ID: nht92-9.35

DATE: January 29, 1992

FROM: J. Yoshimoto -- Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TO: James G. White -- Surface Group, Transport Canada

TITLE: Subject: CMVSS 108 "Lighting Equipment"; Reference: Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 125, No. 26 dated December 18, 1991

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to James G. White (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your kind consideration which you have always extended to us through SAE meeting.

We have studied the amended CMVSS 108 "Lighting Equipment" by Canada Gazette Part II Vol. 125, No. 26 dated December 18, 1991. And we would ask for your kind interpretation about "O" Mark on vertical/horizontal aim indicator of integral headlamp aiming device, specified in paragraph 108(28)(b)(ii)(A) and 108(28)(c)(ii)(A).

108(28)(b)(ii) a scale that has (A) a "O" mark that represents the vertical aim of zero degrees, ----------. 108(28)(c)(ii) a scale that has (A) a "O" mark that (I) presents the horizontal aim of zero-degrees ----------.

For these descriptions, it is unclear for us whether a mark of figure "O" be literally required for indicating zero degrees on vertical/horizontal aim indicator, or not.

In FMVSS 108 (U.S.), vertical/horizontal aim indicator of integral headlamp aiming device is required to have a zero mark, which does not necessarily mean a mark of figure "O", but may be just a reference mark. (Please refer to the attached copy of FMVSS 108 S7.7.5.2(a)(1) and (2).

Size of indicator is so small, that there is no space to add a figure "O" on it. Moreover, from the viewpoint of harmonization to FMVSS 108, CMVSS 108 should not require a figure "O" on the indicator, we think.

We would greatly appreciate if you would give us your kind interpretation to the above matter.

Thanking you for your kind and prompt reply in anticipation, we remain, With best regards.

ID: 77-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/77

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

TO: State of New Jersey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1977, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for our comments on the flashing of ambulance headlamps for signaling purposes. You enclosed a copy of a Bulletin dated June 27, 1977, that New Jersey recently sent to its Inspection Stations advising rejection of ambulances equipped with headlamp flashing devices.

Paragraph S4.6(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires that lamps other than turn signals, hazard warning signals, and school bus warning signals be steady-burning in use, "except that means may be provided to [automatically] flash headlamps . . . for signaling purposes." The purpose of the exception was to allow continued use of automatic flashing devices in jurisdictions where it was permitted when the standard was adopted, for without the exception manufacture and sale of vehicles so equipped would have violated the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The exception provided by S4.6(b) has a preemptive effect only in that a State cannot forbid the sale and registration of a vehicle equipped with a flashing device, but there is no restriction on a State's authority to forbid the use of such mechanisms when it deems it in the interests of traffic safety to do so.

Thus, we have no objection to New Jersey's Bulletin of June 27, 1977.

SINCERELY,

State of New Jersey DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

June 28, 1977

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

Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter is written in connection with our recent phone conversation concerning the flashing of headlamps for signaling purposes as permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108.

As a matter of interest we are enclosing a copy of a Bulletin recently sent to our Inspection Stations concerning the flashing of headlamps for emergency warning purposes.

Your comments on this subject would be appreciated.

John A. McLaine, Chief Automotive Engineering Standards

VEHICLE INSPECTION BUREAU

STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

BUREAU OF VEHICLE INSPECTION ADMINISTRATIVE NOTIFICATION

DATE ISSUED: June 27, 1977

DATE EFFECTIVE: Immediately

DISTRIBUTION: Stations

STANDARD PROCEDURES:

OPERATIONS ORDER:

BULLETIN: Stations

SUBJECT: FLASHING OF MOTOR VEHICLE HEADLAMPS

ISSUED BY: Ass't. Chief

APPROVED BY: Chief, Auto. Eng. Stds.

We understand that some new ambulances are being sold in New Jersey equipped with a device which is activated when the ambulance is on an emergency trip and which causes the headlamps to flash continuously. An ambulance equipped with such a device should be rejected for the reasons given below.

New Jersey law prohibits flashing lamps on motor vehicles except as a means of indicating a left or right turn, or for hazard warning signals, or school bus warning lamps, or emergency warning lamps used on authorized emergency vehicles.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 states that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes. We also have to permit this but we do not think that Federal Standard 108 was intended to permit a new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be equipped with a device which will flash the headlamps for emergency warning purposes.

Motor vehicle headlamps are manufactured to produce the amount of light required to properly illuminate the road ahead. When headlamps are flashing for signaling purposes the flashing lasts for only a few seconds and does not greatly reduce the amount of illumination provided by the headlamps. However, when headlamps are flashing continously for emergency warning purposes the amount of illumination provided by the headlamps can be reduced below the amount of light required by the Standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers.

It is recognized that emergency warning lamps of some type are needed on ambulances and a permit to equip an ambulance with approved type flashing red emergency warning lamps can be obtained from the Enforcement Bureau in the Division of Motor Vehicles. An approved type flashing red emergency warning lamp is designed for continous flashing and is placed on our approval list after we receive a report from a recognized independent testing laboratory showing that the lamp meets Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J595b or SAE Recommended Practice J845. It should also be pointed out that an ambulance using a siren is required to display at least one red lamp visible at least 500 feet to the front of the vehicle.

In case of an accident involving an ambulance using flashing headlamps for emergency warning purposes there could be a legal problem because headlamps are not designed or approved for this purpose. In addition, when improper flashing lights are used there is confusion on the part of motorists who are required to react to these lights on the highways.

The Division's policy is to encourage uniformity in the use of recognized emergency vehicle warning lamps. Please explain this policy to any emergency vehicle operators who question our disapproval of the flashing headlamps.

ID: aiam4516

"Dear Mr. Snyder: This is in reply to your letter of March l0, l988, t the Department's regional office in Philadelphia, asking for a response concerning 'ornamental lighting.' In your opinion 'a few extra lights on the side and rear of a vehicle would help other people see you better while driving at night.' The agency is interested in the role that vehicle conspicuity plays in accidents and accident avoidance. With reference to motorcycles, we have amended our motor vehicle lighting standard to prescribe performance characteristics for headlamp modulation. We were prepared to amend the standard to require the activation of motorcycle headlamps when the ignition was turned on (but did not do so when we learned that almost all motorcycles were being wired to operate in that fashion). Some time ago we asked the public to comment on ways of increasing the conspicuity of large vehicles as our research had indicated that reflective tape applied to the side and rear of wide trucks and trailers might lessen crashes and crash severity, and our research still continues in this area. Most importantly we adopted the center highmounted stop lamp for passenger cars because of the ability it demonstrated in test fleets to reduce the frequency of rear end impacts. The type of lights of which you speak are referred to as 'presence' lamps (as contrasted with 'signal' lamps), and the agency over the years has acted with respect to all motor vehicles by requiring them to be equipped with side marker lamps, and by increasing the lens area for stop lamps. As the Federal safety standards are by statutory definition 'minimum' safety standards, the requirement that there be two taillamps, for example, does not mean that a manufacturer may not add two more if it wishes, or any lighting device not covered by the standard. The sole restriction is that lighting devices added by the manufacturer or dealer that are in excess of the minimum must not impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. This could happen, for example, if a fog lamp (not covered by the standard) was of an intensity and located so that it masked an adjacent front turn signal. With respect to nighttime operation, the critical issue would appear to be thatadditional lighting devices not create glare to oncoming and following drivers. The owner of the vehicle is not under a similar Federal restriction, and may personally add such additional lighting devices as seems desirable, subject to the laws of the States where the vehicle is registered and/or driven. However, the owner may not have these devices installed by a motor vehicle dealer or repair business if the result is to render wholly or partially inoperative any of the vehicle's original lamps or reflectors. We appreciate your suggestion for improving motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4669

Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of August 22, l990, t Erika Z. Jones, formerly the Chief Counsel, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 108. You state that section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv) of Standard No. 108 requires that the horizontal indicator of a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) shall be capable of re-calibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees, and you would like us to confirm our interpretation of the method and procedures of recalibration on the vehicle after repair from accident damage. You say that NHTSA 'interprets as follows: If the dimensional specifications of vehicle body and appropriate instruction are described in shop manual, re-calibration could be addressed.' (55 FR pages 4425 and 4426, February 8, l990). You stated that Koito did not believe that this method is practicable. We believe that you have misunderstood the Federal Register notice. The notice was the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv). Subsection (iv) states that the horizontal aim indicator of a VHAD 'shall be capable of recalibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees . . . to accommodate any adjustment necessary for recalibrating the indicator after vehicle repair from accident damage.' Ford Motor Company had commented that this requirement was unduly restrictive. It asked NHTSA to allow the option of a VHAD with only a vertical aim indicator if the headlamps as installed met a suggested horizontal aim specification of 0.0 +0.8/-0.4 degree. NHTSA, believing in the importance of horizontal aim capablility, found that a principal area of concern was that circumstances could occur during the life of the vehicle that could adversely affect maintenance of correct horizontal aim, and that without horizontal aim capability, it was unclear that the accuracy of horizontal aim could be assured after repair of accident damage. It was at that point that NHTSA observed: 'Manufacturers could address this concern by providing dimensional data for precise structural alignment of the vehicle in shop manuals and appropriate instructions for performing the necessary and potentially extensive parts replacement and vehicle reconstruction requisite for correct horizontal aim.' However, NHTSA went on to say that this concern was already met by subsection (iv) which requires the horizontal aim indicator to be capable of recalibration after crash damage or vehicle repair. NHTSA denied Ford's petition. Thus, it did not propose or adopt a requirement, as Ford wanted, that a manufacturer could provide instructions in place of a VHAD with a horizontal aim indicator. The existing requirement of subsection (iv) remained unchanged. Thus, it is the manufacturer's decision on how to provide for recalibration after crash damage and vehicle repair. Therefore, as long as a VHAD complies with subsection (iv), a manufacturer may provide whatever re-calibration instructions it deems appropriate. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: 12198.ztv

J. Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Admin. Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

This responds to your letter of July 3, 1996, to the Administrator asking for interpretations of 49 CFR Part 564 Replaceable Light Source Information. These questions pertain to the submissions by Philips Lighting to Docket No. 93-11 for D2R and D2S light sources. As you probably know, Part 564 was amended on May 7, 1996, with amendments effective June 6, 1996 (61 FR 20497).

Your first question is whether manufacturers of these light sources, other than Philips, "should be additionally submitted for the listing of Part 564 and ballasts to be used in combination with those discharge bulbs . . . ." As the agency recently commented (61 FR at 20498)

Any part 564 submittal for a light source requiring ballasts for operation must include information that specifically identifies all ballasts that will be used with the light source. Substitution of a ballast other than that identified with the light source in part 564 is not permitted."

This means that Philips must include with its submission a description of all ballasts that it will use with the D2R and D2S light sources. If a manufacturer other than Philips will manufacture these light sources using any of the ballasts identified by Philips, no submittals are required. However, if a manufacturer other than Philips intends to use the D2R and D2S light source with a ballast other than that listed by Philips, we regard this as a modification of a light source for which information has previously been filed, and the other manufacturer may submit an application in accordance with sec. 564.5(d).

You next ask who should be the applicant for the discharge bulbs and ballasts, the lamp manufacturer (original applicant), the manufacturer of the discharge bulb, or the ballast manufacturer. Under sec. 564.5(a), as amended, applications may be made by a "manufacturer of a motor vehicle, original equipment headlamp, or original equipment headlamp replaceable light source." This means that application can be made by the lamp manufacturer (original applicant), or the manufacturer of the discharge bulbs. If a ballast is required for operation of the discharge bulb, we regard the ballast as an integral part of the light source, but application may be made by a headlamp or bulb manufacturer, not by the ballast manufacturer.

Your next question refers to Appendix B of Part 564. You ask whether it is permissible to furnish only certain information with an application "because the rest of the information to be requested in Appendix B is the same as that of Philips." The answer is yes. Under sec. 564.5(d)(1), a manufacturer may request modification of a light source for which information has previously been filed in Docket No. 93-11 by submitting "[a]ll the information specified in Appendix A or Appendix B of this part that is relevant to the modification requested." This means that the regulation requires an applicant only to furnish information that differs from that already on file with respect to the light source for which modification is requested. For sake of clarity, NHTSA prefers that the submitter identify the specific drawing(s) or text on file in Docket No. 93-11 that is proposed to be changed, and list those desired changes in a tabular format or in text, e.g., item "x" is added to document "y", or is deleted or modified as indicated. If the changes are to the form where a new drawing is to substituted, the submission should be specific as to how the submission is being proposed, e.g., sheet "y" is added to or replaces sheet "x" in Docket No. 93-11, or sheet "y" is different from sheet "x" because [submitter to describe differences]. If the changes are to provide an optical configuration of the light source or a component of the light source, the submission must be clear on how that option is to be exercised and how it is to be identified as a version of the original form.

Your final question relates to the agency's language, quoted in the second paragraph, which prohibits substitution of a ballast other than that identified with the light source in Part 564. You ask whether this covers replacement equipment as well as original equipment. The answer is yes. Paragraph S5.8.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires replacement lighting equipment to be designed to conform to the standard for original lighting equipment. Paragraph S7.7 (as amended on Novermber 28, 1995, 60 FR 58522) requires that "[e]ach replaceable light source shall be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to part 564." A principal purpose of Part 564 is to ensure that replacement light sources provide performance that is equivalent to the original light source. This purpose cannot be ensured if a ballast has been substituted that differs from that originally supplied with the bulb, or if the ballast is not listed in Part 564.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202-3566-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:8/20/96

ID: nht88-3.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/10/88

FROM: JODY JOHNSON -- IOWA VEHICLE REGISTRATION MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION

TO: DANIEL F. WIECHMANN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/05/89 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO FRED GRANDY, REDBOOK A33 (3); STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/09/89 FROM FRED GRANDY -- CONGRESS TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 05/05/89 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO ROBER T A. DETERMAN, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH; LETTER DATED 09/23/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RUTH SKLUZACEEK, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO. WD488435; NO 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA; LETTER DATED 10/14/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO WD488435; NO. 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wiechmann:

Thank you for your letter inquiring on Iowa requirements pertaining to lighting requirements.

The department specifically does not approve head lamp covers. The reason for this is Iowa administrative rule chapter 450, 761 -- 450.1(321) adopts Federal Standards on equipment approval which implements Iowa Code section 321.424.

If the headlamp covers in question meet the Federal Standards they would qualify under Iowa law.

May I suggest contacting the following address to see if the headlamp covers in question comply with the Federal Standards.:

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Standards

NRM-10

400 7th Street SW

Washington, D.C.

Phone: 202-366-0842

Mr. Hitchcock should be able to supply you with the information needed.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: 20949.ztv

Mr. William T. Smith
110 Spear Street
Metuchen, NJ 08840-2126

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in reply to your letter of November 3, 1999, to the agency on daytime running lamps (DRLs). It was your impression that all 2000 model year passenger cars were required to have DRLs, and you ask if you may have them installed on your new Mercury without voiding the vehicle's warranty.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, requires motor vehicles to be manufactured in compliance with its specifications. Under Standard No. 108, DRLs are not a required lighting system, but the standard permits manufacturers to install a DRL system if they wish. If the manufacturer exercises this option, the DRL system must comply with the requirements specified in Standard No. 108.

Ford Motor Company, the manufacturer of your new car, chose not to equip it with a DRL system. This agency does not regulate or review vehicle warranties. It is possible that certain aspects of your vehicle warranty could be voided by altering the vehicle wiring were you to have a DRL system installed by a person not authorized by Ford. We recommend that you contact Ford's Zone Office for its opinion.

Your local mechanic is allowed to install a DRL system on your car under Federal law, provided that the mechanic does not make inoperative any element of design or device installed in accordance with one of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We interpret this to mean that an aftermarket DRL system is permissible as long as it does not interfere with the performance of other lighting equipment and conforms to the specifications of Standard No. 108 for an original equipment DRL system. Our greatest concern is that an aftermarket DRL system not exceed the maximum luminous intensity limits. For example, a lower beam headlamp may be wired to operate as a DRL at full voltage, but an upper beam headlamp may not.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/27/00

ID: aiam5381

"Dear Congressman Boehner: This responds to your letter of April 7 1994, to the Department of Transportation (DOT) on behalf of your constituents, John Cail Sr. and James Lipps of Eaton. Messrs. Cail and Lipps have requested your assistance in obtaining DOT 'approval and color code designation' for their 'Life Lites' system. This is a stop lamp system consisting of two 18-inch long 1/2-inch wide devices intended to be mounted on the front of a vehicle alongside the windshield pillars, to emit a light of either purple or coral. The system is activated with the rear stop lamps when the brakes are applied, and it is intended to warn observers to the front of a vehicle that the vehicle is braking. It 'could be mounted to most existing vehicles and could be readily incorporated into new car designs.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)is the component of DOT that is responsible for motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act does not authorize NHTSA to 'approve' or disapprove safety inventions such as Life Lites. We do advise, however, whether such inventions are permitted under the Act and applicable regulations such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The fact that a device may be permitted under NHTSA laws must not be interpreted as our approval or endorsement of it. The standard that applies to motor vehicle lighting is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Life Lites emitting either color may be installed as original equipment by the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the frontal lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 such as headlamps and turn signals. The materials you enclosed show a color closeup newspaper photo of a Life Lite in operation, its relatively low output does not appear sufficient to impair headlamp effectiveness. There would be concern, however, if it were to distract attention from an operating turn signal and, in this sense, impair its effectiveness. However, the responsibility for determining whether supplemental original lighting equipment impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment rests with the installer, and NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. Life Lites that are sold in the aftermarket and intended for vehicles in use, are prohibited by the Act if their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business 'knowingly renders inoperative, in whole or part' the required motor vehicle lighting equipment. Though the words are different between the Act and Standard No. 108, in this instance we would equate partial inoperability with impairment of effectiveness and the same considerations would apply. However, the Act does not prohibit vehicle owners under any circumstances from installing Life Lites themselves if they are able to do so. But the legality of Life Lites of either color and under any scenario remains subject to the laws of any State in which the device is operated. We are unable to advise your constituents of the laws of the individual States, and suggest that they write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5382

Dear Congressman Boehner:: This responds to your letter of April 7 1994, to the Department of Transportation (DOT) on behalf of your constituents, John Cail Sr. and James Lipps of Eaton. Messrs. Cail and Lipps have requested your assistance in obtaining DOT 'approval and color code designation' for their 'Life Lites' system. This is a stop lamp system consisting of two 18-inch long 1/2-inch wide devices intended to be mounted on the front of a vehicle alongside the windshield pillars, to emit a light of either purple or coral. The system is activated with the rear stop lamps when the brakes are applied, and it is intended to warn observers to the front of a vehicle that the vehicle is braking. It 'could be mounted to most existing vehicles and could be readily incorporated into new car designs.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)is the component of DOT that is responsible for motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act does not authorize NHTSA to 'approve' or disapprove safety inventions such as Life Lites. We do advise, however, whether such inventions are permitted under the Act and applicable regulations such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The fact that a device may be permitted under NHTSA laws must not be interpreted as our approval or endorsement of it. The standard that applies to motor vehicle lighting is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Life Lites emitting either color may be installed as original equipment by the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the frontal lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 such as headlamps and turn signals. The materials you enclosed show a color closeup newspaper photo of a Life Lite in operation, its relatively low output does not appear sufficient to impair headlamp effectiveness. There would be concern, however, if it were to distract attention from an operating turn signal and, in this sense, impair its effectiveness. However, the responsibility for determining whether supplemental original lighting equipment impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment rests with the installer, and NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. Life Lites that are sold in the aftermarket and intended for vehicles in use, are prohibited by the Act if their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business 'knowingly renders inoperative, in whole or part' the required motor vehicle lighting equipment. Though the words are different between the Act and Standard No. 108, in this instance we would equate partial inoperability with impairment of effectiveness and the same considerations would apply. However, the Act does not prohibit vehicle owners under any circumstances from installing Life Lites themselves if they are able to do so. But the legality of Life Lites of either color and under any scenario remains subject to the laws of any State in which the device is operated. We are unable to advise your constituents of the laws of the individual States, and suggest that they write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: nht76-2.37

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: J. WOMACK FOR F. A. BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Nims Sportsman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will confirm your telephone conversation of June 23, 1976, with Mr. Vinson of this office concerning the preemptive effect of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with respect to moped turn signals.

The Federal standards are issued pursuant to Title 15, United States Code, Section 1392(a). Judging that a multiplicity of State and Federal vehicle safety standards would constitute a burden on interstate commerce, Congress also enacted Section 1392(d), which prohibits a State from establishing or continuing in effect a vehicle safety standard that differs from a Federal safety standard covering the same aspect of vehicle performance. For example, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 contains requirements for motorcycle headlamp performance. Therefore, if a State has a standard on motorcycle headlamp performance it must be identical to the Federal one, and may not impose either greater or lesser requirements. On the other hand, there is no Federal standard for fog lamps, and a State may set whatever requirements it deems appropriate for fog lamps.

How does preemption apply to moped turn signals? Under the Federal standards, a moped is categorized as a "motorcycle" since it is "a motor vehicle . . . having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.3(b)). For some purposes a moped is considered a "motor-driven cycle" which is "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less." Standard No. 108 requires motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, to be equipped with turn signal lamps. However, in recognition of the limited ability of low-powered motorcycles, Standard No. 108 was amended effective October 14, 1974, to add paragraph S4.1.1.26 which states that "A motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less need not be equipped with turn signal lamps." Pursuant to Section 1392(d) this means that a State can validly require a moped to be equipped with turn signal lamps in only two instances: If the moped were manufactured between January 1, 1973 and October 14, 1974, or if it were manufactured on or after October 14, 1974, and has a top speed exceeding 30 mph.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.