVSS 127 decides voluntarily to equip its product with a speedometer, must that speedometer conform with the requirements of FMVSS 123? Must it conform with the requirements of FMVSS 127?; Answer: FMVSS 123 requires that if a motorcycle uses a speedometer that speedometer must meet all requirements of that standard. The fact FMVSS 127 requires certain vehicles to have speedometers does not affect the uniformity requirements of FMVSS 123. Therefore, the manufacturer of motor driven cycles whose maximum attainable speed in one mile is 30 miles per hour or less need not equip such cycles with a speedometer, but if it wishes to do so, the speedometer must comply with FMVSS 123.; >>>'Moped' means a motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mil is 30 mph or less, which is equipped with a motor that produces 2 brake horsepower or less. If an internal combustion engine is used, the piston displacement shall not exceed 50 cc and the power drive system shall not require the operator to shift gears.<<<; Your second petition relates to making uniform the various definition of low-horsepower motorcycles found in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571).; We agree that the time is now ripe to make consistent the variou definitions which apply to mopeds, and will issue shortly a notice of proposed rulemaking to add to 49 CFR 571.3(b) the definition of 'moped' stated above. Likewise, we propose to substitute the term 'moped' for the various phrases which define this class of vehicles in 49 CFR 571.108, 49 CFR 115, and 49 CRF (sic) 571.122. In the case of 49 CFR 567.4(g), the presence of the term 'moped' in 49 CFR 571.3(b) offers sufficient authority to identify a moped on the certification label when appropriate. Since the agency has indicated that it will soon propose rescinding Standard 127, it is unnecessary at this time to propose revisions to that standard.; Along with your petitions, you have asked a number of question relating to current NHTSA regulations. The first four questions and their answers appear below. The remaining two questions, relating to the effects on State law of FMVSS 108 and 127, are being considered separately and will be answered upon our completion of an overall review of the issue of preemption under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: NCC-241023-001TSEI-TIMA Letter of Interpretation 571.108 Flashing Amber Lights 12-13-2024.signed.

December 13, 2024

Mr. Chuck Polley

Transportation Safety Equipment Institute

c/o Grote Industries LLC

2600 Lanier Drive

Madison, IN 47250

Mr. John Freiler

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

7001 Heritage Village Plaza

Suite 220

Gainesville, VA 20155-3094

Dear Messrs. Polley and Freiler:

This responds to your letter requesting clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, regarding flashing “emergency warning lights.” I apologize for the delay in responding. As used in your letter, the term “emergency warning lights” generically refers to a category of vehicle lighting equipment that consists of one or more amber-colored flashing or strobing lamps that is typically installed on certain types of slow-moving vehicles and utility vehicles (such as tow trucks, repair vehicles, or vehicles transporting oversized loads) to call the attention of other drivers to the presence of these vehicles. 

You ask that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provide clarification of its longstanding interpretations of FMVSS No. 108 and permit original equipment installation of “emergency warning lights.” Alternatively, you ask that NHTSA issue guidance regarding the circumstances under which such lighting may be installed by vehicle manufacturers or repair businesses without violating the “make inoperative” provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (49 U.S.C. §§ 30101 et seq.). 

In responding to this request, NHTSA notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

After carefully considering your letter, we reaffirm our previous interpretations that, under current law, “emergency warning lights” may not be installed as original equipment and that persons subject to the make inoperative provision of the Safety Act may not legally install the lamps as original or aftermarket equipment. We explain our reasoning below, based on our understanding of the information you present. 

Background 

FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. For auxiliary lamps, the primary restriction imposed by FMVSS No. 108 is in S6.2.1, which states that “[n]o additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment is permitted to be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.” Additionally, both original equipment and aftermarket lighting can run afoul of the “make inoperative” provision, and NHTSA considers the installation of an aftermarket lamp to violate the “make inoperative” provision if the installation of the same lamp as original equipment would violate FMVSS No. 108.1 Whether there is an impairment is determined in the first instance by the manufacturer of the vehicle (or the entity installing the aftermarket lighting) when it is certified as compliant with FMVSS No. 108. NHTSA may contest such a determination if it is clearly erroneous.2 These prohibitions bar installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business of lamps that would impair the effectiveness of required lighting, but do not apply to the owner of a vehicle. 

Typically, the impairment determination is made on a case-by-case basis and considers several characteristics of the auxiliary lamp, such as the brightness, color, location, and activation pattern of the lamp, to analyze whether it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting. This list of characteristics is not exhaustive and other considerations may be relevant to the analysis. NHTSA has long maintained that highway traffic safety is enhanced by the drivers’ familiarity with established lighting schemes, which enables them to instantly recognize the meaning the lamps convey and respond accordingly. NHTSA has long interpreted FMVSS No. 108 to require that all auxiliary lamps be “steady burning,” with the sole exception of auxiliary lamps that supplement required lamps that flash, such as turn signals.3 

Discussion 

NHTSA’s longstanding interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 is that the standard does not permit the “emergency warning lights” to be installed as original equipment because they are auxiliary lighting that is not steady burning and would impair the effectiveness of required lamps by causing confusion among other drivers about the meaning of required lighting or distracting drivers from required lighting.4 Further, because “emergency warning lights” would impair the effectiveness of required lamps, NHTSA has also determined that entities listed in § 30122 of the Safety Act that install “emergency warning lights” on new or used vehicles would violate the “make inoperative” provision of the Act. 

Notwithstanding those interpretations, you provide various reasons why you believe that “current regulations permit manufacturers to install such supplemental lighting as original equipment.” We respond to your reasons below. 

1 E.g., Letter to Timothy C. Murphy (Nov. 1, 2004), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/gf006332.
2 Letter from John Womack to Larry Grabsky (Nov. 16, 1993), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/9251.
3 See, e.g., Letter to Richard Seoane (June 27, 2024), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/ncc-231121- 001-autoliv-veoneer-spotlight-interpretation-1; and Letter to Paul Schaye (Sept. 9, 2019), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/571108-ama-schaye-front-color-changing-light.
4 Letter to J. Adam Krugh IV (May 22, 2003), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/002769drn (explaining that a flashing or strobing lamp on top of a school bus would impair the effectiveness of required signal lamps by diverting other drivers’ attention and causing confusion). 

Administrative Rewrite of FMVSS No. 108. First, you state that in an administrative rewrite of FMVSS No. 108, NHTSA removed explicit language in the standard that had contained a provision requiring that all lamps be steady burning unless otherwise indicated. You argue that the removal of this provision indicated an intention to loosen the restriction that auxiliary lamps must be steady burning when activated. 

NHTSA had no such intention. The removal of the referenced “steady burning” language in the FMVSS No. 108 administrative rewrite did not change the underlying substantive requirements that had applied to auxiliary lighting. Before it was modified in 2007, FMVSS No. 108 included an explicit requirement that, with the exception of certain types of required lamps (e.g., turn signal lamps), all lamps on a vehicle, including auxiliary lamps, must be steady burning. In 2007, NHTSA implemented an administrative reorganization of FMVSS No. 108 which, among other things, clarified the blanket “steady burning” requirement (and its exceptions) by converting it into specified individual activation requirements for each type of required lamp.5 Although the reorganized rule no longer includes a blanket “steady burning” requirement, NHTSA stated in the preamble to the reorganized rule that its “rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 is considered administrative in nature because the standard’s existing requirements and obligations are not being increased, decreased, or substantively modified.”6 Further, NHTSA continues to believe that flashing auxiliary lamps would impair the effectiveness of required lamps by distracting or confusing other road users and we have continued to restrict flashing or strobing auxiliary lamps since the rewrite except under a few limited circumstances not relevant here.7 Therefore, because the “emergency warning lights” are not steady burning, they would not comply with FMVSS No. 108 and would impair required lighting. 

Motorists are Used to “Emergency Warning Lights.” Second, you state that one of NHTSA’s reasons for disallowing flashing auxiliary lamps—their tendency to divert attention and cause confusion—is no longer valid for “emergency warning lights” because “the use of flashing-amber lighting has become widespread.” You provide no data or information to support this assertion, except to refer to past agency letters which discussed the make inoperative provision as applied to owners installing flashing or strobe lamps on their own vehicles, including a state installing the lamps on state-regulated emergency vehicles. 

We disagree with your assertion that the letters are indicative of the pervasiveness of “emergency warning lights.” The interpretation letters to which you refer do not endorse the installation of flashing or strobe lamps by individuals or declare that the lights do not impair the effectiveness of required lamps. Rather, those letters simply recognize the limits of NHTSA’s authority under the Safety Act to regulate aftermarket lighting equipment. The agency made, and continues to make, no determination as to whether the flashing amber lights are “widespread.”

5 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007).
6 Id.
7 These exceptions include auxiliary lamps that supplement required flashing lamps like turn signals. See Letter to Jerry Koh (Feb. 6, 1986), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/86-250; see also Letter to Lt. Col. Steve Flaherty (May 2, 2003), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/flaherty (deference to states applies to “the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on [undercover state police] vehicles”). 

NHTSA has long believed that flashing amber lighting can unduly divert driver attention and cause confusion among drivers, even among those who have seen them before. As we have stated, “traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly and unhesitatingly recognize the meaning lamps convey and respond to them.”8 Flashing amber lighting, except for turn signal lamps, is not “an established lighting scheme” within the context of FMVSS No. 108. The meaning of flashing lights can vary depending on the nature of the vehicle on which they are installed, the context in which they are used, and state or local laws. Motorists might not know if the flashing amber lamps are meant to signal the presence of the vehicle for general driver awareness or the need for drivers to yield the right-of-way or perform some other driving task. The use of flashing amber lights is not sufficiently established and standardized to avoid unduly diverting driver attention or causing confusion. Thus, we continue to believe these lights impair required lighting equipment.9 

Other Federal Regulations and State Laws Recognizing “Emergency Warning Lights.”
Finally, you argue that permitting flashing amber auxiliary lamps as original equipment would “harmonize” NHTSA’s requirements with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations and state laws. You state that an FMCSA regulation (49 C.F.R. § 393.25(e)) permits the use of flashing lights on several vehicle types and that a change in NHTSA’s approach would better ensure such lighting is properly wired and installed. We are also aware of exemptions granted by FMCSA permitting certain entities to use pulsating brake-activated amber lights as well as the operation of commercial motor vehicles equipped with the Intellistop device.10 

Our longstanding interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 regarding flashing auxiliary lights is not impacted by these FMCSA regulations, exemptions, or state laws. The FMCSA regulation does not require the flashing lamps to be installed as original equipment or by an entity subject to the make inoperative provision. Additionally, although you allude to safety concerns about owners improperly wiring or installing emergency warning lights on their vehicles to comply with state laws, we are not aware of any state laws requiring installation of these lights specifically as original equipment or by an entity subject to the make inoperative requirement. Nor is allowing installation by such entities necessary to address improper owner installations of these lights. 

If you have further questions, please contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel
 

Dated:12/13/24
Ref: Standard No. 108

8 Letter to J. Adam Krugh IV (May 22, 2003), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/002769drn.
9 Nothing in this letter is intended to conflict with our interpretation, stated in our May 2, 2003, Letter to Lt. Col. Steve Flaherty, that deference to states applies to “the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on [the state’s] vehicles.” Letter available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/flaherty.
10 List of FMCSA exemptions in effect available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/exemptions.