ID: 1985-01.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro, Meguro-Ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of January 18, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for three interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to motorcycle lighting.

Your first question is about the location of rear turn signals. Table IV of Standard No. 108 requires that rear turn signal lamps on motorcycles have a minimum horizontal separation distance "centerline to centerline" of 9 inches. You have asked whether this may be interpreted as filament center to filament center. The answer is no. The phrase means the distance from the geometric center of one lamp to the geometric center of the other.

Your second question concerns the permissibility of an arrangement of lamps on the rear of a motorcycle. There would be a two-compartment combination stop/tail lamp on the vehicle centerline with separate combination lamps below it on either side of the centerline. The distance between filament centers of the separate lamps would be a maximum 16 inches, and there would be the same distance between the filament centers of each separate lamp and the compartment above it belonging to the two-compartment lamp. You have asked whether this is permissible if the minimum design candlepower complies with requirements for three lighted sections in SAE J585e and SAE J586c, and the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or lamp is at least 3 1/2 square inches. This arrangement, though unusual, appears to be acceptable. SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps and SAE J585e Tail Lamp state that if multiple compartment or multiple lamps are used, and the distance between filament centers does not exceed 16 inches for three compartment or lamp arrangements, the combination of the compartments or lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections. Your design has four lighted sections, whereas the SAE Tables provide values for only three. In our opinion, your design would be acceptable provided that each of the four compartments meets the minimum value specified for test points in a section when there are three lighted sections.

Your final question concerns a combination stop/taillamp of four sections, two each on either side of the vertical centerline. Though no distance is given for the filament centers, they appear to be closer than 16 inches. You have asked if this design is permissible provided it meets the requirements for three lighted sections, and the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment is not less than 3 1/2 square inches. The answer is yes, this is acceptable provided that each of the four compartments meets the minimum value specified for test points in a section when there are three lighted sections.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 18, 1985

Att. : Mr. Taylor Vinson Lawyer

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re: Required Lighting Equipment for Motorcycle

Dear Mr. Vinson,

1) Location of Rear Turn Signal Lamps

1-. By Table III in FMVSS 108, it specifies, is applicable SAE Standard or recommended practice to follow SAE J588e, September 1970. 2-. by 4.2 in the above SAE Standard it reads "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." 3-. Whereas by Table IV in FMVSS 108, when rear turn signal for motorcycle, it specifies, "having minimum horizontal separation distance (centerline of lamps) of 9 inches."

Our interpretation of the above -3 is between filament center to filament center. Please confirm.

As a matter of information, please refer to 6.1 in SAE J131 83MAR, Motorcycle Turn Signal Lamp - SAE Standard.

2) Location of two (2) Multiple Lamp Arrangement including one (1) Multiple Compartment Lamp and minimum design candlepower requirements of Stop/Tail Lamp (rear combination lamp) .

1-. By Table III in FMVSS 108, it specifies as applicable Standards to follow SAE J585e September 1977 for Tail Lamp and SAE J586c August 1970 for Stop Lamp. Would an arrangement on the next page be allowed to use when minimum design candlepower requirements complies with 3 lighted section in the above SAE Standards and the effective projected luminous Stop lens area of each compartment or lamp meets at least 3 1/2 sq. inches?

"INSERT GRAPHICS"

3) Four (4) or more Multiple Compartment Lamp of Tail/Stop Lamp (rear combination lamp).

1-. Would the following lamp as long as minimum design candlepower requirements complies with 3 lighted section in the SAE Standards in the (2) on the page 1 and each effective projected luminous stop lens area of each compartment or lamp meets at least 3 1/2 sq. inches be allowed to use?

"INSERT GRAPHICS"

We would appreciate it very much having your reply as early as possible.

Sincerely,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

KW/es

ID: 21708.ztv

Ms. Carol Morton
Washington State Patrol
Equipment and Standards Review Unit
P.O. Box 42614
Olympia, WA 98504-2614

Dear Ms. Morton:

This is in reply to your fax of May 23, 2000, addressed to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked "Can Washington State legally license . . . off-road motorcycles for road use if they comply to our equipment requirements and are issued a 'state assigned vin'?" You report that Luke Loy of this agency sent you "information indicating that for our state to license off-road motor-cycles for road use appears to be a violation of 49 USC 30112."

Under the pertinent portion of 49 U.S.C. 30112, "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States," any motor vehicle unless it complies with, and is certified as complying with, all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Federal law does not address the licensing or operation of motor vehicles, which is left to the States. Under Section 30103(b), however, a State is expressly preempted from having a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a FMVSS unless the State standard is identical to the Federal requirement. We have interpreted this as preventing States from adopting or enforcing operational or licensing requirements that would preclude the operation of vehicles that comply with the FMVSS. Thus, for example, a State could not prohibit a motorcycle from being equipped with a modulating headlamp system in order to be licensed or operated because there is a FMVSS (Standard No. 108) that expressly allows such a system.

Federal law does not prohibit Washington from registering a motorcycle meeting such requirements as the State may have imposed for licensing either new or reconstructed motor vehicles, provided that the State's requirements applicable to an aspect of performance regulated by the FMVSS are not more stringent than those of the FMVSS.

The letter you enclosed from Baja Designs of San Diego states that the company manufactures and sells modification equipment to help vehicle owners bring their motorcycles "up to State Department of Transportation criteria." In the company's opinion, 49 U.S.C. 30112 "was not intended to stop the individual vehicle owner from modifying a vehicle to comply with specific State DOT requirements and re-titling the vehicle under a state's reconstructed vehicle titling process."

Baja's interpretation of Section 30112 is not on point. To be sure, Section 30112 was not intended to "stop" a vehicle owner from complying with State requirements. Its intent is to prohibit "a person" from failing to comply with Federal requirements that apply to the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles. The issue with which we are concerned under Section 30112, then, is the Federal requirements that may apply to the conversion of an off-road motorcycle to on-road use.

For purposes of this discussion, an "off-road motorcycle" is one that was not manufactured and certified as meeting the FMVSS that apply to motorcycles, because, under our interpretations, it was not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. The act of conversion for use on the public roads creates a motor vehicle to which new-vehicle FMVSS will become applicable at the time of the conversion. The FMVSS that apply to motorcycles are Standards Nos. 106 (brake hoses), 108 (lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment), 111 (rearview mirrors), 119 and 120 (tires and rims), 122 (brake systems), 123 (controls and displays), and 205 (glazing materials, if the motorcycle has a windshield). Therefore, the converted motorcycle must meet, and be certified to meet, all these FMVSS.

For purposes of compliance with DOT laws and regulations, we regard the converter as the manufacturer. However, under our interpretations on kit cars, a person who supplies all the equipment required to create a motor vehicle is also regarded as a "manufacturer." Baja has related that it supplies customers with "DOT approved lighting, DOT approved tires, mirrors, speedometers, custom wiring harnesses and other equipment to facilitate compliance with state and federal standards for street vehicles." From this list, we surmise that, at the least, Baja may be providing equipment that purports to bring off-road motorcycles into compliance with FMVSS Nos. 108, 111, 119, and 123. However, we cannot conclude on the basis of this correspondence that Baja is providing all equipment needed for on-road use, and specifically that required to comply with FMVSS Nos. 106, 120 and 122 . Therefore, it appears that the converter is the manufacturer and responsible under Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30112, for the compliance of the vehicle and its certification of compliance. We encourage all States to refuse to license vehicles for use on their roadways unless they are certified by their manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS.

Finally, we come to the question of whether the State may assign a VIN to a vehicle which we view as required to meet the FMVSS. One purpose of the Federal VIN, as expressed in section S565.1 of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, is "to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns." As noted above, the converter has become the manufacturer, and, as the manufacturer, it is also responsible for conducting recall campaigns. Where an individual has only modified his or her own motorcycle, we would not insist that the single converted vehicle be furnished with a VIN meeting Part 565, as compliance is not needed to achieve the purpose of the regulation. In this instance, a State may assign a VIN to the motorcycle. Our answer would differ, of course, if we had concluded that Baja is the manufacturer. In that event, Baja would have to furnish VINs that meet the requirements of Part 565.

One final point. In its letter, Baja uses the term "DOT approved." This term has no basis in either fact or law. We have no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment. If a "DOT" symbol appears on an item of equipment or its container, the "DOT" is the equipment manufacturer's certification that the equipment conforms to all applicable FMVSS. Such certification may be found as an indication of conformance with FMVSS Nos. 106, 108, 119, the rim requirements of 120, and 125. We do not know what Baja means by use of the term "DOT-approved mirrors," because FMVSS No. 111 does not apply directly to mirrors but specifies performance requirements that a motorcycle mirror system must meet when it is installed.

You have Taylor Vinson's e-mail address; please consult him if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/26/00

ID: nht68-2.33

DATE: 12/18/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Consumers Union

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your several letters and the one from Mr. Posin in which an interest was expressed in learning about action planned by the National Highway Safety Bureau on a number of items which you have brought to our attention.

Your letters included a request for information that four named imported passenger cars comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 203 and 204, and your letter of September 13, 1963, and invited comment on several cases of alleged violation of the Standards that had been published in Consumer Reports.

I am unable to comply with your request for information by model about conformance with specific standards. To do so might cause damage to the National Highway Safety Bureau's enforcement program. As Consumer Reports has noted on many occasione, the Burcau lacks the funds and facilition to test every model of every make of motor vehicle sold in the United States to determine whether all such vehicles comply with applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This deficiency has hampered both the speed and extensiveness of the compliance program.

Consequently, we have been compelled, in our present enforcement program, to subject some makes and models to compliance testing and to omit others from the tests. Furthermore, the Bureau's resources do not permit it to test each vehicles selected for compliance testing to determine whether it complies with every Standard. The viability of this program of "spot checking" depends on secrecy as to which makes and models have been selected for testing and the exact tests each will undergo. The intentive for all manufacturers to comply with every Standard might be compromised if the manufacturers knew which vehicles(Illegible Line) must(illegible line).

Therefore, we cannot comply with your request for disclosure of the results of the Bureau's tests of four imported cars for compliance with Standards 203 and 204. When our present testing cycle is completed, we may be able to release the information you seek, if you care to renew your request at that time.

There are several specific points in your September 13 letter on which I am able to comment. My views on each of those points are as follows:

1. According to our information, the Dodge Polara mentioned in your letter was manufactured prior to January 1, 1968, the effective date of Standard No. 107. If you have information to the contrary, please supply it to us.

2. We are now studying the problem raised by the fact that, on some models of passenger care, the rear seat belts do not cross the "H" point at an angle(Illegible Word) near 45 degrees from the horizontal. Inquiries to one manufacturer and a limited amount of testing have indicated that the belt does make an angle close to 45 degrees when it is tested dynamically. From a safety viewpoint, of course, the important thing is that the proper angle exists during dynamic performance. For this reason, we are planning additional research with a view towards modification of Standard No. 210.

3. There of your comments deal with seat belts which are allegedly too long for snug adjustment. Standard No. 209 requires seat bolt assemblies to comply with the standards for seat belts promulgated by the National Bureau of Standards (31 F.R. 11528). Section 9.3(g) of the MBS standards requires each Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly to be "capable of snug adjustment by the occupant..." It does not specify the anthropometric dimensions of the hypothetical occupant. The seat belt assembly in common use today cannot be manufactured so that it can be snugly adjusted to fit the entire range of human body types, from the small thin child to the large obese adult. We are, therefore, planning further research to enable us to specify(Illegible Word) adjustment range which will be practicable and at the same time will cover as many body sizes and types as possible. I will appreciate it if you will assist us by sending the Bureau(Illegible Words) the individuals on whom you tested the belts referred to in your letter.

4. Our investigation of both the Peugeot outside mirror and the outside mirror mount on the Datsun has indicated that both comply with Standard No. 111. If you have any data which show that the contrary is true, please send them to us so that, if warranted, we can reopen our investigatory file on each of these mirrors.

5. Since the Peugeot headlamp control is not mounted on the instrument panel, Standard No. 111 does not require that it be identified to permit recognition.

6. As you probably know, Toyota has initialed a defect motification campaign in reference to the throttle following publication of this item in the September 1968 issue of Consumer Reports.

7. Your letter also asks me to comment on a report that a dealer has refused to alter an original-equipment seat belt on the ground that to do so would subject him to a $1,000 fine. Although the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not provide for fines, it does permit the imposition of civil penaltics of up to $1,000 for viclation on certain of its provisions. There are cases in which a dealer might be subject to civil penalty if he altered a motor vehicle or item of equipment so that it did not conform to applicable Standards. Whether, and in what circumstances, a dealer would run the risk of having a civil penalty imposed on him is a complex legal question. I cannot answer this question on the basis of the information you have supplied.

The remaining matters mentioned in your September 13 letter are currently under investigation by the Bureau. Consequently, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them at this time.

The information which you supply to us and which you print in Consumer Reports is particularly valuable in that it suggests areas where we should consider concentrating our limited resources. Wherever there is an indication of a defect or violation of standards which is brought to our attention, such as the items you mention, we attempt to accomodate our testing and review planning to include consideration of these items.

I think it might be valuable for us if you would be able to find the time to visit here with some of our staff and talk with Mr. H. M. Jacklin and his staff in the Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service. I think it would be very valuable for them and perhaps out of this could come some ideas for areas in which information available to you and available to us can be made mutually beneficial.

Thank you for your efforts to date. My apologies for the long delay in responding.

ID: 21575.ztv

Mr. Randy Burns
Rt. 2, Box 267
Linden, TX 75563

Dear Mr. Burns:

We are replying to your e-mail of April 25, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You relate that you have bought a set of "clear tail lamps" for use on your truck, which "state that they are dot approved." The units "have the red reflector." You are "using red bulbs in the lamps to make the lights red." You ask whether the lenses are legal.

In our view, the manufacture and/or sale of clear lenses intended for use on stop lamps or taillamps violates Federal law because they are not identical to the original lenses they are intended to replace, and would not provide a proper lamp color. We further advise that, under certain circumstances, installation of clear lenses on the rear of a motor vehicle could also violate Federal law. And as we have advised before, whether it is legal to drive a vehicle with clear lenses installed is a question to be answered under the laws in effect where the vehicle is driven. We have enclosed materials indicating that lamps with clear lenses and red bulbs are not legal in Texas.

The Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment are established by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which applies to lighting equipment on new vehicles, and replacement equipment for that original lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.8, Replacement Equipment, of Standard No. 108 requires lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment to be designed to conform to Standard No. 108.

Under Table I and Table III of Standard No. 108 and appropriate SAE Standards incorporated by reference, the color of the light from taillamps and stop lamps must be red (If a manufacturer chooses red rather than amber for the rear turn signal lamp, the color from that lamp must be red as well. Rear clearance and identification lamps, and rear side marker lamps must also be red). The color red is defined by SAE Standard J578c, Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices, February 1977, which S5.1.5 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference. Although Standard No. 108 does not expressly state that the lens of a rear signal lamp must be red and the bulb white for the light to achieve the color red, we are unaware of any original equipment lamp required to emit the color red that consists of a clear lens and a red bulb and that is certified to comply with Standard No. 108. This is not simply a design choice; we know of no red bulb in production that conforms to Standard No. 108's color specification. The combination of a clear bulb and a red lens, therefore, is the only way to design a lamp that conforms to Standard No. 108's requirement that its light be red. This means that the manufacture of clear lenses or lamps intended to replace lenses or lamps on lamps whose original color was red is a violation of S5.8 of Standard No. 108, and the manufacture and sale of clear lenses or lamps for these purposes is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). This means that the use of the DOT symbol on the lamp's lens or its container will be regarded as a violation of the certification provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30115. We shall maintain this position until we determine that a bulb conforming to the color red is in production, and specifically intended for use in lamps that will be certified as complying with Standard No. 108.

We contrast this with clear replacement lenses and lamps for turn signal and parking lamps (and front side marker lamps, as well as front clearance and identification lamps on wider vehicles). The light from these lamps must be amber (also when amber is chosen over red for the rear turn signals). The amber light from these lamps furnished as original equipment is produced by either a white bulb and amber lens, or by an amber bulb and a white lens. The latter is permissible because amber bulbs meeting J578's color specification for amber are available. Lamps incorporating white lenses and amber bulbs are being certified as conforming to Standard No. 108. Thus, a clear lens for these specific lamps is permissible as original equipment, provided that the lamp with an amber bulb produces light meeting J578's amber color specification. It follows that replacement lenses or lamps for original equipment lamps with amber bulbs may also be clear, and that it is not a violation of Federal law to manufacture and sell them, provided that they comply in every way with Standard No 108.

We also note that, if any replacement lens or the lens of a replacement headlamp is plastic, S5.1.2 requires it to conform to the specifications of SAE Recommended Practice J576, Plastic Materials for use in Optical Parts, Such as Lenses and Reflectors, of Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, JUL91. Since conformance is determined after a three-year outdoor exposure test, we have substantial doubts that any aftermarket clear plastic lens or lamp intended for replacement use on lamps required to produce red or amber light is manufactured from materials that have been tested in accordance with SAE J576 JUL91, as required for compliance with Standard No. 108.

You report that the clear lenses you bought incorporate a red reflector. One of our previous objections to clear replacement taillamp lenses was their lack of a red reflex reflector, present in many original equipment red taillamp lenses and which the vehicle manufacturer may have used to fulfill the requirement of Standard No. 108 that vehicles have red reflex reflectors on the rear, and if included in the original lamp, a red reflector on the side that fulfills the requirement for a red side reflex reflector.

You use the term "dot approved," but we have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" vehicle lighting equipment, and such language is improper. We believe you must mean that the lenses are marked with a DOT symbol, or that the package in which they were sold stated "DOT approved." The use of the DOT symbol is reserved for representing the manufacturer's own certification that the lens or lamp complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and not that we have approved the product. As noted above, we doubt whether manufacturers of these lenses have conducted the outdoor exposure test to which they may be certifying compliance by use of the DOT symbol. It is possible, also, that other tests for determining compliance have not been done as well.

At the beginning of my letter, I remarked that the installation of clear stop lamp and taillamp lenses could be a violation of Federal law under certain circumstances. Under 49 U.S.C. 30122, manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses are forbidden from making inoperative any equipment installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If one of these persons replaces the original red lens by a white lens, we will consider that a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 has occurred, even if that person installs a red bulb.

However, this prohibition does not apply to an individual vehicle owner.

We enclose material that was published on June 8, 2000, on its internet website by the Texas Department of Public Safety which states that "clear tail lamp lenses utilizing red bulbs" are "in violation of Texas law."

If you have any questions, you may again contact Taylor Vinson by e-mail.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.6/20/00

ID: nht68-3.2

DATE: 02/20/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H.M. Jacklin, Jr; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Company, Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 30, 1968 (your reference No. CSAI-25) requesting information to a number of questions related to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. I(Illegible Word) that we did not receive your October 5, 1968 letter and that the(Illegible Word) of work has delayed my answer to your most recent letter.

I am glad to send you the following information:

a.(Illegible Word) No. 112 - Headlight Concealment Devices.

1. It is stipulated in 3.4.5 that "each headlamp concealment device shall, within an ambient temperature range of -70 to +120 degrees F., be capable of being fully opened in not(Illegible Line) described in S.4.3." With regard to the temperature condition at the time of a test, if only the(Illegible Word) temperature satisfied the cold temperature conditions, is it all right to try no regard to other conditions, such as the sticking of frost, ice, etc.?

ANSWER: It is only necessary that the ambient temperature conditions (-20 to +120 degrees F.) be(Illegible Word) at the time of the test.

b.(Illegible Word) No. 114 - Thoft Protection.

1. With regard to the regulation in s.4.2 that "The prime cause for deactivating the csr's engine or other main source of motive power shall not activate the(Illegible Word) required by S4.11(b)," we have provided the ignition switch with four stages as shown in the batch below; our key-locking system is of the(Illegible Word) that the system does not activate(Illegible Line)(Illegible Line)

ANSWER: The system as you describe it appears to conform to(Illegible Line)(Illegible Line) with this requirement to the responsibility of the individual manufacturer.

2. With reference to the stipulation in S.4.1. "Each passenger car shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent ----.", we would like to know whether or not we must provide such a mechanism as the key can be removed only at the stage "Lock" and cannot at the stage "Off".

ANSWER: A locking system having such a position that the key may be removed without activating either the cars' steering lock or its self-mobility lock would not conform to the standard in its present form, since paragraph S4.1 of the standard requires each car to have a key locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent either steering or self-mobility of the car, or both.

c. MVSS No. 201 - Occupant Protection in Interior Impact 1. With regard to the interpretation of the stipulation in S.3.1 " , the deceleration of the head form shall not exceed 80 g for more than 3 milliseconds," when the deceleration wave -- shown in the chart below -- is obtained.

in case DELTA t[1] 3 milliseconds, we interpret that the standard is satisfied even when delta t[1] +="Sigma" t[2] t[3] t[i] milliseconds.

Is our interpretation correct? (Illustration omitted)

ANSWER: Your interpretation is correct. The standard permits more than one peak that exceed 80g which, cumulatively, may add to more than 3 milliseconds. No single peak may continuously exceed 80g for more than a 3 millisecond duration.

2. When the areas stipulated in S.3.1.1.(d) -- "Areas outboard of any point of tangency on the instrument panel of a 6.5 inch diameter head form tangent to an inboard of vertical longitudinal plane tangent to the inboard edge of the steering wheel," -- are illustrated, which of the following hatched portions in the figures below is in conformity to the stipulation? (Illustration omitted)

ANSWER: Figure (a) is correct for the inboard side. Present requirements do not apply to the area outboard of the steering wheel on the instrument panel.

d. MVSS No. 207 - Anchorage of Seats.

S.3.3 Folding and hinged seats. Except for folding auxiliary seats and seats with backs which are adjustable for occupant confort only.

1. Is it correct to interpret that the underlined part is referring to seats with backs reclining mechanism enabling to adjust the angle of the back?

ANSWER: Yes.

2. Or, should we interpret that the seats with reclinable backs come under the hinged seats?

ANSWER: No.

3. a. In the case of car with four doors, if the front seats are those with reclinable backs, these are presumed to be the ones corresponding to (1). Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

b. In the case of a car with two doors, we would like to interpret that only the reclinable seat backs with folding mechanism enabling the passenger on the rear seat to get in and out are in conformity to (2). Is our interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

S.3.3.1 The release control shall be readily accessible to the occupant of that seat and to the occupant of any seat immediately behind that seat.

1. The above stipulation is presumed to be laid down for the egress of the passengers on the rear seat. Therefore, when the reclining seats are installed in a four-door car, we would like to consider it unncessary to pay regard to the underlined part. Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

2. In the case of a two-door car, if the control which can be easily operated by passengers on the rear seat is installed only on one side (the right side), the passengers on the rear seat can operate the control by moving to the right side. Consequently, we consider it sufficient to install only on the right side the control which is easily accessible to the passengers on the rear seat. Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: In the case of a two-door car, for a split back or bucket seat arrangement, where both seat backs fold, a release control should be provided on the outboard side of each folding seat back. If the seat back is split and only one seat back folds, only one release control is required on the outboard side.

e. MVSS No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

1. We judge that the fastening strength of the seat belt anchorage will change, depending on the shape of the eye bolt attaching the seat belt to the seat belt anchorage point.

If an anchorage is tested by using our designed seat belt assembly and the strength of the anchorage can be assured, we understand that the anchorage fully conforms to the standard, and also understand that it is not necessary to guarantee the owners of Mazda vehicles if they attach a seat belt assembly other than the one designated by us. Is our interpretation correct?

We, of course, will specify in our Operation Manual that the seat belt assembly designated by our company must be used.

ANSWER: Under Paragraph S.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages are to be tested by using a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly as defined in FMVSS No. 209. If you follow this procedure, using a belt which complies to No. 209, and your anchorages meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, then you are in compliance with this standard.

I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of equipment or on vehicle designs. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the Standards.

ID: nht76-4.41

DATE: 03/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Thomas A. Kirwan III - Capco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1976, requesting information concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applicable to transit vehicles, specifically, Dodge vans that will be used in a rural transportation system.

The answers to your questions are as follows:

(1) "Which FMVSS apply to vans used in transit service?"

If your Dodge vans are designed to carry 10 persons or less they would qualify as "multipurpose passenger vehicles", as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3. As multipurpose passenger vehicles, the Dodge vans would be subject to the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards listed below. The standards marked with an asterick (*) are equipment standards and do not apply to the vehicles themselves. Rather, these standards set forth requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment for use in multipurpose passenger vehicles.

No. 101 - Control Location, Identification, and Illumination.

No. 102 - Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect.

No. 103 - Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems.

No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems.

*No. 106-74 - Brake Hoses.

No. 107 - Reflecting Surfaces.

No. 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors.

No. 112 - Headlamp Concealment Devices.

No. 113 - Hood Latch System.

*No. 116 - Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.

No. 118 - Power Operated Window Systems.

*No. 119 - New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

No. 120 - Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

No. 124 - Accelerator Control Systems.

*No. 125 - Warning Devices.

*No. 205 - Glazing Materials.

No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components.

No. 207 - Seating Systems.

No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection.

*No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies.

No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

No. 211 - Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hub Caps.

No. 213 - Child Seating Systems.

No. 219 - Windshield Zone Intrusion.

No. 301-75 - Fuel System Integrity.

No. 302 - Flammability of Interior Materials.

The manufacturer of the Dodge vans must affix a label to each vehicle certifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, as required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. This certification label should be affixed to the door or door post of each vehicle, and you should check to make certain that it is present.

Please note that if the Dodge vans are designed to carry more than 10 persons, they would be classified as "buses" under 49 CFR Part 567.3, and the list of applicable safety standards would differ.

(2) "Does NHTSA recommend a set of vehicle specifications for vans used in transit?"

No. The NHTSA has issued only the requirements found in the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

(3) "Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. those filled with hydraulic lift for wheelchairs and a raised roof)?"

No. Such vehicles must meet the same standards as other MPV's.

(4) "Are there any regulations which apply to fiberglass bubbletops on vans in transit service?"

Yes. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, 49 CFR 571.205, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Rigid plastic materials that are to be used as covers for openings in the roof of a vehicle must conform to the requirements specified in paragraph S5.1.2.1 of Standard No. 205.

(5) "Are there any regulations, perhaps within the Federal Highway Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications?"

Yes. Driver qualifications for transit vehicles are governed by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 CFR Part 391, Qualifications of Drivers.

(6) "Could you provide any further information which you feel would contribute to the safe operation of our transit system?"

At the present time the NHTSA has not issued any general guidelines concerning the organization or operation of transit systems. You may, however, wish to contact the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of this Department for information on this subject.

I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions. Please contact us if we can of any further assistance.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CAPCO

February 25, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

The Capital Area Planning Council is in the process of implementing a rural transportation system as part of the Federal Highway Administration's Rural Highway Public Transportation Demonstration Program (Section 147 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973). We are, therefore, interested in obtaining information concerning vehicle specifications and safety standards for transit vehicles.

Since our transit fleet will be entirely composed of Dodge vans rather than standard transit buses, we are uncertain as to which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply specifically to vans used in transit operations. Could you assist us by providing the answers to the following questions:

1) Which FMVSS apply to vans used in transit service?

2) Does NHTSA recommend a set of vehicle specifications for vans used in transit?

3) Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. those fitted with hydraulic lift for wheelchairs and a raised roof)? 4) Are there any regulations which apply to fiberglass bubbletops on vans in transit service?

5) Are there any regulations, perhaps within the Federal Highway Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications?

6) Could you provide any further information which you feel would contribute to the safe operation of our transit system.

Enclosed is a draft of our vehicle specifications. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions prior to March 10 so the necessary revisions may be made before our public hearings begin.

Yours very truly,

Thomas A. Kirwan III -- Transportation Planning Intern

Enclosure

Vehicle Specifications (Minimum Requirements)

1 ton - 125" wheelbase 350 cu. in. 8 cyl. engine 7400 lbs. GVW Min. Front Axle 3300 lbs., Rear Axle 5050 lbs. Automatic Transmission Power Disc Brakes Power Steering Heavy Duty Front/Rear Shock Absorbers Heavy Duty Front/Rear Springs Heavy Duty Alternator Heavy Duty Battery Heater (High Capacity) Air Conditioning (High Capacity) - 22,000 B.T.U. Slant Line or Vented Tinted Glass Windows Gauges - Oil Pressure and Ammeter Lighting Package (Door Actuated) Exterior Lighting to meet F.M.V.S.S. Insulation Package Undercoating Dual Electric Horn and Horn Bar Large Lo-Mount Side Mirrors Seat Belts for all Passengers Two Speed Electric Wipers and Window Washer Exhaust Emission Controls to meet F.M.V.S.S. and State Code High Capacity Fuel Tank Tires 8.00 x 16.5 (10 Ply Truck Type or Steel Radial) Front Stabilizer Bar Oil Filter - 1 Quart Freight, Handling, and Dealer Preparation

Modifications

Raised, Collapse Resistant Steel Roof Cap Restructured, penetration resistant sidewalls, and rear end sections Gas Tank Shield Drive Shaft Guards Passenger Door Entrance Heavy Duty Driver Door Control (manual) Entrance Door and Front Section Padding Passenger Grab Rails Two Leaf Side Door (Extended Doorway) Electric Hydraulic Lift, Expanded Metal Ramp, Semi-Automatic/Manual Override (minimum lift capacity 500 lbs.) Wheelchair Tie Downs (2 prs. mounted at 45 degrees) Rubber Non-Skid Flooring First Aid Kit 2 3/4 lbs. - 10 BC Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher Reflector Flare Kit

ID: nht69-2.51

DATE: 02/20/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H.M. Jacklin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Company, Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 30, 1968 (your reference No. GSAE-26) requesting information to a number of questions related to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I regret that we did not receive your October 5, 1968 letter and that the pressure of work has delayed my answer to your most recent letter.

I am glad to send you the following information:

a. MVSS No. 112 - Headlight Concealment Devices.

1. It is stipulated in S.4.6 that "each headlamp concealment device shall, within an ambient temperature range of -20 to +120 degrees F., be capable of being fully opened in not more than three seconds after actuation of the mechanism described in S.4.3." With regard to the temperature condition at the time of a test, if only the ambient temperature satisfies the cold temperature conditions, is it all right to pay no regard to other conditions, such as the sticking of frost, ice, etc.?

ANSWER: It is only necessary that the ambient temperature conditions (-20 to +120 degrees F.) be satisfied at the time of the test.

b. MVSS No. 114 - Theft Protection.

1. With regard to the stipulation in S.4.2 that "The prime means for deactivating the car's engine or other main source of motive power shall not activate the deterrent required by S.4.1.(b)," we have provided the ignition switch with four stages as shown in the sketch below: our key-locking system is of the mechanism that the system does not activate at the stage "Off", activates only at the stage, "Lock" and satisfies S.4.4. Does this mechanism conform to S.4.2.7

ANSWER: The system as you describe it appears to conform to S4.2; however, the Bureau does not issue approvals of any specific system, and the development of equipment to comply with this requirement is the responsibility of the individual manufacturer.

2. With reference to the stipulation in S.4.1. "Each passenger car shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent ----.", we would like to know whether or not we must provide such a mechanism as the key can be removed only at the stage "Lock" and cannot at the stage "Off".

ANSWER: A locking system having such a position that the key may be removed without activating either the cars' steering lock or its self-mobility lock would not conform to the standard in its present form, since paragraph S4.1 of the standard requires each car to have a key locking system that, whenever the key it removed, will prevent either steering or self-mobility of the car, or both.

c. MVSS No. 201 - Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

1. With regard to the interpretation of the stipulation in S.3.1 " , the deceleration of the head form shall not exceed 80 g for more than 3 milliseconds," when the deceleration wave -- shown in the chart below -- is obtained.

in case DELTA t[1] 3 milliseconds, we interpret that the standard is satisfied even when delta t[1] +="SIGMA" t[2] t[3] t;> 3 milliseconds.

Is our interpretation correct? (Illustration omitted)

ANSWER: Your interpretation is correct. The standard permits more than one peak that exceed 80g which, cumulatively, may add to more than 3 milliseconds. No single peak may continuously exceed 80g for more than a 3 millisecond duration.

2. When the areas stipulated in S.3.1.1.(d) -- "Areas outboard of any point of tangency on the instrument panel of a 6.5 inch diameter head form tangent to an inboard of vertical longitudinal plane tangent to the inboard edge of the steering wheel," -- are illustrated, which of the following hatched portions in the figures below is in conformity to the stipulation? (Illustration omitted)

ANSWER: Figure (a) is correct for the inboard side. Present requirements do not apply to the area outboard of the steering wheel on the instrument panel.

d. MVSS No. 207 - Anchorage of Seats.

S.3.3 Folding and hinged seats. Except for folding auxiliary seats and seats with backs which are adjustable for occupant comfort only.

1. Is it correct to interpret that the underlined part is referring to seats with backs of reclining mechanism enabling to adjust the angle of the back?

ANSWER: Yes.

2. Or, should we interpret that the seats with reclinable backs come under the hinged seats?

ANSWER: No.

3. a. In the case of car with four doors, if the front seats are those with reclinable backs, these are presumed to be the ones corresponding to (1). Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

b. In the case of a car with two doors, we would like to interpret that only the reclinable seat backs with folding mechanism enabling the passengers on the rear seat to get in and out are in conformity to (2). Is our interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

S.3.3.1 The release control shall be readily accessible to the occupant of that seat and to the occupant of any seat immediately behind that seat.

1. The above stipulation is presumed to be laid down for the egress of the passengers on the rear seat. Therefore, when the reclining seats are installed in a four-door car, we would like to consider it unnecessary to pay regard to the underlined part. Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

2. In the case of a two-door car, if the control which can be easily operated by passengers on the rear seat is installed only on one side (the right side), the passengers on the rear seat can operate the control by moving to the right side. Consequently, we consider it sufficient to install only on the right side the control which is easily accessible to the passengers on the rear seat. Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: In the case of a two-door car, for a split back or bucket seat arrangement, where both seat backs fold, a release control should be provided on the outboard side of each folding seat back. If the seat back is split and only one seat back folds, only one release control is required on the outboard side.

e. MVSS No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

1. We judge that the fastening strength of the seat belt anchorage will change, depending on the shape of the eye bolt attaching the seat belt to the seat belt anchorage point.

If an anchorage is tested by using our designed seat belt assembly and the strength of the anchorage can be assured, we understand that the anchorage fully conforms to the standard, and also understand that it is not necessary to guarantee the owners of Mazda vehicles if they attach a test bolt assembly other than the one designated by us. Is our interpretation correct?

We, of course, will specify in our Operation Manual that the seat belt assembly designated by our company must be used.

ANSWER: Under Paragraph S.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages are to be tested by using a Type 1 or Type 2 seat bolt assembly as defined in FMVSS No. 209. If you follow this procedure, using a belt which complies to No. 209, and your anchorages meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, then you are in compliance with this standard.

I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of equipment or on vehicle designs. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the Standards.

ID: nht71-5.43

DATE: 11/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Dr. J. G. Lundholm Jr.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 2, 1971, to Secretary Volpe, in reference to our occupant crash protection program.

I am enclosing a copy of the proposed amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203, Occupant Crash Protection, which would allow an ignition interlock system as an option to front seat passive systems from August 15, 1973, to August 15, 1975. I am also enclosing an explanatory press release.

In regard to your question number one, we require that the interlock system be acquentially linked to the seat switch, such that a person would have to fasten the belt, after being seated, each time he attempted to start the car.

With regard to your questions numbers two and three, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 gave us authority to set safety requirements for new motor vehicles. Under this authority, we cannot prevent an owner from tampering with or modifying his vehicle once purchased. Such authority would indeed require additional Congressional legislation. However, the Highway Safety Act of 1966 permits us to establish standard which serve as guides for individual state safety programs. It is possible for the states to(Illegible Words) such anti-tampering regulations. We will certainly be considering such actions once we determine the magnitude and effect of tampering in vehicles which have been produced to meet the Federal standards.

In regard to your question number four, I am not presently aware of any plans by insurance companies to require seat shoulder belt usage in order to be(Illegible Word) for collision coverage in case of an accident.

You are certainly correct in that the present shoulder belt designs often make it difficult to have a properly adjusted shoulder belt and still be able to have a reasonable degree of freedom of movement during normal vehicle operation. We are attacking this problem on two fronts. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination -- Passenger Cars, requires that most critical controls, such as the steering wheel, headlamp switch, etc., be within reach by a person restrained by a lap and shoulder belt system. The present version of this standard does not include the parking brake or its release mechanism. The second action, which we are taking, is to propose a requirement that shoulder belt systems in cars manufactured after August 15, 1973, shall be equipped with inertia reel retractors that allow freedom of movement except in a crash situation.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your intense interest in our motor vehicle safety programs. It is very helpful to our efforts to improve highway safety when concerned citizens, such as yourself, take the time to bring their comments and suggestions to our attention.

November 2, 1971

Honorable John A. Volpe Secretary, Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Automobile Safety/Air Bags

I have been waiting to write you until I had time to think a bit more about your recent decision to defer the requirement for installation of air bags in the front seat of cars from August 1973 to August 1975.

I have followed the development activities of the air bags and am aware of certain shortcomings such as their present inability to protect occupants from side collisions and "second collisions." It is my understanding that the noise problem (while very loud) was tolerable, especially preferable to death if the air bag saved the person's life. I also have no doubt that suitable sensors can be developed (if they are not already available) which do not trigger accidentally.

I must add that I feel DOT has been negligent in not pushing the development of the passive air bag system with greater effort so that your decision could not be partially based on the lack of development of the device. With over 50,000 human lives being lost each year, too much is at stake for such a situation to exist. As a former resident of Massachusetts, I remember (and I am sure you remember) the "Boston Strangler" which I believe accounted for some eight lost lives and caused considerable furor. The entire Boston community was alarmed. You seem to pay less attention to the loss of 50,000 lives by failing to provide a passive restraint system but instead provide what I believe is a seat/shoulder belt system that can easily be by-passed with some wiring jumpers.

Now for some constructive comments: I am aware that the new alternatives to the air bags are the seat/shoulder belts with a switch built in the seat so the car will not start unless the seat belt/shoulder strap is fastened. I believe that the seat/shoulder belt system is an excellent system (even better than air bags) if you can require that all persons use them at all times.

In order to understand better your new ruling, I would appreciate receiving answers to the following specific questions:

1. What means are being taken to prevent a person from merely by-passing (or shorting out) the seat switches which would simply negate your recent decision?

2. Are you now or do you plan to push for a federal law that prevents tampering (by-passing) the seat switch and which will make it mandatory that the front seat occupants wear these devices at all times while the car is in motion?

3. Does the federal government (DOT) have the perogative to issue an anti-tampering regulation, or does it require a federal law passed by Congress, or will it require each state to take separate action?

If this is a law or regulation that must be passed by each state, what measures are you encouraging the states to take in order to continue to receive certain federal highway funds?

4. Do you know of any plans by insurance companies to require occupants to wear seat/shoulder belts in order to be reimbursed for collision coverage in case of an accident?

Due to the very small acceptance by the public of seat/shoulder belts installed in cars since 1968, I believe that unless you take some very specific actions such as mentioned in items 1-4 above, the public will continue to refuse to employ the belt system and you likely will not make your agency goal of cutting automobile fatalities in half by 1980.

Now that you have taken the seat/shoulder belt route, I encourage you to see that the automobile manufacturers correct certain present obvious deficiencies in these systems which you should never have allowed to exist. The deficiencies are as follows:

In many cars (I regularly use rental cars) I cannot reach the emergency brake release after latching the shoulder belt, nor can I reach the open car door to close it. I quite often leave the car door open while I figure out the particular belt system and get it properly adjusted. I have a 1968 Delta 88 Oldsmobile in which neither of these deficiencies exist so it is certainly possible to design around this problem. I believe the inability to

reach the emergency brake release can be considered a safety hazard since one might find it necessary to perform a modulated stop if the dual braking system should suffer a catastrophic failure.

I would appreciate receiving detailed information on what specific actions you have taken to overcome the deficiencies listed above.

I also would appreciate receiving a copy of the latest regulations that spell out the requirements of the various seat/shoulder belt or passive restraint systems.

I will continue to support a strong and broad-based automobile/highway safety program. The tremendous loss of life, suffering, and monetary losses of car accidents are so large that anything short of a most serious effort on your part to correct this national problem would be totally unfair to all citizens.

Dr. J. G. Lundholm, Jr. 8106 Post Oak Road Rockville, Md. 20854

cc: The President The White House Washington, D.C.

The Honorable Charles Mathias United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable J. Glenn Beall, Jr. United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Gilbert Gude U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Mr. Ralph Nader Washington, D.C.

Mr. Judson B. Branch Chairman of the Board Allstate Insurance Companies Allstate Plaza Northbrook, Ill. 60062

Mr. Douglas W. Toms Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Consumers Reports P. O. Box 1111 Mt. Vernon, N.Y. 10550

ID: NCC-230420-001 571.108 Angelina Twardawa Auxiliary Side Lamps Interpretation signed

April 16, 2025

U.S.Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. Washington, DC 20590

Ms. Angelina Twardawa 4550 Gustine Ave
St. Louis, MO  63116
angelina@angiestrans.com 

Dear Ms. Twardawa: 

This responds to your letter, received December 5, 2022 in which you requested a letter of interpretation asking whether aftermarket auxiliary trifunctional side marker lights which illuminate red in the rear, amber in the side, and white in the front, and that attach to the rear of a 53-foot trailer on both sides are compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. Based on the information you provided in your letter, we have concluded that installing the device as described may conflict with FMVSS No. 108. However, an alternative color configuration should be permissible under that standard. 

Please note that our guidance below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your letter. 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 motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment 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 the device is a trifunctional light that attaches to the side of the rear guard of a 53-foot trailer on both sides with an open-ended connector. The lights have a red light designated at the rear, amber light designated at the side, and a white light designated at the front. You note that the piece that attaches to the trailer is rubber and flexible so it will not break, and that the device is stationary. You state the purpose of the device is to assist drivers with backing up, lane changes, and other maneuvers by providing increased visibility of the trailer at night. You ask whether the described design is permitted (both with regards to the device overall and the described lighting configuration), and if it is how far the devices can extend. 

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." Additionally, both original equipment and aftermarket lighting can run afoul of the "make inoperative" provision in 49 U.S.C. § 30122. 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. We note that whether there is an impairment is determined in the first instance by the manufacturer of the vehicle (or the entity installing the aftermarket lighting) when it is certified as compliant with FMVSS No. 108. 

Typically, the impairment determination is made on a case-by-case basis and looks at four main characteristics of the auxiliary lamp to analyze whether it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting. These are the brightness (photometric intensity), color, location, and activation pattern of the lamp.1 This list is not exhaustive and other considerations may be relevant to the analysis. NHTSA has long stated that highway traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly recognize the meaning the lamps convey and respond accordingly.2 Therefore, we have long interpreted the impairment provision to prohibit auxiliary lamps that are colors which are likely to cause confusion to other road users.3 Additionally, auxiliary lamps must be located such that they would not interfere or be confused with the lamps required by our standards. For example, we have stated that two auxiliary 

1 This letter is limited to the information provided in your request. Your request did not state the activation pattern or intensity of the device, which can be relevant to determining if a device causes impairment. For the purposes of this letter, we assume without finding that these aspects of your device do not cause impairment. The following information is provided for your reference regarding these elements. 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. Letter to Paul Schaye (Sept. 9, 2019), available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/571108-ama-schaye-front-color-changing-light. Regarding intensity, NHTSA interprets the impairment provision to prohibit auxiliary lamps that are so bright as to obscure or distract from a vehicle's required lamps. For example, NHTSA has in the past stated that supplemental lighting can impair the effectiveness of the required lighting if it is so intense that it glares other road users or masks required signal lamps. See Letter to Rusty Riggin, Aug. 2, 2002, available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/24179ztv, (explaining that a supplemental rear cornering lamp could violate the impairment provision if it was so intense that it "create[d] distracting glare"). Letter to Mark Wallach (Oct. 17, 2006) available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/wallach3.
2 Letter to Robert Clarke (July 28, 2005), available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/gID0255l3.
3 As an example, 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. Letter to Paul Schaye (Sept. 9, 2019), available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/571108-ama-schaye-front-color-changing-light See also, Letter to Kerry Legg (Oct. 19, 2006), available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/leggl.

lamps located next to the three-lamp trailer identification lamp cluster would detract from the purpose of the cluster.4    '

For lighting relevant to your inquiry, FMVSS No. 108 requires that trailers have two amber side marker lamps as far to the front as practicable and two red side marker lamps as far to the rear as practicable. Trailers 30 feet or longer must also have amber intermediate side marker lamps and reflex reflectors on each side located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps.5, 6 

Discussion 

We now turn to your inquiry. Your lamp is not required equipment, and you correctly observe that it is auxiliary or supplemental lighting.7 Therefore, we turn to the question of impairment and look to the characteristics discussed. The factors which appear most relevant to your inquiry are the location and color of the lamps, which we analyze together. Due to the color and location of the lamp as described in your letter, it is likely to impair the effectiveness of the side marker lamps required to be installed on trailers by FMVSS No. 108, and, if installed by you or another entity subject to the "make inoperative" prohibition as aftermarket equipment, could make inoperative lighting required by FMVSS No. 108.8 However, an alternative color scheme would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. 

Regarding side marker lamps, FMVSS No. 108 requires that intermediate side marker lamps be amber, and rear side marker lamps be red. Your design notes that your device will be mounted at the rear and that the side of the device will have amber lights. Therefore, in driving conditions
with poor visibility, such as at night or in heavy weather, your device may impair the effectiveness of the required intermediate side marker lamps by confusing nearby drivers about whether it indicates the rear or middle of the trailer, which could lead to unsafe driving decisions. 

4 Letter to Robert Clarke (July 28, 2005), available at htt;ps://www.nhtsa.gov/inter_pretations/gf00255l3.
5 We also note that S6.l.3.l of FMVSS No. 108 requires that each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment must be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle. The purpose,of this requirement is to ensure that lamps and reflectors do not sway in the wind on rigid hinges or flexible mud flaps when the vehicle is in motion. Letter from Frank Burndt to Dietmar K. Haenchen, (date unavailable), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/inter_pretations/aiam3320. S6.l.3.1 is organized in S6.1 ofFMVSS No. 108, which contains requirements applicable to required lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Although this provision does not explicitly apply to auxiliary lamps, an auxiliary device that is not securely mounted to a rigid part of the vehicle may impair the effectiveness ofrequired lighting because the motion of the light could distract drivers.  We have assumed for the purposes of this letter that your device is securely mounted to a rigid part of the vehicle and encourage you to ensure that this is the case.
6 49 CFR 571.108 Table 1-b. 49 CFR 393.11, which you referenced in communication with my staff, which requires commercial motor vehicles operated by motor carriers to be equipped with such lighting, contains similar specifications for color and placement of side marker lamps.
7 Your request describes your device as a "side marker lamp." Side marker lamps are a type of required equipment under FMVSS No. 108. Because your device is not required lighting, to avoid confusion this letter does not refer to your device as a side marker lamp.
8 Section 30122 applies to any "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business." We assume, for the purposes of this letter, that you are subject to this provision. 

Our opinion is based on the location and color of the lights as described in your letter. An alternative color scheme, with a red light facing the side in place of the amber light, is unlikely to have the same risk of impairing the effectiveness of the side marker lamps because it would
correspond to the color required for the required side marker lamps installed on each side as far to the rear as practicable, close to where you plan to install the device. We also encourage you to consider designs which mitigate any risk that a forward-facing white light could be perceived as a headlamp by other road users. 

Finally, you inquired about how far out the devices may extend from the trailer. NHTSA's regulations do not contain requirements specific to this question. Vehicle width is regulated by the Federal Highway Administration, who's regulation states that no State shall impose a width limitation of more or less than 102 inches (except Hawaii) for vehicles operating on the National Network.9 Five items are excluded regardless of how far they extend beyond the exterior of vehicles; rear view mirrors, turn signal lamps, handholds for cab entry/egress, splash and spray suppressant devices, and load induced tire bulge. Other excluded devices are: all non-property carrying devices or components at the front of a semitrailer or trailer, devices that do not extend more than 3 inches beyond each side or the rear of a vehicle, devices needed for loading or unloading that do not extend more than 24 inches beyond the rear of the vehicle, and aerodynamic devices that do not extend more than 5 feet beyond the rear of a vehicle, provided they have neither the strength, rigidity nor mass to damage a vehicle that strikes a trailer so equipped from the rear and provided also that they do not obscure tail lamps, turn signals, marker lamps, identification lamps, or any other required safety features, such as hazardous materials placards or conspicuity markings.10 

We also note that, because it is an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the requirements of the Safety Act, it must be designed free from defects regarding motor vehicle safety. Additionally, truck tractors and trailers operated commercially in interstate commerce are subject to the regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Finally, States may have laws applicable to certain motor vehicle lighting. We are unable to advise you on those laws, but you should ensure your system complies with any and all applicable State laws.

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

Sincerely,

Peter Simshauser Chief Counsel

Dated: 4/16/25
Ref:  Standard No. 108
 

9 23 CFR 658.15.
1°FHWA Vehicle Size and Weight Q&A, available at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/fags/qa.cfin?categ01y=8. For
more excluded devices, see 23 CFR 658.16 and Appendix D to 23 CFR 658.

ID: nht87-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable John P. Murtha

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable John P. Murtha Member of Congress Post Office Box Johnstown, PA 15907

Dear Mr. Murtha:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation's Office of Congressional Affairs, which has been referred to me for a response. In an addendum enclosed with your letter, you note that one of your constituents, Mr. Gene Bird, would like inf ormation on the Federal regulations addressing "completing the finishing work on automobiles." Apparently, another manufacturer would send small sports cars to Mr. Bird's business. Your addendum states that these sports cars "will need the following type of work done: installation of the engine, components, radiators, interiors, and the cars will finally have to be tested." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safet y Act also specifies that the manufacturer itself must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not "approve" any vehicle s or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.

Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all. The Safety Act only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manuf acturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the safety standards. We would certainly recommend that a new manufacturer test some of its vehicles for compliance with the applicable safety standards.

It is not entirely clear from your addendum whether Mr. Bird would be classified as an "alterer" or a "final stage manufacturer" under our regulations. His company would be considered an "alterer" of motor vehicles, if the second company referred to in y our addendum furnishes completed and certified sports cars to Mr. Bird's company, and Mr. Bird's company changes the engine and other components on those vehicles. If this is the contemplated action, Mr. Bird's company would be treated as an alterer unde r our regulations.

The certification requirements for alterers are set forth in 49 CFR S567.7 (copy enclosed). Generally speaking, that section requires a person who alters a vehicle before its first purchase to supplement the certification label affixed by the original ma nufacturer with its own certification label. The alterer's certification label must include all of the information set forth in Part 567, including a statement that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date t he vehicle was altered. In the case of sports cars, an alterer must certify that the altered car complies with all of the following:

49 CFR S571.101 Controls and Displays; 49 CFR S571.102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence; 49 CFR S571.103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems; 49 CFR S571.104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems; 49 CFR S571.105 Hydraulic Brake Systems; 49 CFR S571.106 Brake Hoses; 49 CFR S571.107 Reflecting Surfaces: 49 CFR S571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment; 49 CFR S571.110 Tire Selection and Rims; 49 CFR S571.111 Rearview Mirrors; 49 CFR S571.112 Headlamp Concealment Devices; 49 CFR S571.113 Hood Latch System; 49 CFR S571.114 Theft Protection; 49 CFR S571.115 Vehicle Identification Number; 49 CFR S571.116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids; 49 CFR S571.118 Power-operated Window Systems; 49 CFR S571.124 Accelerator Control Systems; 49 CFR S571.201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impacts; 49 CFR S571.202 Head Restraints; 49 CFR S571.203 Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Column; 49 CFR S571.204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement; 49 CFR S571.205 Glazing Materials; 49 CFR S571.206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 49 CFR S571.207 Seating Systems; 49 CFR S571.208 Occupant Crash Protection; 49 CFR S571.209 Seat Belt Assemblies; 49 CFR S571.210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; 49 CFR S571.211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps; 49 CFR S571.212 Windshield Mounting; 49 CFR S571.214 Side Door Strength; 49 CFR S571.216 Roof Crush Resistance; 49 CFR S571.219 Windshield Zone Intrusion; 49 CFR S571.301 Fuel System Integrity; and 49 CFR S571.302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

Alternatively, Mr. Bird's company may be treated as a "final stage manufacturer," as that term is defined at 49 CFR S568.4. A final stage manufacturer means a person who finishes the manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle. Thus, if the second company referred to in your addendum is planning to furnish Mr. Bird's company with sports cars that have no engine, radiator, and so forth, the vehicles provided to Mr. Bird's company would be considered "incomplete vehicles" and Mr. Bird's company woul d be considered a "final stage manufacturer."

If this is the case, Mr. Bird's certification responsibilities depend on the information he is provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle; i.e., the second company referred to in your addendum. Part 568 (copy enclosed) requires the manufactur er of the incomplete vehicle to furnish Mr. Bird's company with a document that states one of three things for the incomplete vehicle. These are:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle.

If Mr. Bird receives such a document and does not make any of the specified alterations, his company could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(c)(7). Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final stage manufacturer.

If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his situation will be very similar to that described above. That is, if his company follows the specific conditions, it could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(c)(7). Again, Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.

3. Conformity with some or all of the standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.

If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his company would be required to certify compliance with the standards identified in the document on its own. This type of document would put Mr. Bird's company in the same position as an alterer for the listed standards.

I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and the National highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations that may apply and explains how to get copies of our regulations. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please contact this office.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

JUNE 19 1987 The Honorable John P. Murtha Member, U.S. House of Representatives Post Office Box 180 Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15907

Dear Mr. Murtha:

Thank you for your letter concerning an inquiry from your constituent, Mr. Gene Bird.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely, Edward J. Babbitt Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

Mr. David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Affairs U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

The attached communication from my constituent is submitted for your earnest consideration.

Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward to me information on which I may base a proper reply.

Your early action and advice will be appreciated.

With every good wish,

Sincerely, JOHN P. MURTHA Member of Congress JPM/jm Enclosure

P.S. Please send reply to:

The Honorable John P. Murtha Member of Congress Post Office Box 780 Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15907

ATTN: Jean McAleer

Phone no. (814) 535-2642, FTS 723-9241 or 9370

Inquiry made by phone personal visit TIME: DATE: 6-05-87 Name Gene Bird Classic Motor Works Address 100 Station Street Town Johnstown, PA Zip 15905 Telephone number 814 288-6911 Social Security number Veterans Claim Number COMMENTS: (Please explain only)

Mr. Bird would appreciate the federal stipulations governing completing the finishing work on automobiles.

He said another company would like to do business with him. They will send small sports cars to his business which will need the following type of work done: installation of the engine, components, radiators, interiors, and the cars will finally have to be tested.