ID: kesler23584

Mr. Ray Kesler
Kesler Research Enterprises
PO Box 8104
Universal City, CA 91600

Dear Mr. Kesler:

This responds to your letter of August 22, 2001, asking if your mirror for original equipment manufacturers "is a permissible legal radius of curvature, information warning phrase, and using [sic] a FAIL SAFE reflective graphic concept permanently etched in glass mirror for day and night use." More specifically, you state that the radius of curvature of your mirror is 30-65 inches and your mirror contains a "ring indicator" and the phrase "Vehicles Larger than Ring Do Not Change Lanes." As explained below, your mirror is permitted only as a supplement to the mirrors required by FMVSS No. 111.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards.

FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), establishes performance and location requirements for mirrors installed in new vehicles. Several of its provisions concern the installation of convex outside rearview mirrors. Under FMVSS No. 111, only those passenger cars with inside rearview mirrors having an insufficient field of view are required to have passenger side mirrors. If convex mirrors are used, they must have a radius of curvature between 35 and 65 inches and they must be marked with the warning: "Objects in Mirror are Closer Than They Appear."

In 1991, you petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS No. 111 to require passenger side convex mirrors to have a radius of curvature of 25 inches and to have a ring indicator applied to those mirrors. After reviewing your petition, the agency denied your request, finding that your suggested mirror system could, by comparison with our currently specified convex mirror systems, have increased distortion and reduce a driver's depth perception and judgment about another vehicle's closing speed (56 FR 42715, August 29, 1991). Subsequent correspondence from this Office (enclosed) tried to make clear that products like your convex mirror with a ring sensor label are not prohibited by the current requirements in FMVSS No. 111 from being installed on vehicles, as supplements to the required mirrors.

The specifications for rearview mirror in your current correspondence appear to be identical to those contained in your previous petition except that the radius of curvature is now between 30 and 65 inches. This range of curvature, however, is not within the radius of curvature (between 35 and 65 inches) required by FMVSS No. 111. Furthermore, your rearview mirror is not marked with the warning: "Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear" as required by FMVSS No. 111. For these reasons and as explained in length in the denial notice, see 56 FR 42716, such mirrors are permitted only as supplements to mirrors required by FMVSS No. 111.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:111
d.1/9/01

ID: nht90-2.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 2, 1990

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

TO: Earl W. Dahl -- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.,Vice President

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-31-90 To Stephen P. Wood and From Earl W. Dahl; Also attached to letter dated 5-31-89 To Garry Gallagher and From Erika Z. Jones

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR 574,Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked whether an additional symbol, which is intended to identify more precisely the year of manufacturer, is permitted to be in cluded in the tire identification number. As explained below, the answer is yes.

The purpose of the tire identification requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. Section 574.5 re quires that each tire be marked with the tire identification number. In particular, it requires that the fourth grouping contain three numerals of which the first two identify the week of the year and the third numeral identifies the year of manufacture. You believe that this requirement may lead to confusion because the third numeral, e.g. "9", could refer to more than one year, e.g., 1979 or 1989. Accordingly, you state that your company would like to be able to distinguish the year of manufacture in an interval longer than one decade. To do this, you would like to add a symbol immediately following the fourth grouping of the tire identification number to identify that this tire was produced in the decade 1990 through 1999.

Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires (49 CFR S571.109) and Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR S571.119) together with Part 574 require that, certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire s ubject' to the standards. In a May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire (copy attached), the agency explained that

The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information for the safe use of the tires. (These standards) permit tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall on the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.

Applying this standard to the question you have asked, we believe that the additional symbol, an isosceles right triangle, is not prohibited from appearing on the sidewall of your company's tires. As explained above, the labeling requirements are intende d to provide information about the tire, including the year of manufacture, in a clear and straightforward manner.

Because the suggested symbol does not appear to introduce additional information that might obscure or confuse tbe meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose, the agency has determined that marking a tire with an isosceles right triangle after the tire identification code is not prohibited.

ID: nht90-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/26/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MANUEL R. GARCIA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/02/90 FROM MANUEL R. GARCIA; OCC 4654

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1990, to Ms. DeMeter of this Office, with respect to importation requirements for motor vehicles. You have recently bought a 1974 BMW 1602 made "overseas", and would like information on Federal safety (and EPA ) requirements the car must conform to before it is shipped, or, alternatively, whether it is permissible to make the necessary repairs after the car arrives in the United States.

Changes in the law affecting importation of cars subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which were effective Janaury 31, 1990, have made the process of importing nonconforming vehicles much more difficult than before. In brief, your car can be imported only if this agency has made a determination that it is capable of conversion to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If an affirmative determination has been made, you may import the vehicle only if you have a contract with an importer who has registered with this agency to undertake to conform the vehicle to meet Federal requirements. If the conversion work has been performed abroad, the registered importer is nevertheless responsible for submitting verification that the w ork has been done. At this early date in implementing the law, the agency has made no determinations of vehicle eligibility, and has appointed only a handful of registered importers. I believe that the regulations of the EPA are similar; importation is accomplished through an "independent commercial importer" (ICI). We are forwarding a copy of your letter to that agency for its response.

You haven't indicated when you anticipate importing the BMW. I suggest, as the time approaches, you write our Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. He can then provide you with the latest list of registered importers, and vehicles for which affirmative importation determinations

2

have been made. If your car is not among them, you may persuade a registered importer to petition the agency on your behalf. However, there is a fee imposed for consideration of petitions (either $ 1,560 or $ 2,150, depending on the car). This is paya ble in advance, and is non-refundable if a petition is denied. Further, a vehicle owner is not eligible to submit such a petition.

You didn't say how "recently" you bought your car. However, if it was before October 31, 1988, and you were stationed outside the U.S. at that time and have never before imported a nonconforming vehicle, the law allows you, until October 31, 1992, to im port the car personally, without a registered importer and without an importation determination, and to have conversion work done by anyone you choose.

You also asked for "the publication that covers the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register." I am not sure what you mean, but I am enclosing our new vehicle importation form, Form HS-7, which all importers of motor vehicles must execute upo n arrival of their vehicles. It is, in essence, a concise form of the new importation regulation. I am also enclosing copies of that regulation, and the ones on registered importers, vehicle eligibility determinations, and fees.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 29, 1989

FROM: SUSAN BIRENBAUM -- ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 5-25-90 TO SUSAN BIRENBAUM FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD (A35; VSA 102(4)); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-1-90 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM SUSAN BIRENBAUM AND LETTER DATED 10-12-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM DAVID SCHMELTZER TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance in determining whether a product manufactured by Nationwide Industries, Inc., and marketed under the brand names "SNAP fix-a-flat FOR PICK-UP TRUCKS," "SNAP fix-a-flat," and "SNAP super fix-a-flat" is an item of "m otor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act (15 U.S.C. SS 1391(4)). Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. SS 2052(a)(1)(C)) excludes "Motor vehicle equ ipment from those "consumer products" which are subject to the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission under the CPSA.

The product in question is sold for inflating and temporarily repairing flat tires. It consists of a container which holds liquid latex and a propellant of pressurized gas. Photographs of the containers and the labeling of the product are enclosed.

As stated on the labels, the propellant gas used for this product is extremely flammable. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has received reports of deaths and serious injuries associated with ignition of the gas from this product contained in tires which were being repaired, usually at a garage or service station. In all but one instance known to the Commission, the person injured was a mechanic or other employee of a repair facility and not the owner of the tire being repaired.

Although the product appears to be intended primarily for use with cars and trucks, the labeling on some containers suggests that the product could be used on tires of bicycles, tractors, and off-road all-terrain vehicles. See photographs A3, C1, C3, D1 , D2, and D3.

Section 6(b) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. SS 2055(b)), requires that before the Commission may release information about a product identified by manufacturer, it must first provide the manufacturer of the product with a summary of the information and an opport unity to comment on its accuracy. However, section 29(e) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. SS 2078(e)) authorizes the Commission to provide information about products to other agencies of the Federal Government without having followed the procedure required by sec tion 6(b), provided that the agency receiving the information does not disclose it to the general public.

The information in this letter about the product under consideration is subject to the provisions of section 6(b) of the CPSA. The Commission has not provided the manufacturer with either a summary of this

information or the opportunity to comment on its accuracy. For this reason, I request your assistance in not disclosing it to the general public.

If you need additional information about this inquiry, please call Allen F. Brauninger of this office at 492-6980.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Enclosures

ID: 1985-03.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Warren H. Cox

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 11, 1985 Mr. Warren H. Cox Haynesville Correction Unit #17 Haynesville, VA 22472 Dear Mr. Cox: Thank you for your recent letter to Stephen P. Wood of my staff asking about how our regulations would apply to a wooden structure placed in the bed of a dump truck. You explained that the structure is used to carry prisoners to and from work. I hope the following discussion will explain the effect of our regulations. Our agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Modify a vehicle before it is first sold. In the case of a "dump truck", the vehicle's manufacturer would have to comply with all our safety standards set for trucks. If the truck were altered prior to its first sale by the addition of seats in the cargo area, then the person performing the alterations would have to ensure that the seats complied with our standards. Once a vehicle is sold, the Vehicle Safety Act has no effect on vehicle modifications, unless the modification is made by a commercial business. Commercial businesses, such as dealers and motor vehicle repair shops, are prohibited from tampering with equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. However, in making modifications to a used vehicle, commercial businesses do have to comply with the safety standards that would apply if the modifications are made before the vehicle is first sold. Furthermore, there are no Federal restrictions on the ability of vehicle owners to make modifications of any sort to their own vehicles, even if their modifications interfere with original safety equipment. The agency does, however, urge all vehicle owners to keep their vehicles safe for their intended uses, but we have no authority to compel them to do so. You asked about the application of several of our safety standards to the modified dump trucks. As discussed above, this agency's safety standards apply only to new vehicles and not to used vehicles that have been subsequently modified. As to the specific requirements you mentioned, roll-over tests apply only to new passenger cars (Standard No. 216) and new school buses (Standard No. 220). Likewise, the occupant crash protection requirements of Standard Nos. 201 and 208 and the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 apply only to new vehicles. You also asked if the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has meet all our safety standards or whether they have been given a waiver. Federal safety standard apply only to vehicle manufacturers and not to State governments. Thus, there is no requirement that States adopt our standards. As discussed previously, Federal law permits vehicle owners, including a State government, to make any type of alteration t their vehicles. They must, however, comply with any restrictions on vehicle modification set by State law. Because we have no authority over owner-made vehicle alterations, we suggest you write to your State corrections or transportation officials to express your concerns. I appreciate your interest in contacting this agency and regret that we cannot be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 23695.ztv

Timothy O. Bartlett, Vice President
Bartlett Industries, Inc.
214 Morgan Parkway
Zebulon, NC 27957





Dear Mr. Bartlett:

This is in reply to your undated letter to George Soodoo of this agency, which we received in mid-October 2001. Your company manufactures the Bartlett Safety Hazards (BSH), a product that activates a motor vehicle's hazard warning system "at any point of impact."

Enclosed with your letter were copies of letters from this Office on activation of hazard warning systems. In our letter to Karl F. Milde, Jr., dated November 9, 1987, we informed Mr. Milde that we saw no Federal prohibition against installation of a circuit that would activate the hazard warning system at a predetermined rate of speed as long as it did not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 (See S5.1.3 which prohibits the addition of motor vehicle equipment that has an impairing effect on required lighting equipment). However, a series of more recent letters reflect our opinion that hazard warning system lamps must be activated and deactivated by the driver (letters of February 15, 2001, to Paul Michelotti, February 29, 2000, to Eric Reed, and February 25, 2000, to Mark Steele). This conclusion was based upon the definition of hazard warning systems by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) as "driver actuated."

The one exception to driver actuation that our recent letters reflect is automatic activation of the hazard warning system in the aftermath of a vehicle crash. As we informed Mr. Steele, "we would not view automatic activation of the hazard signals in the event of a crash as a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 since there can be no ambiguity about the signal's meaning at that point." Other past interpretations reflect our view that ambiguous signals may have an impairing effect on required lighting

equipment. Although we did not elaborate further in our letter to Mr. Steele, we meant that a device that automatically activates the hazard warning signals after a crash was not prohibited by S5.1.3.

You described the BSH as "impact activated hazard lights" without specifying the type or severity of the impact. Your letter implies that the BSH is activated in a crash rather than a low-speed impact such as may occur during a parking maneuver. You wrote that when the BHS is activated, "approaching cars are given a 'heads up' that an accident has just occurred." In addition, you stated that "BSH, especially in one-car accidents, give notice to passing motorists and/or police that an accident has just occurred." The BSH, therefore, appears to be a crash-activated system of the type deemed not prohibited by S5.1.3 in the letter to Mr. Steele. However, the fact that a device may not be prohibited under Federal law must not be represented to the public as Federal approval or endorsement of the device.

Manufacturers of equipment not prohibited by S5.1.3 should ensure that installation of the equipment does not cause a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applied to the vehicle when it was manufactured.

We understand that you have filed a petition for rulemaking for an amendment to Standard No. 108 to specifically allow BHS. You will be informed in due course by the Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards whether the petition has been granted.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/28/02

ID: 86-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Chih-Lo Hwang

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Chih-Lo Hwang Tetley, Inc. 7 High Street Spring Valley, N.Y. 10977

Dear Chih-lo Hwang:

This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1986, stating that you are a manufacturer of the "center high-mounted collision avoidance lights", and have heard from AAMVA that there is a law prohibiting any selling of a safety device that has not been "DOT" approved. You have asked for a copy of this law.

We are not familiar with the AAMVA position with regard to center high-mounted stop lamps, but we will provide you with our views. First, the phrase "DOT approved" is frequently and mistakenly used to refer to equipment that must be certified as complying with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The Department neither "approves" nor "disapproves" motor vehicles and equipment. However, motor vehicles and certain motor vehicle equipment must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to the center high-mounted stop lamp, all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, must be equipped with a center high-mounted stop lamp as original equipment and any center high-mounted stop lamp that is manufactured to replace this original equipment must be certified as complying with Federal requirements. If the replacement lamp is not manufactured to comply and certified as complying. then its sale is a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which contains the requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps.

On the other hand, if the center high-mounted stop lamp is intended for sale in the aftermarket, to be used on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, which never had one as original equipment, it does not have to be manufactured to and certified as complying with Federal requirements. Nevertheless we encourage aftermarket manufacturer to voluntarily meet the Federal requirements. The lamp, however, may be subject to "approval" by the laws of the State in which the lamp pill be sold or used.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely.

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

7 HIGH STREET SPRING VALLEY NEW YORK 10977 TEL.(914)352-6803

March 3 1986

Ms.Erika Z Jones Chief Counselor of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7 Street S, W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Ms Jones:

We are the manufacturer of the center high mounted collision avoidance lights. We have heard from AAMVA there is such law that Prohibited any illegal selling of this safety device item which have not been "DOT" approved, but unfortunately most our buyers do not familiar with this law. We like to prove it to them. Would you kind enough to send us a copy of this law? Your early respond would be deeply appreciated. Thank you.

Very Truly Yours, Tetley Inc.

Chih-Lo Hwang

ID: 86-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John C. Hilliard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John C. Hilliard Chairman & Technical Director Combustion and Fuel Research, Inc. 857-9 South Wagner Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Dear Mr. Hilliard:

Thank you for your letter of July 1, 1986 asking how our regulations would affect the placement of the steering wheel on delivery vehicles You asked whether there are any State or Federal regulations which would prevent the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel. As discussed below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any safety standards that would prohibit the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel. As to State laws, I suggest you check with the Department of Transportation in the States where your client wants to use the vehicles.

Some background information about our agency and its standards may be of assistance to you. NHTSA has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

We do not have any standards that prohibit the use of a right hand drive steering system. We have, however, issued two safety standards (Standard Nos. 203 and 204) that set performance requirements which apply to any steering system, whether left or right hand drive, installed in new passenger cars and light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A copy of each of these standards is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 1, 1986.

Mr. Stephen Wood Assistant Chief Council for Rulemaking NHTSA 400 7th Street SW Room 5219 Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

On the advice of Mr. Charles Fisher, of the Michigan Department of Transportation , I am writing for information on the following matter.

We have a specific inquiry with regard to placement of the steering wheel on delivery vehicles. As you know, many postal service vehicles and street utility vehicles are equipped, with steering wheels on the right--hand side.

One of our clients is exploring the possible manufacture of delivery vehicles where the driver has to leave the cab at regular intervals. Could you please tell us whether there are any state and/or federal regulations which would prevent the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel for a privately owned, delivery company?

We thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

John C. Hilliard Chairman & Technical Director

JCH:ph

ID: 2773y

Mr. William Walters
7709 Wallace Street
Merrillville, IN 46410

Dear Mr. Walters:

This is in reply to your letter of October 8, l990, to Ms. Erika Jones, formerly Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked that we review the enclosures to your letter, and provide "the reason why this system is not being used."

The primary material you enclosed is a patent granted May 1, l990, for an "Automobile Warning Light Improvement." The purpose of the "Improvement" is to enhance existing rear signal lamps by sending an advance warning of driving situations which have the potential of impeding the flow of traffic. The device activates the center highmounted stop lamp under situations other than when the brake pedal is applied. According to the patent, the device causes the center lamp to operate in a steady-burning mode when a vehicle is in reverse gear, and in a flashing mode when the turn signals are operating. When activated under these conditions, the center lamp will be deactivated when the accelerator is depressed.

The reason why this system cannot presently be used is that its installation would create a noncompliance with existing requirements. The performance of the center highmounted stop lamp is specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.5.4 of the standard specifically states that "The highmounted lamp on passenger cars shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes." In addition, the effect of paragraph S5.5.10 is to require all stop lamps to be steady burning when in use. Activation of the center lamp by means other than application of the brake pedal (such as putting the vehicle into reverse gear, or activating the turn signals), and in a mode other than steady burning (flashing with the turn signals) is prohibited by Standard No. l08.

The reason why this system is unlikely to be used in the future is that it appears to have little if any potential for improving motor vehicle safety. Backup lamps, turn signal lamps, and center stop lamps have specific and different tasks to perform. Use of the center lamp to assist the other lamps in performing their tasks has the potential for creating confusion. The red center lamp used alone sends an unmistakable message: this vehicle is braking, with a deceleration that may lead to a stop. It is a message to which the motoring public is accustomed. Use of the center lamp when the backup lamps are on sends a false signal that the vehicle may be decelerating in a forward motion or stopped when, in fact, it may be proceeding in a reverse motion. Use of a flashing stop lamp, mounted on the centerline of the car, in conjunction with a turn signal lamp that is flashing either to the right or left of the centerline, has the potential also to create confusion as to the intent of the driver, and distracts attention from the message sent by the turn signal that the vehicle is changing lanes or preparing to turn.

We appreciate your interest in safety and in bringing this invention to our attention.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:l2/3/90

ID: flaherty

Lt. Col. Steve Flaherty, Director
Bureau of Administrative and Support Services
Virginia State Police
P.O. Box 27472
Richmond, VA 23261-7472

Dear Col. Flaherty:

This is in reply to your recent e-mail regarding "undercover type warning lights." By this phrase, we understand you to mean the system under discussion in our letter of July 3, 2001, to Col. Massengill of the Virginia State Police (the "Massengill letter."). When activated, that system, would cause the taillamps and side marker lamps of otherwise conventional passenger cars to flash as strobe lights.

You have informed us that there is "pre-filed" legislation in the Virginia House of Delegates which would permit the use of undercover type warning lights "on fire fighting apparatus and fire department vehicles." You have further informed us that "these are all classified under state law as emergency vehicles and are entitled to use traditional type warning lights." Present Virginia law "specifically requires conformance to federal requirements." You understood the Massengill letter to restrict undercover type warning lights to law enforcement vehicles, and have asked whether state-regulated fire fighting/department vehicles be equipped with these lights and still conform to Standard No. 108.

The question is not really whether such vehicles equipped with the strobe light system would still conform to Standard No. 108; clearly they would not because they are causing lamps to flash that Standard No. 108 requires to be steady burning. The real question is whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would provide the same interpretation regarding the use of strobe lights on state-regulated fire fighting/department vehicles as it had in the Massengill letter for police vehicles. And our answer is yes.

As noted in that letter, our traditional position is that we defer to the judgment of States as to the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on its vehicles. We also noted that, under Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122), the State, as the owner of a vehicle,

may itself modify a vehicle after its purchase even if this modification results in a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. With these factors in mind, we believe that a law allowing use of the strobe system on state-regulated fire fighting/department vehicles is acceptable.

The emergency vehicles discussed in the Massengill letter were not of a traditional nature. They were unmarked Ford Crown Victoria sedans identical in exterior appearance to Crown Victorias sold to the public and which were intended for sale to the public at the end of their useful life with the State Patrol. For these reasons, we developed the rationale expressed in the Massengill letter under which we could justify deferring to the judgment of the State for the use of these vehicles. Perhaps this led you to conclude that we had advised that the use of strobe lights should be restricted to law enforcement vehicles.

We contrast the Crown Victorias with fire fighting apparatus, the former often intended for undercover use, the latter, never. Thus, we surmise that fire fighting apparatus would not use strobe lights for "undercover" purposes, but as an added warning when they are endeavoring to reach a fire or other emergency site through traffic as rapidly as possible. We see no reason to question the judgment of the State in allowing strobe lights on fire vehicles, if such legislation is enacted in Virginia.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref.108
d.5/2/03