ID: 2520y

Mr. Peter Brown
President, KC HiLites, Inc.
Avenida de Luces
Williams, AZ 86046

Dear Mr. Brown:

This is in reply to your letter of April 25, l990, asking for our "comments and approval" regarding an automotive lighting product that your company intends to market. The product is intended for use in a four headlamp systems with lens designations of "L", "LF" or "HB4" on the outboard lamps, and "U", "UF" or "HB3" on the inboard lamps. In normal operation, the lower beam is extinguished when the upper beam is activated; your device would ensure that the lower beam would remain activated when the upper beam is used. You view this as permissible under S5.5.8 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

Initially, let me note that we have no authority to "approve" any device or invention for use on motor vehicles. We advise whether such products are permissible under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but this advice must not be represented in advertising as Federal approval of the device or invention.

Section S5.5.8 of Standard No. l08 states in pertinent part that "On a motor vehicle equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the photometric requirements of Figure 15, the lamps marked "L" or "LF" may be wired to remain permanently activated when the lamps marked "U" or "UF" are activated. Standard No. 108 further specifies that headlamps designed to conform to Figure l5 are the four-lamp sealed beam system Type F (S7.3.7(b)), and a four-headlamp integral beam system (S7.4(a)(1)). In addition, certain types of replaceable bulb headlamp systems may also be designed to conform to Figure l5 photometrics, as shown in recently-adopted Figure 26 (copy enclosed). Replaceable bulb headlamps are also required to have the HB Type number on the lens, as well as the "U" and "L" markings. Therefore, installation of your device on the headlighting systems mentioned above would be permitted by Standard No. l08, and you need not be limited to systems that use HB3 and HB4 light sources.

With respect to the copy on the material you submitted for review, it would be more accurate to reword the marking references to state "'LF', 'L', or 'L' and 'HB4' on the upper. . . and the corresponding designation 'UF', 'U', or 'U' and 'HB3' on the lower. . . ."

We also note your remark "Quad-Beam gives you this extra margin of lighting safety that the factory left out." There is no basis in fact for this statement. Some drivers prefer more foreground light, but there is no indication that the addition of the lower beam when the upper beam is in use has a positive effect upon lighting safety.

As you requested, we are returning your samples.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures /ref:l08 d:7/2/90

ID: nht88-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/07/88

FROM: ROBERT J. LATUS -- POSTMASTER US POST OFFICE PAW PAW, MICHIGAN

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: PRIMARY BRAKE LIGHT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/02/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO ROBERT J. LATUS, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108

TEXT: One of my Rural Carriers recently purchased a new 1989 Oldsmobile Ciera. She purchases a new car about every 4 years and prefers a new car over taking chances with a used one.

When she arrived at work with the new car, naturally she was proud and invited her co-workers and supervisor outside to look at it. The supervisor took the opportunity to check the lights turn signal etc. In checking it was discovered that when the 4-w ay hazard lights are activated, the only brake light is the much smaller light in the center of the trunk lid. The customary solid signal of the corner lights continue to flash instead of giving the STOP that they had in former models. When questioned, the dealer called Detroit, himself wondering why the change? and was told that this was the new federal regulation. He was also informed that any alteration of what came off of the assembly line was in violation of this new regulation.

I have visited many car lots and found that the "Big 3" auto makers have the same problem on their larger models. The small cars and foreign cars do not.

My question is, who changed the regulation and why? My safety and yours are at stake. Many delivery vehicles use these lights in fog, snow or rain, and their STOP is now hidden under mud, snow or a broken wire.

I have found it to be the opinion of the dealers that I have talked to that the reasoning must have been economics. Perhaps a savings of 60~ per car is more important than the safety of the delivery person or the person that is likely to run into them.

Outside warning devise on the top of these cars have proven to be less effective because of the elements. Lights that are permanently installed - and not on a extension cord as the center light brake light is in some models are much more dependable.

The center light, be it on the inside where melting snow will obscure it completely when the heating coil is activated or the outside light on the extreme rear of the trunk lid under a trim vane where it will accumulate a "back wash" of mud or snow are n ot adequate.

I have been in contact with Mr. Burl Ghastin, Michigan State Police Trafic Safety Division; Les Sokolowski, The National Safety Council, Chicago; and Postal Inspector Jerry Rosenthal in Detroit and they all feel that an explanation from your agency shoul d be sought.

In the interest of Safety, I am

ID: nht79-2.40

DATE: 05/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 28, 1979, asking two questions with respect to certification of lighting equipment by use of the DOT symbol, as permitted by S4.7.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is whether disassembled parts such as lenses, screws, or bulbs must also be certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is no; only the completed lamp assembly must be so certified.

You have also asked "in the case of lamp lens incorporated with reflex reflector do we have to label the DOT label on this reflex reflector certifying it meets FMVSS?" The answer is yes. Although the lamp lens is not a required equipment item and not certified since it is only part of a lamp, the reflex reflector incorporated in it must be certified since the reflector is an item required by Standard No. 108.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

April 28, 1979

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs,

According to your National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Sec. 114 a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to which FMVSS applies is required to be certified that it conforms to FMVSS. In the case of an item or motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.

And from FMVSS No.108, Sec. 4.7.2. the symbol DOT may be labeled which shall constitute a certification that it conforms to FMVSS 108.

We are now labelling the DOT labels on our lamp assemblies, lamp units and reflex reflector assemblies of motor vehicle equipment for replacement.

The motor vehicle lighting equipments for replacement, however, are now delivered not only in the form of ass'y or unit but also in the form of disassembled parts such as for example, lenses, screws and bulbs, etc. Is it necessary for these parts also to be certified that they conform to FMVSS?

Also, in the case of lamp lens incorporated with reflex reflector do we have to label the DOT label on this reflex reflector certifing it meets FMVSS?

We would appreciate very much having your comments on our above questions at your earliest convenience.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

ID: nht79-2.48

DATE: 01/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: R.C. Back -- Director, Government Relations, Ryder Truck Rental Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1979, in which you asked for confirmation of your interpretation that the new restriction on mounting height of rear side marker lamps applies only to trailers and not to trucks.

This confirms your interpretation. As is stated in Table II of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, rear side marker lamps are to be mounted above the road surface "not less than 15 in., and on the rear of trailers not more than 60 in."

SINCERELY,

RYDER TRUCK RENTAL INC.

January 23, 1979

The Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Taylor Vinson

Gentlemen:

Effective March 1, 1979, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment is amended to require that side marker lamps be mounted on semitrailers and trailers at a height not less than 15" nor more than 60" from the roadway. The purpose of the amendment is to afford the manufacturer more flexibility with respect to trailers of unique design while satisfying the goal of making it more likely that the trailer rear side marker lamp can be viewed in the outside rear view mirror of the tractor pulling it, "acting as a reference light by which the tractor driver may check the tracking of the trailer's rear end."

On August 25, 1978, your agency issued a rule in accordance with the prior notice amending Table II of 49CFR571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Table II as amended provides:

Item . . . . Height above road surface measured from center of item on vehicles at unit weight

Side . . . . Not less than 15 in., and on the rear of

Marker trailers not more than

Lamps 60 in.

The purpose of this letter is to request a formal interpretation of the table as amended. It would appear that the purpose of the rule-making procedure was to limit the application of the amendment to trailers and semitrailers.

The reference in the table, in apparent conformity with the purpose of the rule making, limits the application of the 60" limitation to trailers only. Consequently, straight trucks are not affected. Will you please confirm our interpretation of the amendment.

R. C. Back, Director Government Relations

ID: nht75-3.41

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Solid Wastes Management Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the National Solid Wastes Management Association's July 29, 1975, question whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, or other Department of Transportation regulations require a vehicle operator to maintain and not disconnect brake components used in satisfaction of the standard. You state that you are already aware of operator responsibilities to meet the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety and those promulgated by State and local governments.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies in part that no person shall sell or introduce in interstate commerce a vehicle which does not comply with applicable standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Section 108(b)(2) provides that @ 109(a)(1)(A) does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale. The general effect of these provisions is that the brake system must comply and not be disconnected prior to its first retail sale. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides that no manufacturer distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Taken together, these provisions do not require the vehicle operator to maintain or not render inoperative a safety system after the first retail purchase. This agency does not recommend disconnection of elements of a brake system, however, in view of the probable adverse effect on handling not intended by the vehicle designer and engineer.

Other than the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, of which you are aware, no regulations of the Department of Transportation require the maintainence or prohibit the disconnection of systems installed in satisfaction of motor vehicle safety standards.

SINCERELY,

National Solid Wastes Management Association

July 29, 1975

James Schultz Chief Counsel NHTSA

On March 1, 1975 FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems became effective. It is our understanding that the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for complying with MVSS 121. Are there any requirements pursuant directly from MVSS 121 or indirectly from general applicability of DOT safety standards, which place responsibilities upon the vehicle operator to maintain or not to disconnect MVSS 121 equipment?

We are aware of the applicability of BMCS regulations upon interstate carriers and that often state legislatures and/or transportation departments often adopt Federal regulations and standards. However, clarification is desired pertaining to the implications of MVSS 121 on the vehicle operator, directly and indirectly.

James R. Greco Technical Director

ID: GF007220

Louis J. Carlin, Director
Safety Regulations and Consumer Information
General Motors North America
Mail Code: 480 111 S56
30200 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Carlin:

This is in response to your letters dated September 23, 2004 and October 11, 2004, in which you requested interpretations of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. Specifically, you raised certain issues with respect to the content of the tire information placard, and tire normal load requirements.

In your October 11, 2004 letter, you ask whether S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, as amended by the final rule in response to petitions for reconsideration published on June 3, 2004 (69 FR 31306), allows a light truck tire load identification of B, C, D, E, or F on the tire information placard. Our answer is no.

S4.3(i) specifies that only a tire load identification XL or reinforced may appear on the tire information placard (see 69 FR at 31318). No other load identification is allowed. We note, however, that we received several petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to permit load identifications B, C, D, E, or F on tire information placards (see Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17917-6). We are currently considering that request. We expect to issue our response in the near future.

In your September 23, 2004 letter, you ask about a technical correction to the June 3, 2004 final rule. In the correction notice published on August 19, 2004 (69 FR 51399), we amended S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 110. You state that the amendment to S4.2.2 was unnecessary. You ask to confirm which section of FMVSS No. 110 currently specifies the normal load requirements, and what section of FMVSS No. 110 will specify the normal load requirements in the future.

Currently, the normal load requirements apply only to passenger cars. S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifies normal load limits for passenger cars. Effective June 1, 2007, S4.2.1.2 will specify the normal load limits for passenger cars, and S4.2.2.3 will specify the normal load requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. You are correct to note that the August 19, 2004 document does not affect the date on which multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds will become subject to the normal load requirements. We intend to clarify this issue when we respond to the petitions for reconsideration of the June 3, 2004 final rule.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.1/3/05

ID: NYS_preemption-8263

Ms. Ida L. Traschen, Esq.
Department of Motor Vehicles
6 Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12228




Dear Ms. Traschen:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether New York State "must" amend its definition of low speed vehicle (LSV) to conform to the recent amendment to the Federal definition of LSV. Your question is addressed below.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, Low Speed Vehicles, to ensure that LSVs are equipped with an appropriate level of motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. As established in an August 17, 2005 final rule, LSV is defined as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds), whose attainable speed in one mile is more than 32 kilometers per hour (km/h) (20 miles per hour (mph)) but less than 40 km/h (25 mph) (70 FR 48313).

In your letter, you stated that the definition of LSV under New York State Vehicle Traffic and Safety Law 121-f does not include a gross vehicle weight rating limit. You then asked if New York State must amend its definition of LSV to conform to the recently amended Federal definition of LSV.

While a State is not required to amend its definition of LSV, maintaining a different definition than the Federal definition could have implications with respect to preemption of State laws.

Under Federal law, a vehicle that meets the Federal definition of "low-speed vehicle" must be manufactured to conform to FMVSS No. 500. Similarly, a vehicle that meets the Federal definition of "passenger car," "multipurpose passenger vehicle," or "truck," must be manufactured to meet the FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle type, regardless of how the vehicle may be classified under State law.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

Different motor vehicle safety standards apply depending on how a vehicle is classified, i.e. , its vehicle type. If a State law classifies a vehicle differently than Federal law, preemption is an issue under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) if: (1) the State classification results in the vehicle being subject to a State standard applicable to the same aspect of performance regulated by a FMVSS, and (2) the State standard is not identical to the FMVSS. In such an instance, the State safety standard would be preempted.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:500
d.1/4/06

ID: nht93-6.5

DATE: August 9, 1993

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: TTMA Engineering Committee

TITLE: Preemption of State Additional Lighting Requirements

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/1/94 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (VSA S103(a)), letter dated 5/12/94 from Donald W. Vierimaa to Billy Mohr, and letter dated 5/16/89 from Billy Mohr to Donald W. Vierimaa

TEXT:

The State of Michigan in their letter of May 16, 1989 (enclosed) requires that:

(8) A truck tractor and semitrailer combination with a semitrailer length longer than 50 feet shall not be operated on the highways of this state at the times specified in section 684 unless equipped with all of the following lamps and reflectors, in addition to any other lamps and reflectors required under this act:

(c) Two clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable.

In our letter of May 12, 1989 we advised Lt. Mohr that "it would appear that your requirement is invalid as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ" from it. Lt. Mohr responded in his May 16, 1989 letter that "the lamp is not a marker lamp" per the NHTSA letter of December 10, 1974 to the California Highway Patrol.

It is our opinion that paragraph (8)(c) of Section 719 of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code is not enforceable as it is preempted by Subsection (d) of Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which states that:

"Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard established under this title is in effect, no State of political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or items of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard."

Our opinion appears to be supported by NHTSA interpretations issued December 29, 1971, January 30, 1973, December 10, 1974, April 22, 1975, and December 10, 1984 (enclosed).

Please advise us as to whether Michigan may enforce their requirement for two "clearance" lamps located 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear of a semitrailer and located as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable.

ID: nht80-4.25

DATE: 12/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cragar Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has asked me to respond to your October 14, 1980, letter asking for a clarification of the basis upon which it was suggested that your wheel spinners may not be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps.

Standard No. 211 prohibits the manufacture or assembly of wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps that incorporate winged projections. This safety standard has been in effect since 1968 and was implemented at that time, because it was determined that these devices presented potential safety hazards to pedestrians and to cyclists. Prior to 1968, manufacturers were constructing devices with winged projections that extended quite far from the wheel. To prevent this from arising again, the agency issued the standard prohibiting the manufacture of all such devices.

From reviewing the wheel spinner that you are producing, our technical staff has concluded that it incorporates a winged projection of the type prohibited by the standard. Accordingly, our staff notified you of your possible noncompliance. I trust that this clarifies the basis of our investigation. Any questions that you have with respect to this possible noncompliance should be referred to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

Pursuant to your request, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will provide confidential treatment, subject to the limitation of 15 U.S.C. 1418(a)(2)(B), for the total production figure in paragraph 4 of your October 14 letter.

ID: 0274

Mr. Thomas L. Wright
Coordinator, Technical Support
New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles
CN 179
Trenton, NJ 08666

Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your letter of July 15, 1994, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency requesting an opinion whether brush guards offered as accessories for Range Rovers and installed in front of headlamp units are in violation of Standard No. 108.

Our letter is based upon the configurations of "brush bars" depicted as accessory equipment in a 1994 Range Rover brochure. The brochure notes that brush bars "may be illegal for on-road use in some states. Please check local regulations before purchase, installation, or use." We note that this advisory applies to the rear lamp guards as well. The purpose of the brush bar is to offer protection to the grille, radiator, and front and rear lamps, and it does so by incorporating three slender horizontal bars in front of the lenses of the front and rear lamps.

Paragraph S7.8.5 of Standard No. 108 states that headlamps when activated "shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens." The lamp guard portion of the brush bar is the type of "other feature . . . in front of the lens" that is prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, under Federal law, a Range Rover could not be displayed for sale and sold with a brush bar installed unless the lamp guards had been removed. This should present no problem as, according to the brochure, the "lamp protectors are easily removable for cleaning and maintenance." In our view, the proper time for installation of the lamp protectors is when the vehicle begins to be used off-road.

Although there is no similar direct prohibition in Standard No. 108 applicable to other vehicle lamps, the parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps are required to conform with the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lamp guards are in place. This is based upon

two paragraphs of the standard. S5.3.1.1 prohibits any part of a vehicle from preventing parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps from meeting the required photometric output. S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of supplementary motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires as original equipment.

The guards are designed for maintenance by the owner, and their installation by the owner after purchase of the Range Rover would not be in violation of Federal law, even if installed for on- road use. Operation of the Range Rover is subject only to State law, and a State may forbid on-road use of a Range Rover with the lamp guards installed if it so chooses.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:10/27/94