ID: 1985-03.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Warren F.B. Lindsley, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/22/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Leo Kagan

TEXT:

Warren F. B. Lindsley, Esq. Camel Square Suite 200E 4350 East Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 85018

This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of my staff, with reference to the center high-mounted stop lamp, in which you have asked "whether a light which pulsates a few times and then assumes a steady state meets the requirements of the code."

As Mr. Vinson explained to you, a center high-mounted stop lamp installed as original equipment on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1986, must be steady-burning in use, but is permitted to flash automatically with the hazard warning system. As of September 1, 1986, original equipment lamps must only be activated upon application of the service brakes, and can only be steady-burning. A "light that pulsates a few times then assumes a steady state" would not fulfill this requirement.

The standard does not cover aftermarket equipment for vehicles not originally manufactured with the center high-mounted stop lamp. For this application, the law of each State where a retrofitted car would be operated would determine the legality of a pulsating/steady state lamp. The agency, of course, would prefer that aftermarket equipment conform as closely as possible to original vehicle equipment specifications. We believe that standardization of rear signals minimizes the possibility of creating confusion to following drivers in situations where immediate action is essential to avoid a rear end collision.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

(See 8/22/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Leo Kagan)

July 3, 1985

ATTN: Attorney Taylor Vincent

Re: High Mounted Rear Brake Light Title 49 Revised October 1, 1984 Pages 243-244

Dear Mr. Vincent:

I appreciated talking with you recently about the above subject wherein you told me that the code required, after September 1, 1986, a steady state light in the rear of the car, not a flashing light.

My clients have asked me to inquire of you whether a light which pulsates a few times and then assumes a steady state meets the requirements of the code.

It is their position that initial short pulsating or flashing of the light followed by a steady state condition would alert the driver of a following vehicle quicker than a constant steady state condition.

Since an answer to this question is important to my clients, and has a bearing on their financial investment in the development of such a light, I would appreciate receiving your comments in the near future.

Very truly yours,

Warren F. B. Lindsley Patent Attorney

WFBL/mc

Mr. Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division Amco Manufacturing Corporation 7425 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

ID: 1985-04.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Sam Verma -- Erincraft Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Sam Verma Erincraft Mfg. Co., Inc. 742 East 8th Street Michigan City, Indiana 46360

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1985, asking how to obtain a "DOT number," so that your company can import truck tires into the United States from a plant in India. The procedures to be followed are set forth in 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. That regulation requires every tire sold in this country to be labeled with certain information (see 574.5), including the identification mark assigned to the manufacturer. To obtain an identification mark, the actual manufacturer of the tires should provide the information specified in 574.6 of the regulation. Please note that an identification mark will be assigned only to the actual manufacturer of tires, and not to companies importing those tires. This is because 574.5 requires that this identification mark be molded into or onto all new tires. The only party which can mold the mark on the tire is the actual manufacturer. Therefore, the entity which owns the tire plant in India must apply for the identification mark. An identification mark is normally assigned within two weeks after the receipt of such a request. The owner of the tire plant in India should also be aware of a procedural rule which applies to all parties subject to the regulation of this agency, 49 CFR Part 551 (copy enclosed). This rule requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. The identification mark required by Part 574 will not be assigned until this agency has received a valid designation of agent from the Indian tire manufacturer. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and p;ace where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the Indian tire manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of that manufacturer's tires which do not bear the name of the company; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the Indian tire manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the Indian tire manufacturer, and the agent may be an individual or U.S. firm or corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. If you need any further information or a clarification of some of the information set forth in this letter, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-04.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. David Gruenzner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 18, 1985 Mr. David Gruenzner President, Future Tech Inc. P.O. Box 26B Mankato, MN 56002 Dear Mr. Gruenzner: This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to an aftermarket high-mounted stop lamp/turn signal lamp system. You intend to market three models, as more completely described in the next paragraph. All models are mounted in the interior of the car. Our primary concern is the possibility that the interior-mounted unit will cause undesirable reflections in the rear window, reducing the ability of the operator to judge conditions to the rear of his vehicle as seen through the rear view mirror. For this reason, Standard No. 108 requires the new center-mounted stop lamps mounted on the interior to be provided with means to minimize such reflections. These lamps now in production incorporate shrouds that abut the rear window glazing. Though your after market device would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108 since it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, we encourage you to incorporate design features which will prevent undesirable reflections. Also care should be taken to ensure that, when the device is installed, it does not impair the field of view required for rear view mirrors by Safety Standard No. 111. Your device consists of eight miniature lamps, four mounted on each side of the vertical centerline. We also have some additional concerns about the operation of one of your three models. In the first model, in the turn signal mode, the lamps operate sequentially from the center outward in the direction of the intended turn. In the stop lamp mode, the entire unit will illuminate, "sending a sequential (sic) flashing beam from the middle to both sides." We view the sequential flashing of the lights from the center outwards in the stop lamp mode as prohibited by paragraph S4.6 of the standard which requires all lamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. However, the stop function in the second model is indicated by a steady-burning in use, except for turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps, and headlamps and side marker lamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. However, the stop function in the second model is indicated by a steady-burning light, thus complying with our requirements. In the third model, there will be an additional amber colored lens mounted on top of the red lens. The brake signal will be indicated by a steady red light, while the turn signals will be indicated by flashing amber ones. This method of operation is also acceptable under Standard No. 108 which permits rear turn signals to be either amber or red.

We are unable to assist you with State laws that may affect your devices. We suggest you contact the vehicle administrators in the States where you intend to market your system. I hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Enere H. Levi, Esq. -- Office of the Attorney General, American Samoa Government

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Enere H. Levi Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General American Samoa Government Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799

Thank you for your letter of September 18, 1985, to Mr. Hal Paris of this agency requesting information on the bumper requirements that apply to small trucks. You also asked about the effect of our standards on vehicles sold in your Territory. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

Under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), we have issued Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581), a copy of which is enclosed. The Part 581 standard applies only to passenger motor vehicles. Section (2)(1) of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901(1)) defines a "passenger motor vehicle" as a vehicle designed to carry 12 persons or less, except a motorcycle or a truck not designed primarily as a passenger carrier. We would not consider a small utility truck to be a passenger motor vehicle since it is not designed primarily as a passenger carrier, but is instead designed primarily to carry cargo. Therefore, under Federal law, a small utility truck may be sold without any rear bumper.

Both the Vehicle Safety Act and the Cost Savings Act apply to motor vehicles manufactured in or imported into the United States. Both Acts define the term "State" to include American Samoa (15 U.S.C. 1391(8) and 1901(16)). Therefore, the requirements of the Part 581 standard would apply to vehicles sold in American Samoa.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

September 18, 1985

Hal Paris U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Paris:

I am writing to request any information that your office has regarding the application of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 USC S1381, et seq., to small utility trucks, such as Toyota, Datsun or similar makes.

In specific, what are the requirements, if any, for such vehicles to have rear bumpers? Here in American Samoa, small trucks are being sold without bumpers. We are concerned about the safety of such vehicles, especially since Samoan families are large and the standard practice is to load the entire family into the back carry area. In the event of a rear end collision, the dangers are obvious.

Our legal research has produced conflicting interpretations of federal law and its application to our Territory. Furthermore, we have been lead to believe that small trucks are presently being sold in the mainland without bumpers.

Could you please enlighten us as to your official position on this issue, and provide the relevant legal authority. We thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, ENERE H. LEVI Assistant Attorney General EHL/fst

ID: 1985-04.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas C. Bielinski, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas C. Bielinski, Esq. 33 N. Dearborn Street Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60602

Re: Bartlett v. Wards

The National Transportation Safety Board has forwarded to us for reply your letter of August 29, 1985, asking for information on standards and other regulations regarding the design and manufacture of mopeds.

This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, issues the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which all motor vehicles must meet upon manufacture and initial sale. "Moped" is not a defined vehicle category under the safety standards but the defined category of "motorcycle" covers all two-wheeled vehicles such as mopeds. These standards will be found at Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571 and the applicability section of each standard (either paragraph S2 or S3) will tell you whether it applies to "motorcycles". Standards have been adopted for motorcycle brake hoses, (571.106), lighting, (571.108), mirrors (571.111), vehicle identification number (571.115 and Part 565), brake fluids (571.116), tires (571.119), rims (571.120), braking systems (571.122), controls and displays (571.123) and glazing (571.205). Manufacturers must certify compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (Part 567).

You will find that sections of some of these standards impose a lesser degree of performance upon "motor-driven cycles". These are motorcycles producing 5 horsepower or less, and thus include most mopeds of which we are aware.

The individual States are not preempted from having their own standards for area of performance not covered by Federal standards (for covered areas, however, State standards must be identical), and you may also wish to examine the laws of the jurisdiction in which the moped in your case was licensed or being operated.

A manufacturer is required to file an information statement with the agency within 30 days of commencing production (Part 566). If a vehicle fails to conform to a safety standard or contains a safety related defect, its manufacturer must notify the agency, owners, and dealers, and remedy the problem (Part 573 and 577).

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 29, 1985

National Transportation Safety Board 2300 E. Devon Des Plaines, Illinois

RE: Bartlett vs. Wards

To Whom It May Concern:

Could You Please provide the undersigned with any rules, standards, or regulations concerning the design and manufacture of mopeds.

Please bill me for any costs involved.

Thanking you for your cooperation, I remain,

Very truly yours,

Thomas C. Bielinski

TCB/dm

ID: 86-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Cynthia R. Syverson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 3, 1986 Ms. Cynthia R. Syverson P.O. Box 23314 Jacksonville, FL 32217 Dear Ms. Syverson: Thank you for your letter of January 7, 1986, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to a sun shading product you enclosed with you letter and asking whether the product complies with our standards. The product is a rolldown sun shade, which when extended cover a 15 x 18 inch area of a vehicle window with a piece of perforated plastic. The product is designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to this product. Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 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 Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically test vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of products in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety. We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. these requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the one enclosed in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles. If you need further information, please let me know. I an returning, under separate cover, the sample you sent. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hans W. Metzger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hans W. Metzger Scottsdale, AZ 85253

Thank you for your letter of October 14, 1985, asking several questions about Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I hope that the following discussion answers your questions. You first asked for a clarification of S4.1.3.1.2. That section provides that a manufacturer must equip a specific amount of its vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987, with automatic restraints. The amount must not be less than 10 percent of the average annual production of passenger cars manufactured for sale in the United States during the period September 1, 1983, to August 31, 1986 (the base period). You explained that your client did not produce any vehicles for the U.S. during one year of the base period (September 1, 1983 -September 1, 1984). For the other two years of the base period, your client produced a limited number of vehicles for sale in the U.S. You asked whether in calculating the average yearly production for the base period, it is correct for your client to use zero for the production for the production between September 1, 1983 and August 31, 1984, and the actual production figures for two subsequent years. The three year base period addresses a situation where a manufacturer has produced vehicles for sale in the U.S. in each of those years. The purpose of averaging the production is to ensure that the calculation of the percentage of a manufacturer's passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraint requirements is based on a production figure which is representative of the manufacturer's typical production. In the case of a manufacturer who has produced vehicles for two of those years, it would defeat the purpose of the rule to allow the manufacturer to lower artificially the number of vehicles which must comply with the automatic restraint requirement by counting its production as zero for one of the base years. Thus, in a situation where a manufacturer has only two years of production, the manufacturer should calculate its base period average based on the number of vehicles produced during those two years. To provide manufacturer's with additional flexibility is calculating the number of passenger cars which must be equipped with automatic restraints, NHTSA proposed, on April 12, 1985 (50 FR 14509), an amendment to Standard No. 208 which would give manufacturers the option of using either a three year average or the actual production for the model year in question. We expect to issue shortly a final rule on this subject. You also asked for another clarification of S4.1.3.1.2. You asked if the required number of vehicles can be produced anytime between september 1, 1986 and August 31, 1987. S4.1.3.1.2 does not require that the automatic restraints be installed at any specific time during that period. Thus, you are correct that the installation of automatic restraints does not have to be evenly distributed throughout that 12 month interval. I hope this information is of assistance to you. If your have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your request that we review the concerns expressed by one of your constituents, Mr. Joseph Loschiavo, about certain van seats. According to Mr. Loschiavo, the Monterey County Van Program for senior citizens uses vans with seats that are very low and close together, making it difficult for persons to get up out of the seats. He suggested that either the seats be raised about eight inches or that special seats be provided for persons who have problems with the present seats.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues motor vehicle safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, establishes requirements to minimize the possibility of seat failure during vehicle collisions. However, NHTSA does not have any standards concerning the height or spacing of van seats.

The Monterey County Van Program has several options in obtaining vans with appropriate seating. In purchasing new vans, the program may either select from among the variety of vans offered by the major vehicle manufacturers, or go to one of a number of companies that customize vans to purchasers' specifications. A number of companies also modify used vehicles.

We note that new vans, including vans which are modified prior to first sale, are required to be certified to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The specific certification requirements are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. If a used vehicle is modified by a business such as a garage, the business is not required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, if a business replaced a van's existing seats with higher seats, it would need to make sure that it was not rendering inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Jones Chief Counsel

TO: Mr. Joseph A. LaSala Office of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 10506 Washington, D.C. 20590

ENCLOSURES FROM:

Mr. Joseph Loschiavo

RE: Would you please review the attached and provide me with a written report addressing the concerns this constituent has expressed?

Thank you for your assistance.

I would appreciate your attention to the attached correspondence. Please direct your reply to the address below.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

LEON E. PANETTA Member of Congress

Please respond to:

380 Alvarado Street Monterey, California 93940 (408)649-3555

Attention: Ken Christopher; (408) 429-1976

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: 86-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Alan B. Wambold, Ph.D. -- Research Associate, Division of Legislative Services (Virginia)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Alan B. Wambold, Ph.D. Research Associate Division of Legislative Services Box 3-AG Richmond, Va. 23208

This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1985 to Jere Medlin of this agency with respect to whether the Commonwealth of Virginia is preempted under Federal law from prohibiting flashing headlamps on motor vehicles.

Section 1392(d) of Title 15 of the United States Code in essence prohibits a State from maintaining or enacting standards covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. Paragraph S4.5.11(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (formerly Paragraph S4.6(b)) states that "Headlamps...may be wired to flash for signaling purposes." S4.5.11(c) was not intended as a regulation of this aspect of vehicle performance, in the sense that it would preempt all State regulation of the sale or use of headlamp flashers. It is basically an exception to the requirement of paragraph S4.5.11(e) that all lamps (other than those specifically referenced in other subparagraphs of S4.5.11) be steady-burning when in use. The section, in other words, was included to make it clear that automatic headlamp flashers are not prohibited by the Federal standard. We have concluded therefore that State regulation of headlamp flashers is not preempted by the Federal standard.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 16, 1985 Mr. Jere Medlin Safety Standards Engineer US Department of Transportation 400 7th. St.,SW Room 5307 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Medlin:

I spoke with you on the telephone in early October of this year regarding Virginia law's prohibition on flashing headlamp; on motor vehicles -- particularly ambulances and rescue squad vehicles. At that time I believe you told me that the language of S S4.6 in 49 CFR S571.108 preempted the Commonwealth in the matter or flashing headlamps for emergency vehicles.

Since that time I have looked at that section, and have been able to find language in it that, to my satisfaction, makes this preemption clear. It is possible that I either understood you, or that I have made a mistake the citation.

One of the members of the Virginia General Assembly is considering the introduction of legislation during the upcoming session of the legislature to conform Virginia law to the federal regulation, and, you are more familiar with the Code of Regulations than I am, I was wondering whether you be so kind as to send me a copy of the relevant sections or sections. I am certain that many people would be glad to see the discrepancy between the federal regulations and the Virginia law eliminated.

Sincerely yours,

Alan B. Wambold, Ph.D Research Associate