ID: NCC-230120-001 571.108 Peterson Trailer Auxiliary Door Light 11.06.24 signed

November 6, 2024

Mr. Donald Lane 

Peterson Manufacturing Co. 

4200 E. 135th Street Grandview, MO 64030 

dlane@pmlights.com

Dear Mr. Lane: 

This responds to your letter, received January 6, 2023, in which you requested a letter of interpretation asking whether a lamp located on the front of a trailer that would illuminate green or red to indicate whether the trailer doors are open or closed is compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Based on the information you provided in your letter, as explained in more detail below, we have concluded that installing the lights as described would not be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. 

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. 

Background 

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. After first purchase of a vehicle or equipment in good faith other than for resale, section 30122 of the Safety Act requires that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. This letter represents NHTSA’s opinion concerning whether your design, as you describe it, would be permitted under FMVSS No. 108 and section 30122. 

In your letter, you state that you have been asked to install an “auxiliary light” on trailers at or over 2032mm in width and 8.1m in length. The light would be installed on the front of the trailer “so as to be visible to the driver in the driver’s side mirror” and would illuminate green when the trailer doors are shut and red when at least one of the trailer doors are open. Although it is not clear from your description, we assume that the light would also be visible to other individuals looking at the trailer from the front. You also state that you intend for the lamp to only illuminate on the private property of the trailer owner, not on other roads. You ask whether the light could be made with green and red LEDs and clear lenses or in the alternative use green or red lenses. 

Requirements of the Standard 

FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, including for trailers. For auxiliary lamps, the primary restriction imposed by FMVSS No. 108 is by 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.” 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 Therefore, while you do not state in your letter whether your installation would be as original equipment or in the aftermarket, we conduct the same impairment analysis. 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 under FMVSS No. 108 S6.2.1 is made on a case-by- case basis and considers four main characteristics of the auxiliary lamp to analyze whether it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting: the brightness, color, location, and activation pattern of the lamp. This list is not exhaustive and other considerations may be relevant to the analysis. NHTSA has long maintained that highway traffic safety is enhanced by drivers’ familiarity with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly recognize the meaning the lamps convey and respond accordingly. Therefore, NHTSA has interpreted the impairment provision to prohibit auxiliary lamps that are colors and are mounted in locations which are likely to cause confusion to other road users. For auxiliary lamps located on the front of vehicles, these colors include red, which could be confused for a taillamp or stop lamp, and green, which typically conveys the message that one may proceed forward and could therefore impair required lighting that indicates caution.2 

1 See, e.g., Letter to Timothy C. Murphy (Nov. 1, 2004), available at
https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/gf006332.
2 See Letter to Paul Schaye (Sept. 9, 2019), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/571108-ama-schaye- front-color-changing-light; See also, Letter to Kerry Legg (Oct. 19), 2006, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/legg1. 

For required lighting relevant to your inquiry, FMVSS No. 108 requires that all trailers have two red taillamps and two red stop lamps on the rear of the trailer, at the same height, symmetrically about the vertical centerline, and as far apart as practicable. Also, all trailers of 2032 mm or more in width must have three red identification lamps on the rear, at the same height as one another, as close to the top of the trailer as practicable and as close as practicable to the vertical centerline of the trailer, with lamp centers spaced not less than 6 inches or more than 12 inches apart. Additionally, such trailers must also have two amber clearance lamps on the front and two red clearance lamps on the rear, symmetrically mounted about the vertical centerline as near the top as practicable to indicate the overall width of the trailer.3 

Discussion 

We now turn to your inquiry. As an initial matter, it is immaterial to this analysis that the lamp is intended to illuminate only on the trailer owners’ property. NHTSA’s longstanding position is that when the vehicle is designed to be used on-road, its equipment must meet all applicable FMVSS.4 

Your lamp is not required equipment and so would be considered, as you correctly describe it, as auxiliary or supplemental lighting. Therefore, we turn to the question of impairment and look to the relevant characteristics.5 The factors most relevant to your inquiry are the location and color of the lamps, which we analyze together. We find that the lamp design described in your letter is likely to impair the effectiveness of the identification and clearance lamps required by FMVSS No. 108, and, if installed by you or another entity subject to the “make inoperative” prohibition as aftermarket equipment, would impair the effectiveness of that required lighting installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 108. 

By requiring different colored lamps on the front and the rear of trailers, FMVSS No. 108 facilitates rapid recognition by road users of the direction that a trailer is facing or is moving. Because your device illuminates red in the front of the trailer, it operates contrary to this standard’s intention. This lighting arrangement could cause drivers to mistake the front of the trailer for the rear. Such a mistake, even if only for a moment, may cause drivers to take unnecessary, and possibly unsafe, driving maneuvers or to fail to take other maneuvers in time to

3 FMVSS No. 108 Table I-a.
4 See Letter to Paul Crunk (Aug. 11, 2000), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/21872ztv.
5 Regarding activation pattern, NHTSA interprets FMVSS No. 108 to require that all auxiliary lamps be “steady burning,” with the sole exception being auxiliary lamps that supplement required lamps that flash, such as turn signals. For the purposes of this letter, we assume the lamps you describe would be steady burning when activated.
Before 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, converted the blanket “steady burning” requirement (and its exceptions) into individual activation requirements for each type of required lamp. See 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007). 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.” Moreover, NHTSA continues to believe that flashing auxiliary lamps would impair the effectiveness of required lamps by distracting or confusing other road users.

prevent dangerous events. Therefore, it would impair the effectiveness of the identification and clearance lamps required on trailers. Additionally, when the device is activated green, it may give the misimpression to road users that it is safe to proceed forward when in fact it may not be safe to do so, which would impair the effectiveness of various required lamps intended to communicate caution, such as stop lamps. Our opinion is the same regardless of whether the light uses green or red colored light sources or colored lenses. 

We hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992. 

Sincerely,
Adam Raviv
Chief Counsel

Dated: 11/6/24
Ref: Standard No. 108

ID: 571.208--Center seat--Glickenhaus--19-1007

Mr. Jesse Glickenhaus

Managing Director

Scuderia Cameron Glickenhaus LLC

8 Kendall Avenue

Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591

Dear Mr. Glickenhaus:

This responds to your March 25, 2019 request for interpretation asking how the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208; Occupant crash protection, apply to a passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) with centrally located front seating positions.  Specifically, you ask us to confirm that FMVSS No. 208 does not require air bags for the central front seat(s) if they are not “outboard designated seating positions” as defined in 49 CFR § 571.3(b).  As we explain below, based on the information and representations provided in your request, FMVSS No. 208 does not require front air bags for the front seat(s) in these vehicles.    

Description of your vehicle designs and request for interpretation

 Your request concerns two different vehicle designs.  The first is a passenger car with the driver’s seat located at or near the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.  You state that the driver’s seat will not meet the definition of an “outboard designated seating position” as defined in 49 CFR § 571.3(b).[1]  In the illustrations in your letter, the driver’s seat is depicted as the only front seat; there are two rear seats.  You state that the images accurately reflect the placement of the front driver’s seat, but that the shape and final placement of the rear passenger seats are not finalized.  You ask us to confirm that FMVSS No. 208 does not require a front air bag for the driver’s seat. 

The second vehicle you describe is an MPV.[2]  In a subsequent conversation with my staff, you indicated that this vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 8,500 pounds (lb) (and/or an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 lb) but not greater than 10,000 lb.  The MPV has a driver and front passenger seat, both of which are centrally located.  The accompanying illustrations also depict two rear seating positions.  You state that neither the driver’s seat nor the front passenger seat will meet the definition of an “outboard designated seating position.”  You ask us to confirm that FMVSS No. 208 does not require a front air bag for either of these seating positions.    

Requirements under FMVSS No. 208 for the front seats in these vehicles

FMVSS No. 208 sets out vehicle-level occupant protection requirements.  These include requirements or compliance options for seat belts, air bags, frontal crash tests, and static air bag tests. 

Passenger Cars

Whether or not the passenger car you describe is required to have a front air bag for the driver’s seat depends on whether that seat is an “outboard designated seating position.”  FMVSS No. 208 requires that each “[front] outboard designated seating position” be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt[3] and an air bag and certified to meet advanced air bag requirements.[4]  For example, passenger cars are required to certify, among other things, that they will meet injury criteria specifications when subject to a rigid barrier belted crash test with a 50th percentile adult male dummy,[5] but this requirement applies only to “each front outboard designated seating position[.]”[6]  We note that the standard is not completely consistent in using the term “front outboard designated seating position” to apply the advanced air bag requirements; the requirements referring to an out-of-position 5th percentile female dummy are specified in terms of the “driver position.”[7]  However, this “driver position” reference is most sensibly understood as applying to the driver’s side front outboard designated seating, consistent with the framework specified in the rest of the standard.[8]  If the front seat is not an “outboard designated seating position” then it is required to have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly.[9]

MPVs with a GVWR greater than 8,500 lb (or with an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 lb) but not greater than 10,000 lb

FMVSS No. 208 (in S4.2.3 and S4.1.2) specifies several different compliance options for front seats in MPVs in this weight class.  These vehicles are not required to have air bags, and may provide protection with only a seat belt.[10] 

Discussion

Based on the information and representations provided in your interpretation request, FMVSS No. 208 does not require front air bags for the front seats in the vehicles you describe.[11]  If the centrally-located driver’s seat in your passenger car is not an outboard designated seating position, FMVSS No. 208 requires a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, and not an air bag.  With respect to MPVs in the referenced weight class, FMVSS No. 208 does not require air bags for any front seats.  For example, the compliance option at S4.1.2.3 specifies only a belt and a seat belt warning for both front outboard and center seats.  More specifically, if the centrally-located driver’s and front passenger seats in the MPV are not outboard designated seating positions, then S4.2.3 requires that they be equipped with a Type 1 or Type 2 belt and, depending on the compliance option selected, a seat belt warning system.

In your letter, you indicate that you have “every intention of installing airbags [sic] as soon as possible” in your vehicles.  NHTSA strongly encourages that an air bag be provided for the driver’s designated seating position.  In establishing Standard No. 208's automatic protection requirements and later amending the standard to require air bags, NHTSA anticipated that applying the requirements to the front outboard positions would result in the driver's seating position being covered. The agency did not apply the requirements to the center seating position largely because that seating position is rarely used.  However, that would not be true if that position were also the driver's seating position.  Thus, we support your intention to install air bags in future models. 

This interpretation is limited to the facts and representations stated in your request.  In particular, this response assumes that the centrally-located front seat(s) are not “outboard designated seating position(s)” as defined in § 571.3(b) and that the rear seats depicted in the illustrations of the vehicles would in fact be classified as rear seats (and not front seats) under our regulations.  We also note that this letter is limited to answering your question about FMVSS No. 208.  Other FMVSS might necessitate use of air bag technologies, e.g., FMVSS No. 226, “Ejection mitigation,” which manufacturers typically meet by way of ejection mitigation side curtain air bags.  It would be your responsibility as a vehicle manufacturer to certify that your vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs, including those not discussed in this letter. 

 If you have any further questions, please contact John Piazza of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 12/30/19

Ref: FMVSS No. 209

[1] “Outboard designated seating position means a designated seating position where a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the outboard side of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from the innermost point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a height between the design H-point and the shoulder reference point (as shown in fig. 1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210) and longitudinally between the front and rear edges of the seat cushion” (emphasis in original).

[2] An MPV is defined as “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.”  § 571.3(b).

[3] S4.1.5.1(a)(3).  A Type 1 seat belt is a lap belt, and a Type 2 seat belt is a combination lap/shoulder belt.  FMVSS 209; Seat belt assemblies, S3.

[4] See S14 (“Advanced air bag requirements for passenger cars and for trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 pounds) or less, except for walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service[]”) and S4.1.5.4 (“Each passenger car certified to S14 shall, at each front outboard designated seating position, meet the applicable frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1.2(b) by means of an inflatable restraint system that requires no action by vehicle occupants.”).  See also the advanced air bag requirements specified in S14 through S29. 

[5] S14.4 and S14.5.1(b).

[6] S14.5.1(b).

[7] See S25.1-25.4.

[8] Cf. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-240, § 2508(a)(1), 105 Stat. 1914 (1991) (requiring the Department of Transportation to amend FMVSS No. 208 to require air bags at the “front outboard designated seating positions” in passenger cars and trucks, buses, and MPVs with a GVWR of 8,500 lb or less and an unloaded weight of 5,500 lb or less).

[9] S4.1.5.1(a)(2).

[10] See S4.1.2.3 (option of equipping the front outboard seats with Type 2 belts and a belt warning system, and any center front seat with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt and a belt warning system).

[11] See also Letter from Philip Recht, Chief Counsel, to Trevor Buttle, McLaren Cars Limited (Oct. 31, 1994) (opining that a driver’s seat located at least 12 inches from the side of the vehicle is not an “outboard designated seating position”).

ID: NCC-240112-Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

August 8, 2024

Mark Cherveny
Manager, Global Relations, Standards & Compliance The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
200 Innovation Way
Akron, OH 44316-0001 

Dear Mr. Cherveny: 

This letter responds to Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company’s “Letter of Interpretation Request for § 571.139 S5.5(c): maximum inflation pressure,” which states that your company has received requests from original equipment vehicle manufacturers to stamp “350 kPa” on “Extra Load” passenger tires. Your request seeks clarification on whether your company is “permitted to stamp an Extra Load passenger tire with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa.” It then asks: “If this is permitted, then would the minimum breaking energy specified in [49 C.F.R.] § 571.109 Table I-C and the test inflation pressures specified in § 571.109 Table II – Test Inflation Pressures … still apply for strength testing?” 

In responding to this request, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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. 

As to your question whether “Extra Load” tires may be labeled as 350 kPa, NHTSA’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) have no labeling requirements based on whether a passenger car tire is extra load or standard load. Thus, the FMVSS do not prohibit the proposed labeling on passenger car tires.1 

As to your question about the minimum breaking energy and inflation pressure tests in FMVSS No. 109, the testing requirements in Table I-C and Table II are based on a tire’s maximum inflation pressure and make no reference to whether the tire is labeled as standard load, extra

1 This letter, like your request, focuses solely on the FMVSS. Whether the proposed labeling complies with any other federal or state law or standards is outside the scope of this letter and we take no position on that question.

Page 2
Mr. Mark Cherveny 

load, or XL.2 Thus, passenger car tires with a maximum inflation pressure of 350 kPa are subject to the inflation pressures indicated for 350 kPa tires in the testing requirements set forth in Tables I-C and II. 

We note that your request did not inquire how the testing requirements in FMVSS 139, as opposed to those in FMVSS 109, apply to 350 kPa tires that have been stamped “Extra Load.” Because you did not request an interpretation of the testing standards in FMVSS 139, this letter does not provide such an interpretation. 

Finally, as you note in your letter, FMVSS No. 138—unlike FMVSS 109 and 139—does refer to the maximum inflation pressures for both standard load and extra load tires. The U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association has requested that NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 109 and 139 “to clarify marking and testing based on load classification,” and that it specifically clarify “whether 350 kPa is acceptable as a ‘Maximum Permissible Inflation Pressure’ marking for XL tires.”3 NHTSA is considering that request. However, as they currently stand, the testing requirements in Tables I-C and II of FMVSS 109 make no reference to load classification and are based solely on a tire’s maximum inflation pressure. 

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/8/24
Ref: Standard No. 109

2 FMVSS No. 109 has never referred to the terms “standard load,” “extra load,” or “reinforced” tires. 58 FR 59227 (Nov. 8, 1993).
3 See Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0011-0017.

ID: 571.108--Supplement beam--Boykin--16-0884

Mr. Marcus Boykin

B-G Innovative Safety Systems, LLC

79 Pasture Road

Lexington, TN 38351

Dear Mr. Boykin:

This responds to your letter asking about the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment,” to a lighting system your company has developed.  In your letter and phone conversation with John Piazza of my staff, you describe your product as “an auxiliary vehicle lamp operating system” for use both as original equipment (OE) and as aftermarket equipment.

You state that your product, which adapts to the existing headlight wiring harness, provides a supplemental lower beam from the existing upper beam when the lower beam fails.  We understand that, when the lower beam is not in a failed state, the headlight system, controls, and telltales function normally.  If the lower beam is selected and has failed or does fail, your system provides a supplemental lower beam from the existing upper beam.  You state that the lighting on the converted upper beam is “diffused down to the same output illumination as” the lower beam.  If the upper beam is selected, the upper beam will continue to function normally. 

We further understand that, with respect to the OE version of your product, you contemplate a dashboard warning to warn the driver that the normal lower beam is not functioning.  In the aftermarket version of your product, once the vehicle’s lower beam has failed and your device is providing a supplemental lower beam, every time the engine is started the headlights will flash three times to warn the driver that the original equipment lower beam is not operating and that your device is providing a supplemental lower beam.  You state that you are seeking “interpretation and approval” of your device.

As we explain below, while NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not make compliance determinations outside of an agency compliance proceeding, we are able to provide you with our interpretation of how NHTSA’s statute and regulations would apply to your product as you have described it to us.  We believe that your product would be considered supplemental lighting.  As such, it may be installed as original equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of any required lighting.  If your product is offered as aftermarket equipment, it would not be directly subject to FMVSS No. 108 but would be subject to the Safety Act’s make inoperative prohibition.

Background

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.  NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not make determinations as to whether a product conforms to the relevant FMVSS outside of an agency compliance proceeding.  Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs.  Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

This letter provides you with our interpretation of how the statute and regulations administered by NHTSA would apply to your product as you have described it to us, based on our understanding of the information provided.  This is not an “approval” of your product.

Vehicle lighting sold as OE is regulated under FMVSS No. 108.  (All references in this letter are to subsections of FMVSS No. 108 unless otherwise noted.).  FMVSS No. 108 requires vehicles to be equipped with certain types of lamps (known as “required” lamps), which must meet very specific and detailed performance standards.[1]  All other lamps are considered “supplemental” lamps.[2]  Unlike OE required lamps, OE supplemental lamps are not required to meet any specific performance requirements.  However, they are required to comply with certain generally-applicable provisions of FMVSS No. 108.  One of these provisions is set forth in S6.2.1, which states: “No 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.”

Both OE and aftermarket vehicle lighting are subject to the Safety Act’s “make inoperative” prohibition (49 U.S.C. § 30122), which prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.  While this “make inoperative” prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.  Also, any modifications made by a vehicle owner would have to comply with applicable state law. 

Discussion

FMVSS No. 108 requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible headlighting systems.  Headlighting systems are comprised of headlamps and associated hardware.  The purpose of headlighting is primarily to provide forward illumination.[3] 

The threshold issue presented by your request is whether your product is part of the required headlighting system, and thus subject to FMVSS No. 108’s requirements applicable to headlighting systems or, instead, supplemental lighting that is regulated by FMVSS No. 108’s impairment provision.   

In determining whether lighting equipment that provides forward illumination is part of the required headlighting system or, instead, supplemental lighting, NHTSA looks at several factors.  These include: (1) where the lamp directs its light; (2) whether it uses a headlamp replaceable light source to emit a beam that provides significantly more light flux than supplemental cornering lamps or fog lamps; (3) whether the lamp is intended to be used regularly, or is limited to more narrow driving conditions and situations; (4) whether the vehicle’s complete lighting system, not including the lamp in question, would include all of the forward lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108;  (5) whether there is a manual on/off switch; and (6) whether the lighting feature is one that activates only upon the failure of an element of the required headlighting system and acts as a temporary backup of that lighting element.[4] 

The last of these factors is most relevant to your product.  Prior agency interpretations have found that a lighting feature that activates an upper beam light source when the lower beam fails or a lower beam headlamp upon the failure of an upper beam headlamp is supplemental lighting.[5]  The system you describe activates a back-up beam only upon the failure of the required lower beam.  Accordingly, we believe it is supplemental lighting. 

Since you contemplate selling your supplemental lighting device as original and/or aftermarket equipment, we will consider the requirements affecting each of these.

Supplemental lighting installed as original equipment

Supplemental lighting installed as OE (i.e. before sale to first purchaser other than for resale) is permitted if the lighting does not impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108 (S6.2.1).  If you are the manufacturer of original lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108, but not the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed, the vehicle manufacturer, and not you, has the legal responsibility under the Safety Act to certify that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 108 and all other applicable FMVSSs.  Accordingly, the vehicle manufacturer must certify that supplemental lighting installed as OE complies with S6.2.1.  Effectiveness may be impaired if, among other things, the device creates confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima permitted by the standard.[6] 

Table XIX has specific photometry requirements (maxima and minima) for lower beams.  Activation of an upper beam light source when a lower beam source fails raises considerations of glare.  The lower beam maxima are meant to ensure that other roadway users are not glared.  If your device produces a supplemental beam that exceeds the lower beam photometric maxima, we would consider that to impair the effectiveness of the headlighting system.  Accordingly, your device needs to modify the upper beam to ensure that the lower beam photometric maxima are not exceeded. [7]  Because your device is supplemental lighting, it would not be required to provide sufficient illumination to meet or exceed the photometric minima required for a lower beam headlamp.  However, we note that by reducing the output illumination of the upper beam to that of the lower beam, the reduced upper beam would provide only a limited amount of illumination that may not be sufficient to usefully illuminate the road. 

For your information, we also point out below several other requirements of which you should be aware in designing and manufacturing your product.  (Note that it is the responsibility of manufacturers, and not NHTSA, to identity all FMVSSs applicable to their products and certify the compliance of their products with the standards.)

• Your product must not interfere with the activation and operation of the upper beam.    
•  It may not impair the effectiveness of the upper beam headlamp indicator required by S9.5.  When your device is providing a supplemental lower beam, it should do so in a way that the upper beam indicator is not activated.  Also, when the driver (or vehicle, if it has a semiautomatic headlamp beam switching device, or automatic headlights) has activated the upper beams, the upper beams must be activated and the upper beam indicator must be activated.  
• S9.4 requires that “the lower and upper beams must not be energized simultaneously except momentarily for temporary signaling purposes or during switching between beams.” 
• The headlamps must be steady burning, except that they may be flashed for signaling purposes.[8]  We would not consider your system’s momentary flashing function as violating this requirement because it is similar to a signaling function and would not be likely to confuse other motorists because it only flashes upon start-up.  
• The device generally should not function in such a way that it would be likely to confuse other motorists (for example, it should not mask the ability of other drivers to perceive the front turn signal).
• If a telltale or control is offered as original equipment, it must comply with any relevant requirements in FMVSS No. 101, “Controls and displays.”

We wish to point out that Table I-a requires that “[t]he wiring harness or connector assembly of each headlighting system must be designed so that only those light sources intended for meeting lower beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the lower beam position[.]”  Although it may appear that a device such as yours might not meet this requirement, NHTSA has interpreted the requirement otherwise. 

This issue arises if the lower beam is activated (with the beam selector switch in the lower beam position) and then fails, after which a system (such as yours) activates a modified upper beam as a backup lower beam.  If the backup lower beam utilizes upper beam light sources that are not normally used for meeting lower beam photometrics, the backup lower beam might be viewed as violating this requirement.[9]  However, prior interpretations have concluded that this Table I-a requirement does not apply to a failure condition in which a supplemental beam supplements a failed lower or upper beam, assuming the supplemental light does not otherwise impair the effectiveness of any required lighting.[10]  Applying that line of reasoning, we believe that your system would not create a noncompliance with the Table I-a requirement.

Supplemental lighting offered and installed as aftermarket equipment

Supplemental lighting offered as aftermarket equipment (accessory lighting) is not directly subject to FMVSS No. 108, which applies only to original equipment and lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108.  Section 30122 of the Safety Act, however, prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly making inoperative, in whole or in part original required lighting equipment.  In applying the make inoperative prohibition to accessory lighting we typically ask whether the accessory lighting would impair the effectiveness of any required lighting.  Generally, if an item of accessory lighting would not be permitted as original equipment, commercial entities will not be permitted to install the lighting as an aftermarket accessory for a vehicle in use.  Thus, the make inoperative analysis is generally the same as the impairment analysis we applied above in the context of supplemental lighting installed as original equipment.  We observe that, due to varying headlamp designs throughout the vehicle fleet, there may be potential compatibility issues with the product you describe and certain vehicles.  In addition, manufacturers of aftermarket lighting accessories are subject to the Safety Act’s defect notification and remedy requirements discussed above.    

We also note that manufacturers of equipment to which an FMVSS applies must meet the manufacturer identification requirements set out in 49 CFR Part 566.  For these and other requirements, you may consult NHTSA’s New Manufacturers Handbook, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/manufacturer_information_march2014.pdf.

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

Sincerely,

Jonathan Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/17/19

Ref: FMVSS No. 108

[1] The standard’s performance requirements also apply to lamps that are “for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies.”  On a related matter, we note that you state that “drivers with a failed light are out of compliance.”  This is incorrect, as FMVSS No. 108 does not regulate lighting in use.  Therefore, if a headlamp fails in operation, the vehicle is not “out of compliance” with the Federal standard (state laws may apply to in-use performance).

[2] NHTSA also uses the term “auxiliary” lamps.

[3] S4 (“Headlamp means a lighting device providing an upper and/or a lower beam used for providing illumination forward of the vehicle.”) (Formatting in original.)

[4] Letter to [Redacted] (Jan. 21, 2004) ((1)-(5)), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/swivelinglamp.3.html (last accessed June 20, 2018); letter to L. W. Camp, Ford Motor Company (July 15, 1998) ((6)), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/18080.ztv.html (last accessed June 20, 2018). 

[5] Letter to L. W. Camp, supra (lower beam backing up upper beam); letter to Ian Goldstein, Safe Passage Technologies (July 21, 1998) (upper beam backing up lower beam), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/18164.ztv.html.

[6] See, e.g., letter to Byung M. Soh, Target Marketing Systems, Inc. (Sept. 13, 1988), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/88/nht88-3.100.html (last accessed June 20, 2018).

[7] Letter to Ian Goldstein, supra (“Because headlamps are primarily operated on the lower beam, activation of an upper beam light source when a lower beam source fails raises considerations of glare . . . the upper beam in this instance ideally should be activated at a markedly reduced intensity such that it does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting devices [S6.2.1], or, more specifically, that, as a lower beam substitute[] it does not compromise turn signal visibility.”)

[8] Table I-a.

[9] Whether this would occur depends on the design of that particular headlighting system.  For example, this would not be the case if the headlighting system used the same light sources for both the lower and the upper beams.

[10] Letter to L. W. Camp, supra (lower beam supplementing failed upper beam).  See also letter to Ian Goldstein, supra (modified upper beam supplementing failed lower

ID: aiam3072

Dear Mr. Champagne: This is in response to your telephone conversations of July 13, 1979 with Mr. Steve Wood of my office, in which you requested a general explanation of the Federal law concerning auxiliary gasoline tanks and the conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles to propane-powered vehicles.; The following discussion sets forth the implications of thes activities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. The discussion first looks at the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to fuel systems and then at the defect responsibilities that might be involved. Next, a brief mention is made of the possibility of product liability suits.; Before getting into the legalities of these installations an conversions, I want to stress my concern about the danger which these practices may pose to the occupants of vehicles which are altered and even to occupants of other vehicles. These practices may seriously increase the risk of fire if these altered vehicles are involved in accidents. Even where there are no legal liabilities, this threat to safety may be present.; The Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) to issue FMVSS's applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. The only standard relevant to this discussion, FMVSS 301-75, is a vehicle standard. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) schoolbuses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. If the need were found, a standard could also be issued for fuel systems designed for installation in new or used vehicles.; Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate customer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. In addition, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration or purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 CFR 567.7 and Preamble to 37 F.R. 22800, October 25, 1972). The only alterations that a person may make prior to the first sale of a vehicle without being considered a manufacturer subject to the recertification requirements are minor finishing operations or the addition, substitution or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors, tires, or rim assemblies. (49 CFR 567.7).; Should a noncompliance be discovered in a recertified vehicle, as result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act). The civil penalty imposed could be up to $1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act).; With respect to FMVSS 301, the effect of the alterer provisions is tha not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary or replacement tank added by an alterer must meet them also.; If the alterer converts the gasoline fuel system to a propane fue system, the vehicle must still be recertified. However, FMVSS 301-75 would cease to be a factor since the standard would no longer apply to the vehicle. Propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles using fuel with a higher boiling point. Finally, if the alterer converts a gasoline- powered vehicle so that it is both gasoline-powered and propane- powered, he must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable standards, including FMVSS 301-75.; After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale tampering with the vehicle is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). That section in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).; If a tamperer adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufacture in accordance with FMVSS 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974) (sic). Such a reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.; If a tamperer removes the original gasoline tank and installs replacement one, section 108(a)(2)(A) is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicle structures. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.; There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection wit FMVSS 301-75 if the tamperer converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane-powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another would not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems complied with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a 1978 gasoline-powered car to a propane-powered car, the converter would not be governed by FMVSS 301-75 since that standard did not apply to 1978 propane-powered cars.; The case of a tamperer who modifies a used gasoline-powered vehicle s that is has a dual gasoline/propane system would be essentially the same as that of the person who adds an auxiliary gasoline tank. If the tamperer knowingly reduces the performance of the gasoline system in adding the propane system, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A).; As to safety defect responsibilities under sections 151 *et seq.* o the Act, persons who alter new vehicles by installing auxiliary or replacement gas tanks or by converting a gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system as well (sic) persons who produce the equipment being installed are fully subject to those responsibilities. Sections 151 *et seq.* provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. As explained earlier the term 'manufacturer' includes persons who alter new vehicles by doing more than simply adding, substituting, or removing readily attachable components or performing minor finishing operations. Since alterations involving installation of auxiliary replacement gas tanks or conversion of gasoline systems to propane systems are more substantial, persons who make those alterations are manufacturers.; Thus the alterer who installs auxiliary or replacement tanks or make propane conversions is responsible for safety defects in the installation of the tanks and propane systems. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation.; Under 49 CFR Part 579, the auxiliary and replacement tanks and th propane systems would all be treated as 'replacement equipment.' Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in the performance, construction components, or materials, of replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer who produces auxiliary or replacement tanks or propane systems, as distinct from the alterer who installs such equipment, would be subject to these responsibilities for production defects. A person who both produces such equipment and installs it in new vehicles prior to their delivery to the ultimate consumer would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both production and installation of the equipment.; Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a), any person who fails to provid notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1000 per violation.; Tamperers have no safety defect responsibilities for their tampering As noted above, only manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are subject to sections 151 *et seq.* Since the term 'manufacturer' is interpreted to refer to those who produce, assemble, or import *new* vehicles or equipment and since tamperers, by definition, deal with used vehicles only, tamperers are not manufacturers.; Finally, there is the larger and more far reaching question of th liability of the alterers, tamperers, and manufacturers in tort. Whether or not these parties are liable under the Act for their actions, they may well be liable in tort. Both alterers and tamperers may be liable for the manner and location in which they install auxiliary of replacement gasoline tanks or propane systems in vehicles. Likewise, the manufacturers of these items of motor vehicle equipment may be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. These persons may wish to consult a local lawyer on their liability in tort.; I hope that you will find this discussion helpful. If you have an further questions I will be happy to answer them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2976

Dear Mr. Knight:#This responds to your letters of July 11, 1978, an January 18, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The answers to your questions are as follows:#1. The turn signal control lever used by Rolls-Royce is mounted on the steering column and is positioned horizontally. To operate the turn signals, the lever must rotated either clock-wise or anti-clock-wise. To label the control lever and to indicate the manner of operation, Rolls- Royce is considering placing the arrows of the turn signal symbol so that they point up and down. You ask whether the standard permits that orientation of the arrows.#The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle. Complying with the perceptually upright requirement instead of reorienting the symbol to serve other purposes will aid in ensuring quick and accurate identification of the turn signal control. We wish to observe that essentially the same result as that sought by RollsRoyce (sic) in reorienting the turn signal symbol could be achieved by placing curved, thinner arrows next to the symbol to indicate mode of operation.#2. (i) You noted that differing display identification requirements for safety belts appear in FMVSS 101-80 and FMVSS 208. FMVSS 101-80 does not supersede or preempt FMVSS 208 in this area. However, the agency will soon issue a notice that will provide for use of the safety belt symbol in Table 2 of FMVSS 101-80 for the purposes of both standards.#(ii) You are correct in assuming that column 3 of Table 2 should include a reference to FMVSS 105-75 for brake system malfunction displays and a reference to FMVSS 121 for brake air pressure displays. These inadvertent omissions will be corrected in the notice mentioned above. You are also correct in assuming that the options in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 105-75 are still available.#3. You referred to the statement in the final rule preamble that the visibility requirements of 101- 80 would be deemed satisfied even if minimal movements by the driver were necessary and suggested that this interpretation be incorporated in section 6, conditions, and amplified. The agency does not believe that this step is necessary. The agency does, however, believe it appropriate to amplify its earlier interpretation. By minimal movement, the agency meant head movement of not more than a few inches. By a 'few' inches, we mean up to approximately three inches. As to your suggestion for specifying the size of the driver to be used in determining compliance with the visibility requirements, the agency will consider this suggestion and address it at a future date.#4. You should comply with the speedometer scale requirements in FMVSS 101-80 since the labelling requirements in FMVSS 127 were deleted in the response to reconsideration petitions that was published July 27, 1978 (43 FR 32421).#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2975

Dear Mr. Knight:#This responds to your letters of July 11, 1978, an January 18, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The answers to your questions are as follows:#1. The turn signal control lever used by Rolls-Royce is mounted on the steering column and is positioned horizontally. To operate the turn signals, the lever must rotated either clock-wise or anti-clock-wise. To label the control lever and to indicate the manner of operation, Rolls-Royce is considering placing the arrows of the turn signal symbol so that they point up and down. You ask whether the standard permits that orientation of the arrows.#The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle. Complying with the perceptually upright requirement instead of reorienting the symbol to serve other purposes will aid in ensuring quick and accurate identification of the turn signal control. We wish to observe that essentially the same result as that sought by RollsRoyce (sic) in reorienting the turn signal symbol could be achieved by placing curved, thinner arrows next to the symbol to indicate mode of operation.#2. (i) You noted that differing display identification requirements for safety belts appear in FMVSS 101-80 and FMVSS 208. FMVSS 101-80 does not supersede or preempt FMVSS 208 in this area. However, the agency will soon issue a notice that will provide for use of the safety belt symbol in Table 2 of FMVSS 101-80 for the purposes of both standards.#(ii) You are correct in assuming that column 3 of Table 2 should include a reference to FMVSS 105-75 for brake system malfunction displays and a reference to FMVSS 121 for brake air pressure displays. These inadvertent omissions will be corrected in the notice mentioned above. You are also correct in assuming that the options in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 105-75 are still available.#3. You referred to the statement in the final rule preamble that the visibility requirements of 101-80 would be deemed satisfied even if minimal movements by the driver were necessary and suggested that this interpretation be incorporated in section 6, conditions, and amplified. The agency does not believe that this step is necessary. The agency does, however, believe it appropriate to amplify its earlier interpretation. By minimal movement, the agency meant head movement of not more than a few inches. By a 'few' inches, we mean up to approximately three inches. As to your suggestion for specifying the size of the driver to be used in determining compliance with the visibility requirements, the agency will consider this suggestion and address it at a future date.#4. You should comply with the speedometer scale requirements in FMVSS 101-80 since the labelling requirements in FMVSS 127 were deleted in the response to reconsideration petitions that was published July 27, 1978 (43 FR 32421).#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: 571.108 School Bus Focused Illuminated Projection Lanyon NCC-230125-001

March 21, 2023

Mr. Bobby Lanyon
Access Innovations Global LP dba AIG Safety
PO Box 511
Orefield, PA 18069 

Dear Mr. Lanyon,  

This letter responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) allow, but not mandate, your company’s product, the “Focused Illuminated Projection” system, for application on school buses under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices. Your request was referred to my office to determine whether the feature you describe is allowed under existing FMVSSs. While you asked for an amendment to FMVSS No. 131, we believe it is appropriate to consider whether your product would be permitted as an auxiliary lighting device under FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Based on the information you have provided, our answer is that your device is permissible under FMVSS No. 108 for the reasons explained below. 

By way of background, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture before the products can be offered for sale. Manufacturers must also ensure their products are free of safety-related defects. This letter represents NHTSA’s opinion concerning whether your product, as you describe it, would be permitted under FMVSS No. 108. It is not an approval of your product, nor is it an endorsement of the safety claims made in your interpretation request.  

Under FMVSS No. 108 S6.2.1, non-required additional lamps are prohibited on new
vehicles if they impair the effectiveness of lighting devices required by FMVSS No. 108. The question as to whether an auxiliary lamp impairs required lighting equipment is usually decided on a case-by-case basis.1 Based on the information you have provided, we have concluded that the “Focused Illuminated Projection” system will not impair the effectiveness of a school bus’s required lighting. 

1 Letter to Michael Haas (May 6, 2019), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.108%20--%20HDC%20Supplemental%20Turning%20Lamps%20--%20HAAS%20--%2015-4155.htm. 

Page 2
Mr. Bobby Lanyon 

Description of the “Focused Illuminated Projection” system 

Your letter describes the system as a “low technology, high reliability solution designed and implemented to re-enforce the explicit and implied scope (S1) and Purpose (S2) of Section 571.131 by statically illuminating the 10ft stopping threshold” onto the roadway in front of and behind a school bus during a school bus stop. AIG also describes it as creating an “illuminated crosswalk” for students. 

The system consists of red LED lights mounted onto the front and rear of the bus adjacent to or below the signal warning lamps above the front windshield or rear window. It projects a red line onto the road 10 feet in front of and behind the bus. It is controlled by the “same electrical relay that illuminates” the lamps on the stop signal arm. We assume, for the purposes of this interpretation, that this device only activates when the vehicle is stopped and is in a loading/unloading state, when the stop arm is also activated or the door is open. 

Discussion 

FMVSS No. 108 requires that school buses be equipped with a system of two red signal lamps, and optionally two amber signal lamps, installed at both the top front and top rear. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute. We have previously stated that auxiliary lamps can impair the effectiveness of required lighting in four ways: brightness, activation pattern, color, and mounting location.2 

Brightness will cause impairment if the additional lamp is so bright as to obscure or distract from required lighting. Based on the photographs provided in your submission, it does not appear that your device would cause impairment of a school bus’s required lighting due to brightness. Additionally, because your device is a projection system, brightness concerns, particularly at a distance, are mitigated by the ability to apply a shade to the device to ensure that only the projected image is visible.  

Regarding activation pattern, FMVSS No. 108 requires all auxiliary lamps, with the exception of certain specified types of lamps such as turn signal lamps, to be steady burning.3 You state that the “Focused Illuminated Projection” is “statically illuminating” 

2 Letter to Paul Schaye (September 9, 2019), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.108%20--%20AMA%20--%20Schaye--front%20color%20changing%20light.htm. 
3 Prior to 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, converted the blanket steady burning requirement (and its exceptions) into individual activation requirements for each type of required lamp. See 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007). 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. Moreover, NHTSA continues to believe that flashing auxiliary lamps would impair the effectiveness of required lamps by distracting or confusing other road users. See Id., at FN 7. 

Page 3
Mr. Bobby Lanyon 

the stopping threshold in front of and behind the bus, which we understand to mean that the device is steady burning. Therefore, your device’s activation pattern is unlikely to distract other road users from the required lighting and will not impair the effectiveness of the vehicle’s required lighting due to activation pattern. 

Regarding color, NHTSA has stated that impairment concerns prohibit the use of lamps of colors that are likely to cause confusion to other road users.4 For example, NHTSA has previously stated that red lamps placed on the front of non-school-bus vehicles impair the effectiveness of lighting required under FMVSS No. 108 because drivers understand red to mean stop and those lamps can be confused with stop lamps.5 However, this is not necessarily the case with school buses because they are required to have red signal warning lamps on the front of their cabs. Here, the question is whether your device would impair a school bus’s required lighting, in particular the red signal warning lamps that are required on the front and rear of school buses. The purpose of the signal warning lamp is to “identify a vehicle as a school bus and to inform other users of the highway that such vehicle is stopped on the highway to take on or discharge school children.”6 Your device is designed to increase the conspicuity of a stopped school bus and benefit that purpose. It supplements the signal warning lamp by activating only while the required red signal lamp is activated, which occurs when the bus is in a stopped and loading/unloading state. This matches the purpose of the red signal lighting. In addition, nearby drivers are likely to understand the red indicator to mean “stop” and “do not enter the projected zone,” which may further the purpose of the required signal lamps. Therefore, it is our opinion that it is unlikely to impair the effectiveness of lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 due to color. 

Regarding mounting location, lamps impair the effectiveness of required lighting under FMVSS No. 108 if they are mounted in locations that cause them to interfere with the ability of a vehicle’s required lamps to achieve their purpose.7 Generally, we have found that this requires auxiliary lighting to be mounted “far enough away” from other lamps that it does not impair their effectiveness.8 Although your device is mounted adjacent to or just below the signal warning lamps, your device’s mounting location is not likely to impair the signal warning lamps because your device is a projection system. At distance, especially if there is a shade on the device, other road users are unlikely to observe any interference with the signal lamp. 

Previously, we have found that certain auxiliary stop signal lamps on school buses were likely to impair the effectiveness of required lighting under FMVSS No. 108. For example, we found the ALLSTOP system, a red flashing light affixed to the roof of a 

4 Letter to Paul Schaye (September 9, 2019), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.108%20--%20AMA%20--%20Schaye--front%20color%20changing%20light.htm. 
5 Id.
6 49 CFR 571.108 S4.
7 Letter to Paul Schaye (September 9, 2019), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.108%20--%20AMA%20--%20Schaye--front%20color%20changing%20light.htm.  
8 See, e.g., Letter to Redacted (January 21, 2004), available at
https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/GF007705.html. 
 

Page 4
Mr. Bobby Lanyon 

school bus that only activated when the school bus door was open, “would divert a
driver’s attention from the required signal lamps and cause confusion with respect to their meaning….”9 Your device is distinguishable from the ALLSTOP and is unlikely to cause confusion with the signal warning lamp for two reasons: first, it is steady burning, and second, the meaning of your device’s signal appears to be unambiguous. The ALLSTOP had a much higher likelihood of distracting or confusing drivers because it was a flashing and rotating device like a police light. NHTSA has found impairment where it is likely that an auxiliary or alternative lighting scheme could confuse drivers due to an ambiguous meaning.10 For example, NHTSA recently stated that the HELP system, which flashed the turn signal lamps to create an additional hazard warning system, had an ambiguous meaning if used in any situation other than while parked.11 Your device, however, as two static projected red lines on the road, plainly indicates “do not enter.” Therefore, it is our opinion that your device is unlikely to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting under FMVSS No. 108 and is permissible under that standard.  

With respect to the aftermarket, 49 U.S.C. 30122 has the effect of requiring that the installation of any aftermarket vehicle lamp, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, must not “make inoperative” any element of design or device installed on a vehicle in accordance with FMVSS No. 108. As with original equipment, we regard the addition of a projection lamp that is used in the way we understand your “Focused Illuminated Projection” system to operate not to make inoperative a vehicle’s original required lighting equipment. 

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

Sincerely, 

John Donaldson
Acting Chief Counsel
 

9 Letter to J. Adam Krugh (May 22, 2003), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/002769drn.html. 
10 Letter to Steven T. Powers (January 19, 2021), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.108--HELP%20System--Powers.htm. 
11 Id. 

Dated: 3/21/23
Ref: Standard No. 131

ID: aiam5234

"Dear Mr. Dennison: Thank you for your letter of April 27, 1993 clarifying your FAX of March 12 to which I responded on April 19. We appreciate your goal of helping people comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and those of EPA. We can well understand why, as you put it, 'at times I do not feel I have the right answers for some of these manufacturers.' The regulation of kit cars and vehicles combining old and new parts is a complicated subject, and our opinions usually depend upon the specific facts of individual cases with the result that one may differ in degree from another. Because these are legal opinions, the Office of Chief Counsel is the proper Office within NHTSA to address questions of this nature, rather than the agency's Enforcement office. We are sorry that some of your inquirers 'are afraid to call NHTSA for fear of reprisal.' By this, I think you mean that a call from a small manufacturer might cause NHTSA to initiate enforcement action concerning nonconformance with the FMVSS or agency regulations. The potential of an enforcement action should be sufficient to encourage those engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles to discern their responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to comply with them. We are willing to assist manufacturers in interpreting the Act and regulations. If they do not wish to write or call us, they can review our interpretation letters which are available to the public in NHTSA's Technical Reference Division. Also, they can consult a private attorney. You enclosed a copy of the 'EPA Kit Car Policy' which we have reviewed, comparing it with NHTSA policy. In most respects, the two policies are congruent. Paragraph 1 of the EPA document fairly expresses NHTSA policy, fully assembled kit cars, and complete kit car packages are 'motor vehicles' under the Act, required to be certified by the manufacturer or kit supplier. If they are not certified, they must be imported by a NHTSA-registered importer (the counterpart to EPA's Independent Commercial Importer), or one who has a contract with a registered importer to certify the kit car (an allowance that we understand does not exist under EPA regulations). I shall return to Paragraph 2 later. Paragraph 3 differs from NHTSA policy, although automotive bodies are not 'motor vehicles' under either EPA or NHTSA's definitions, they are 'motor vehicle equipment' for purposes of NHTSA's jurisdiction. Paragraph 4 essentially states NHTSA policy, kit car body/chassis combinations may be imported as automotive equipment and are subject to NHTSA's regulations. Similarly, any attempt to circumvent the Act or import regulations may be viewed as a violation subject to enforcement. However, NHTSA will also regard as a 'manufacturer' any person importing kits or kit cars for resale, as well as the actual fabricator or assembler of a kit. Paragraph 2 reflects the fact that EPA regulates only engines and emission- related components. A vehicle 'will be considered to be a rebuilt vehicle of a previously certified configuration and will be considered to be covered by that configuration's original EPA certification of conformity' if the engine and all emission-related components and settings conform to those of the previously certified configuration, and if the weight of the completed kit vehicle is not more than 500 pounds greater than that of the originally certified configuration. Under EPA policy, a 'rebuilt vehicle' could be a motor vehicle all of whose parts were new and unused except for its engine and engine-related components. NHTSA has no definition of 'rebuilt vehicle' which would permit a similar interpretation, and while a vehicle as I have described could be covered by the previously existing EPA certification, NHTSA very likely would regard it as a newly manufactured motor vehicle which must be certified as meeting all contemporary FMVSS. It is here that the two agencies most diverge because of the breadth of NHTSA's regulatory authority which encompasses all motor vehicle equipment, and motor vehicles assembled from that equipment. You cite as an example of difficulty 'the treatment of FMVSS with regards to a '23 T-Bucket Hot Rod'. The first question to answer is whether the car has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Factors to consider in this determination are whether the Hot Rod is intended solely for use on closed race tracks, whether it must be trailered from race to race, and whether a State would license it for on road use. If the car has not been manufactured primarily for on road use, then it is not a 'motor vehicle' as defined by the Vehicle Safety Act, and not subject to the FMVSS. If the car is a 'motor vehicle' and entirely assembled from parts from a disassembled motor vehicle or vehicles previously in use, then it is considered a 'used' vehicle, and also not subject to the FMVSS (but subject to state and local standards). On the other hand, if the kit car is entirely comprised of previously unused parts, then it is a new motor vehicle that is required to comply with, and be certified as complying with, the FMVSS (and its manufacturer may be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of those standards under 49 CFR Part 555). If the kit car is comprised of parts both previously used and unused, NHTSA's examination of the list of components in each category will enable it to advise whether the kit car must comply with the FMVSS that apply to new vehicles. In addition, we also receive inquiries from those who wish to construct vehicles which use a 'host' chassis from a previously certified vehicle. The Act permits a manufacturer to modify a previously certified vehicle in any manner as long as it does not knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed by the original manufacturer in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as meaning that, if the manufacturer removes the original body, at the end of the conversion process the resulting motor vehicle must continue to comply with the FMVSS that were in effect when it was originally manufactured. However, a certain divergence from original vehicle compliance is permitted. For example, if a 1982 enclosed passenger car is modified to become a convertible, at the end of the conversion process it is no longer required to meet enclosed car FMVSS but must comply with those that applied to l982 convertibles. The Act does not require that such vehicles be certified but the manufacturer should be prepared to substantiate that it has not rendered inoperative any of the vehicle's original safety equipment, either directly or indirectly (such as a substantial increase in the weight of the vehicle that might affect its crash protection characteristics) in the event NHTSA should so ask. Finally, we note your remark that NHRA and SEMA are debating whether a policy can 'be developed which will allow these builders to produce an authentic replica and stay within the standards.' As I discussed above, the FMVSS would not appear to apply to a replica vehicle such as a Miller racing car from the 1920's that could not be licensed for on road use. However, the FMVSS do apply to vehicles composed of newly manufactured parts that replicate the look of older vehicles. For this reason, 100% authenticity cannot be achieved for a replica required to meet the current FMVSS because of equipment such as the center highmounted stop lamp, side marker lamps and reflectors, and head and other occupant restraints required for safety today. As a general rule, we would not provide temporary exemptions from these standards. In our view, the only viable candidate for an authentic replica is one that is constructed on a 'host' chassis of a vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1968, the date that the first FMVSS became effective, or entirely from used parts. I would also note that much authenticity could result from use of a 'host' chassis manufactured during calendar year l968. Although the appearance of the interior would be affected by compliance with certain FMVSS, the FMVSS requiring side marker lamps and reflectors and head restraints did not become effective until January 1, 1969. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5119

"Dear Mr. Dobberteen: This responds to your letter that requeste information about how the regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you wish to market. According to your letter, your company is developing an overhead storage compartment bin to be secured to the interior roof of a utility vehicle behind its rear seat. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that you anticipate that this product will typically be installed in motor vehicles prior to their first consumer purchase. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering a rear overhead storage bin. However, it is possible that the installation of such a product could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards. All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your storage bin is installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if your storage bin is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards. We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have responsibilities under the Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151, et seq., of the Safety Act, such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge. In order to determine how installation of your storage bin could affect the compliance of a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to Standard No. 216 which addresses roof crush resistance and Standard No. 302 which addresses the flammability of interior materials. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";