ID: nht90-2.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MR. BRAD G. MAGOR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/01/90 FROM BRAD MAGOR TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; OCC 4766

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 1, 1990, to the Department of Transportation with respect to your intended purchase of a Canadian truck or van which you will eventually import into the United States. You asked for information on the features requi red to meet the U.S. safety standards, and whether Canadian vehicles generally have these items.

There is a great similarity, but not identicality, between the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS), and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Manufacturers in both countries are required to affix a label to their vehicles certi fying compliance with all applicable safety standards. We understand that some Canadian manufacturers may have certified compliance of their vehicles with both the CMVSS and the FMVSS. If dual certification has occurred, it will be evident from reading the certification label on the vehicle (usually located in the driver door post area). If the vehicle bears a certification of compliance that includes the FMVSS, you should encounter no problems in importing, registering, and selling it in the United States.

However, if the vehicle is certified only to the CMVSS, you will encounter some difficulty in importing it, notwithstanding the substantial similarity of the CMVSS and FMVSS. By direction of Congress, a vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the FMVSS may not be admitted into the U.S. unless two things have occurred. The vehicle must be on a list of vehicles that the Department has approved for conversion to the FMVSS. If this has occurred, then the vehicle can only be imported by a "regis tered importer" (i.e. converter), or one who has a contract with a registered importer to perform the conversion work. A bond equal to 150% of the entered value of the vehicle must be given to secure performance of the conversion work, which is cancelle d upon satisfactory evidence that the work has been performed.

The new directives of Congress were only effective on January 31, 1990, and we are still working to implement them. We have tentatively proposed an approved general list of vehicles that would include all Canadian trucks and vans manufactured since Janu ary 1, 1968, that were certified as meeting the CMVSS, and which are of the same make, model, and model year of any truck or van originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, or originally manufactured in the United States, and that were certified as meeting the FMVSS. For example, a 1990 Chevrolet truck manufactured in Canada to the CMVSS with a U.S. manufactured and certified counterpart would be covered by this general list. We have received no objections to treating C anadian vehicles in this fashion. A final determination should be published in the near future. We have also accorded registered importer status to a number of applicants. If you choose to buy a vehicle certified to the CMVSS for importation into the United States, we will be pleased to provide the latest list of registered importers as the time draws near for your departure.

The minor differences in the standards that may effect you are principally those regarding speedometer/odometers and lighting. The former must indicate miles and miles per hour (and may indicate kilometers and kilometers per hour). Vehicles must be equi pped with headlamps that meet the FMVSS and not those of the ECE. Thus, once a CMVSS-certified vehicle is imported, we do not anticipate that the conversion work should be lengthy or costly. Once the work has been satisfactorily performed and the conve rter's label attached, you should encounter no difficulties in registering the vehicle or in selling it.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht89-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WOLFRED FREEMAN -- FREEMAN & COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/22/89 FROM WOLFRED FREEMAN TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Freeman:

This is in reply to your letter to June 22, 1989, to the Administrator-Designate, General Curry, in which you "petition . . . for permission to produce a color coded (Green-Amber-Red) rear light device for all types of motor vehicles." You have designed "a workable auxiliary system that can be adopted to cars and trucks on the road."

We are treating your letter as a request for an interpretation of whether your device would be permissible for sale and use as an item of aftermarket equipment under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency. By aftermarket, we mean sale of the device for installation on cars and trucks in use, as contrasted with sales by dealers for installation on new cars. The principal regulation of this agency pertaining to motor vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard N o. 108. The only requirements it establishes for the aftermarket is for equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment specified by the standard (for example, headlamps and stop lamps). As your device is not a required item of mo tor vehicle lighting equipment, there is no Federal standard that applies to it.

However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act has a direct relationship to the acceptability of aftermarket equipment. The Act prohibits modifications by persons other than the owner of the vehicle if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment that is installed pursuant to a safety standard. Under Standard No. 108, this equipment includes stop lamps, turn signal lamps, hazard warning signals, turn signals, backup lamps, taillamps, and the license plate lamp. On large trucks, it also includes identification lamps and clearance lamps. If the potential effect of an auxiliary lighting device is to create confusion as to the intended message of any lighting device required by Standard No. 108, we regard the auxiliary light as h aving rendered the required lamp partially inoperative within the prohibition of the Act.

Thus, the question is whether your device has the potential to create confusion so that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor,

dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would be a violation of the Act. We do not conclude that the device has this potential. In your device, a steady-burning amber light would signal that the accelerator had been released (and that neither the acce lerator nor brake pedal were being applied). Amber is the recognized signal for caution. This signal will extinguish when either the accelerator (green signal) or brake pedal (red signal) is applied. Furthermore, it is steady burning whereas other rear lamps where amber is an optional color (turn signals and hazard warning signals) flash in operation. Therefore, it does not appear that your device would create confusion with required items of lighting equipment.

You must also consider whether the device would be acceptable under the laws of any State where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. However, we believe that in several Western States, there has been specific legislation that would permit your device.

We appreciate your interest in enhancing vehicle safety through improvement in rear lighting systems. We believe that improvements, such as the center highmounted stop lamp, should be introduced as standardized, mandatory lighting equipment on vehicles, rather than as optional aftermarket devices. Contrary to your understanding, our studies of a system similar to yours showed no discernible improvement in reaction time or accident avoidance over current systems.

Sincerely,

ID: nht68-4.8

DATE: 09/03/68

FROM: JOHN A. MCLAINE -- DEPT. OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIV. OF MOTOR VEHICLES, NEW JERSEY

TO: National Highway Safety Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: As requested, we are enclosing a copy of the letter we wrote to Mr. Paul L. Nine of the Chrysler Corporation after he sent us literature describing the Dodge "Super-Lite".

Since receiving our letter, Mr. Nine has told us that the "Super-Lite" does not conform to the SAE Standards.

SAE J582 states that the color of the light from a supplementary passing lamp must be white. The light from the "Super-Lite" is blue when the person looking at the light is in certain positions in front of the light. When a driver looks into his rear-view mirror and the vehicle behind is equipped with a "Super-Lite" the driver sees a blue light in his rear-view mirror.

New Jersey and many other States have regulations restricting the use of a blue light on the front of a motor vehicle to a motor vehicle operated by a volunteer fireman on his way to a fire, and for other emergency purposes.

SAE J582 also states that for greatest visibility, with reasonable limitations of glare to approaching drivers, the left edge of the stray light immediately to the left of the high intensity zone should be aimed at the vertical line through the lamp center, at 25 feet.

The "Super-Lite" does not meet this requirement because the left edge of the high intensity zone of the "Super-Lite" is aimed 5 1/4" to the left of the vertical line through the lamp center at 25 feet.

I suggested to Mr. Nine that if the color of the "Super-Lite" could be made to conform to the SAE Standard, perhaps we could aim the "Super-Lite" in New Jersey to conform to the SAE requirement. Mr. Nine said that this would not be satisfactory because it would destroy the purpose of "Super-Lite".

The Chrysler engineers also told me that they do not recommend that the "Super-Lite" be used on two-lane highways. I do not know how such a restriction could be enforced to insure maximum safety.

According to the literature, the "Super-Lite" was designed to bridge the gap between high and low beam lights. Our experience has shown that where traffic density permits the use of high beam lights there is no need for additional lighting and when traffic density requires the use of low beam lights there is no need for additional lighting because the tail lights and head lights of the vehicles ahead provide ample guidance.

In spite of the fact that "Super-Lite" does not meet the SAE Standards, Mr. Nine does not believe we can prohibit the use of this light in New Jersey because of Federal Law 89-563 which requires that no State shall have any safety standard applicable to the same item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard.

As you know, Federal Standard 108 requires headlamps, tail lamps, stop lamps, license plate lamps, parking lamps, back-up lamps, turn signal lamps, side marker lamps, and reflectors in accordance with SAE Standards and recommended practices.

Section S 3.1.2 of Standard 108 states that no additional lamp, reflective device and associated equipment shall be installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment. Mr. Nine believes the Federal Government allows the "Super-Lite under the above section.

We do not believe the Federal Government should permit the use of a driving light which does not meet the SAE Standards, especially since all other motor vehicle lighting equipment is required to meet the SAE Standards. We also believe that the NHSB should have tests made to make certain that the use of auxiliary lights does not impair the effectiveness of the required equipment, and does not increase the danger caused by glare and confusion with various types of emergency lighting equipment.

Your comments will be appreciated.

ID: nht92-6.37

DATE: May 26, 1992

FROM: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TO: Howard Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-93 from John Womack to Steven Henderson (A41; Std. 108).

TEXT: My name Steven Henderson. I am PhD student in the Department of Psychology a McGill University, where I am studying visual perception. My coinventor David Kernaghan and I have designed, built and filed a patent application for a horn-activated headlight/signallight flasher system that enables motorcyclists to temporarily make themselves more conspicuous to other drivers. I have enclosed the patent application for your information. The U.S. Patent Office has granted claims 1-3 and 7-9 in their first response. Claims 4-6 were contained in a more recently submitted continuation in part (CIP).

The horn flasher is used in the following manner. When a motorcyclist becomes aware that another vehicle is about to encroach on his or her path of travel, a push of the motorcycle's horn button causes the headlight and signal lights to flash 10 times per second. (Ten hz is the frequency to which the human eye is most sensitive.) The flickering light in the car driver's visual periphery will immediately cause him or her to flexively fixate the motorcycle's location. By being made aware of the motorcycle's presence, the car driver is prevented from causing an accident. Our hope is that this invention will help to avert some of the approximately three thousand fatalities suffered annually by motorcyclists in North America.

I have exchanged correspondence with Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, Chief Council, NHTSA, concerning the application of DOT Standard No. 108 to our device. I have found his recommendations to be invaluable to our efforts to modify the device to more closely comply with the standard. However, as the invention was not envisioned when the standard was initially written, our device appears not to be in compliance with S5.5.10(c) and (d), and S5.6 of the standard. In his letter of August 28, 1992, Mr. Rice recommends the following:

The agency shares your concern with improving the detectability of motorcycles and their riders ... You may petition the agency for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 in a manner that would allow your device. A petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change in the standard is necessary, and a brief description of the changes which should be made. This means that you should show how your device is expected to improve safety, or, at a minimum, not decrease the existing level of safety.

Accordingly, I am acting on Mr. Rice's suggestion, and have enclosed a petition requesting that the agency for rulemaking amend Sections S5.5.10 and S5.6 of Standard No. 108 in order to permit the use of our device. I have also enclosed the U.S patent application submitted for the device. (On the advice of Mr. Rice, the circuit has been modified so that if the horn button is pressed while signalling for a turn, the appropriate signal light flickers at 2 hz, as required by SAE J590, rather than emitting 2 hz bursts of 10 hz flicker,

as does the unmodified circuit. Please also note that the tail light is always steady-burning, as required by Section S5.5.10(d).

As I state in the enclosed petition, I feel very strongly that our device furthers the purpose of Standard No. 108 as stated in Section S2, as it will:

reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents ... by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood.

Furthermore, Section S5.5.10(b) illustrates an intent to allow a device similar to ours, by stating:

(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signalling purposes.

I therefore request that you grant careful consideration to our petition to amend DOT Standard No. 108 so as to allow the use of our device.

Thank You.

ID: NCC-200810-001-HMSL Hazard Lamp - Rostra

March 5, 2024

Mr. Peter Kallgren

Vice President, Sales & Marketing

Rostra Precision Controls, Inc.

2519 Dana Drive

Laurinburg, NC 28352

Dear Mr. Kallgren, 

This responds to your company’s request for interpretation regarding whether a replacement center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) intended to be installed on a truck cap is permitted to flash when a vehicle’s hazard lamps are activated. As we explain below, it is our view that it would not be permissible for the CHMSL to flash as a supplemental hazard warning lamp because our regulations require that a CHMSL be steady burning when activated. We respond to your question in more detail below. 

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and NHTSA does not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following represents NHTSA’s opinion regarding the applicability of FMVSS No. 108 requirements to your proposed CHMSL, based on the information you have provided. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 30122, a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or repair business generally may not knowingly “make inoperative” any part of a device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. You ask specifically about a CHMSL that would be a supplement to the existing one. This additional lamp is made necessary because, without one, a truck cap installed by your company would “make inoperative” the existing CHMSL by creating an obstruction or blockage. 

FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The standard contains a number of specific requirements for certain lamps, such as headlamps, turn signal lamps, and high-mounted stop lamps, among others. In order to not “make inoperative” the required CHMSL, the lamp you propose to mount on the truck cap to avoid the obstruction would need to meet all the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 that apply to the original CHMSL. A CHMSL, by definition under paragraph S4, is expected to be steady burning, and it is also expressly required to be steady burning by paragraph S6.1.5, Activation, which states in relevant part that “Each lamp must be activated as specified … in response to the inputs specified in Table I ….” Table I-A, in turn, requires high mounted stop lamps to be “steady burning” and to “be activated only upon application of the service brakes or [ ] be activated by a device designed to retard the motion of the vehicle.” 

You describe a situation in which a CHMSL mounted on a truck cap is wired into a vehicle’s signal lighting system in a manner that causes the CHMSL to flash with the turn signals when the vehicle’s hazard warning system is activated. Accordingly, you ask whether it is permissible for the CHMSL to be considered a supplemental hazard lamp that flashes when the vehicle’s hazard warning system is activated. 

Because FMVSS No. 108 requires a CHMSL to be steady burning, as explained above, a CHMSL that flashes would not comply and would fail to prevent the cap obstruction from rendering inoperative the CHMSL required by FMVSS No. 108. The fact that hazard warning lamps have been activated does not change the requirement that the CHMSL be steady burning, and FMVSS No. 108 does not permit a CHMSL to cease to function as a CHMSL and begin to function as a supplemental hazard warning lamp simply because the hazard warning system is activated. This is consistent with past NHTSA interpretations, where the agency stated that “causing the center high-mounted stop lamp to flash would not change the center lamp into a ‘hazard warning lamp’ within the meaning of Standard No. 108.”1 

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

Sincerely, 

John Donaldson 

Acting Chief Counsel

1 Letter to Randy I. McClanahan (April 2, 1996), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/11610ztv.

Dated: 3/5/24

Ref: Standard No. 108

ID: aiam2246

Dear Mr. Kirwan: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1976, requestin 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 woul 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 asterisk (*) 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, an 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 Passenge Cars.*; No. 120 - *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than(sic 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 vehicl 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 1 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 van used in transit?'<<<; No. The NHTSA has issued only the requirements found in the moto vehicle safety standards and regulations.; >>>(3) 'Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. thos 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 bubbletop on vans in transit service?'<<<; Yes. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials,* 49 CF 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 Highwa Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications?'<<<; Yes. Driver qualifications for transit vehicles are governed by Federa Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 CFR Part 391, *Qualifications of Drivers*.; >>>(6) 'Could you provide any further information which you feel woul contribute to the safe operation of our transit system?'<<<; At the present time the NHTSA has not issued any general guideline 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. Pleas contact us if we can (sic) of any further assistance.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5543

"Dear Ms. Thompson: We have received your letter of April 6, 1995, wit respect to an automotive deceleration signal. You have asked for information 'on how to have this product tested and approved as well as information on the legal ramifications and liabilities for the product.' The Department of Transportation neither tests nor 'approves' products. What it does do is to advise whether motor vehicle equipment is permitted under the statutes and regulations for whose administration it is responsible. In this instance, the appropriate regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. This standard specifies requirements for only certain items of lighting equipment but it also has an effect on lighting equipment that is not specified in the standard. That is to say, if an item of lighting equipment is not allowable for a manufacturer or dealer to install as original equipment (i.e., equipment on the vehicle at the time of its original sale), in most cases it won't be allowable in the aftermarket for manufacturer or dealer installation on used vehicles as well. As you describe it, the signal is provided by 'a strobe light with an independent power supply, which upon heavy breaking (sic), will activate a strobe for five seconds and on impact for ten minutes.' The prototype 'is approximately 4' by 3' and may be attached to a rear window.' Federal laws cover brake activation of your strobe signal. Standard No. 108 requires turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps to flash. Headlamps and side marker lamps may be flashed for signaling purposes. But all other lamps provided as original equipment must be steady- burning. We regard a strobe lamp as one that flashes. For this reason, the deceleration signal you describe could not be installed as original equipment. Further, its installation on a used vehicle would take the vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 108. Notwithstanding the discussion above, there is no Federal prohibition on the sale of the strobe signal device, and Federal law does not prevent the vehicle owner from installing it on a used vehicle (however, manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not do so), no matter what effect the strobe signal may have upon compliance with Standard No. 108. However, the States have the right to decide whether use of the strobe signal is permissible. We aren't able to provide you with information on State laws, and suggest that you seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22303. We can't advise you on your potential liabilities either, and suggest that you contact your attorney for an opinion on the applicability of local law. In addition, it is important to note that Standard No. 108 prohibits supplementary original lighting equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The proximity of your strobe device in the rear window to the center highmounted stop lamp required by Standard No. 108 raises the possibility of impairment, especially if the strobe is of a color other than red, or so bright as to mask the center stop lamp signal. I am sorry to be unable to offer you more encouragement at present, as we share your concern with the negative effects of fog and rain on drivers and vehicles. It is obvious that you have given much thought to this problem. Noting that you are testing a prototype, this agency would be interested in receiving any data you have or may develop showing a positive effect of the strobe signal upon the frequency and severity of rear end collisions. You may send this to Michael Perel, Office of Research and Development, NHTSA, Room 6206, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC 20590. It is conceivable that at some time in the future we would allow the center stop lamp to flash under conditions of rapid deceleration. This could open the way to permissibility of an additional lamp such as yours. I note that, to the extent that your device were only to activate upon impact and not during conditions of rapid deceleration, it would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108. Such a device would be permissible as a supplement to, or substitute for, a vehicle's hazard warning signal system. We do not know whether it would be permissible under State laws (see discussion above). If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht87-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard F. Anderson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard F. Anderson Regional Manager Phoenix Products Company, Inc. 4715 North 27th Street Milwaukee, WI 53209

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 1987, with respect to the acceptability of stroboscopic lighting as a supplement to the center high-mounted stop lamp. This lamp, or a series of lamps, would operate only under "panic" conditions, when the opera tor exerts higher than normal pedal pressure. You envision both OEM and aftermarket applications.

The acceptability of supplemental lighting equipment is determinable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as amended and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which i s issued under its authority. Standard No. 108 is primarily concerned with the lighting equipment that it mandates as original equipment for motor vehicles, and replacement equipment for those items. Supplemental stroboscopic lamps are not covered by the standard, but as original equipment is nevertheless subject to several restrictions. A lamp that is not covered by Standard No. 108 is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. (Paragraph S4.1.3. ) We offer no opinion whether a stroboscopic panic light would impair the effectiveness of a vehicle's stop lamp system. However, all passenger car lamps except turn signals and hazard warning signals (and headlamps and side marker lamps when used for si gnaling) must be steady-burning when in use. (S4.5.11) Since the strobe lamp is a pulsing one, it would therefore not be acceptable as original equipment.

Once a vehicle has been sold to its initial purchaser, the safety standards no longer apply. The only restriction that pertains to it is that any modification performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business must not ren der inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As your strobe design would not appear to interfere with the operation of the center high-mounted stop lamp, it does not ap pear to violate this restriction. However, aftermarket equipment of this nature would be subject to the laws of the individual States in which the device is sold and/or used. We are unable to advise you of State laws, and suggest you contact for further advice the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 20, 1987

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NHTSA Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is written subsequent to a telephone discussion this date with Atty. Taylor Vinson, of your office.

Our company is a manufacturer of lighting products, and at the present, is in a particularly aggressive mode in search of new products to serve both existing and new markets.

I have offered a new product suggestion which would apply to automotive crash avoidance: the suggestion provides for one or more (I visualize three) stroboscopic lights that could be placed adjacent or surrounding the third brake light mounted at the rea r window ("Elizabeth Dole light").

The stroboscopic light (or lights) would not operate under normal braking conditions, but would operate only under "panic" conditions when the operator exerts higher than normal pedal pressure. Such pressure would activate a switch, which in turn, would fire the stroboscopic light(s), thereby providing an additional and attention-drawing warning.

Ms. Jones, my purpose in writing on this subject is that we would appreciate a determination that my suggestion would evolve into a product in conformance with any federal regulations that may exist relative to personal and commercial transportation.

If we learn from your office that the product is within legal limits, we would went to offer the product to both OEM and aftermarkets.

We will appreciate your guidance.

Sincerely,

Richard F. Anderson Regional Manager

ID: nht95-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Motorcycle Turn Signal Pilot Indicator Interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/3/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEFFREY D. SHETLER (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. is hereby requesting an interpretation from NHTSA regarding the applicability to motorcycles of the Turn Signal Pilot Indicator Lamp requirements within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84.

When reviewing Table III of FMVSS 108 (Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment) and its applicability to motorcycle turn signal lamps, we are referred to SAE J588, November 1984. SAE J588 not only specifies turn signal lamp requirements but also speci fies other related requirements such as the need for a turn signal pilot indicator lamp, if the turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver.

Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84 indicates the illuminated turn signal pilot indicator lamp, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow colored light.

All Kawasaki motorcycles designed for use on public roads and sold in the United States are equipped with turn signal lamps meeting the requirements of FMVSS 108. In addition, all Kawasaki motorcycles having turn signal lamps are equipped with an illumi nated pilot indicator lamp (yellow colored).

Table III within FMVSS 123; Motorcycle Controls and Displays, specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification. However, FMVSS 123 does not specify color requirements for the turn signal pilot indicator lamp.

In future model years, Kawasaki would like to change the current yellow colored light that illuminates our motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps to a green colored light. However, when reviewing SAE J588 NOV84 and FMVSS 123, we cannot determine w ith confidence if it would be allowed.

When reviewing the language within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84, it seems evident this section was written with passenger cars in mind and not motorcycles. "5.4.3.3 - If the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for exam ple on the front fenders, they should emit a yellow colored light and have a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 mm." It is our belief the color and area requirements are specified within this section to insure visibility by the driver because the l ocation of the indicator lamp would be a greater distance away from the drivers eye than a indicator lamp located inside the vehicle on the dash panel.

FMVSS 123 does not need to address distance from the drivers eye, color, or size of the turn signal pilot indicator lamp because the location of the indicator lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the drivers eye.

Motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps are, in most cases, located within the main instrument panel of the motorcycle with other instrumentation such as speedometer, tachometer, oil pressure gage or warning light, fuel level gage, and transmission neutral indicator. The main instrument panel on motorcycles is usually located between the handlebars and the headlamp. In some cases, motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps are located away from the main instrument panel on the fuel tank, or wit hin a separate panel between the motorcycles fuel tank and handlebars. When considering these locations and their distance from the drivers eye, we believe any pilot lamp light color would be acceptable.

When reviewing current FMVSS requirements (FMVSS 108 / FMVSS 123), we believe we are not limited to using only a yellow color for the lamp of our turn signal pilot indicators because FMVSS 123 does not specify color requirements for turn signal indicator lamps. However, as indicated above, we are not entirely confident our interpretation of the requirements is correct because of the yellow color requirement specified within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84. Therefore, we are requesting your assistance in resolving this matter.

Thank you in advance for your timely response to our request.

If further information is required, I can be reached at (714) 770-0400 ext 2456.

ID: 8978

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, Va. 223l4

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

We are replying to your letter of August 9, 1993, with respect to your views on the enforceability of a section of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code.

This issue apparently arose in correspondence between you and the Michigan Department of State Police in May 1989. Under Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code, a "semitrailer" whose overall length is more than 50 feet is required to be equipped with "two clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable." In your letter of May 12, 1989, to the State Police you stated your assumption that the "two clearance lamps" are the "intermediate side marker lamps" specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and, if Michigan is requiring two additional intermediate side marker lamps "then it would appear that your requirement is invalid as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ." In support of your views, you provided Michigan with copies of relevant NHTSA interpretations.

Michigan replied on May 16, 1989, that NHTSA had not notified it that "the requirement of an additional 'clearance lamp' as near as to the top of the semitrailer as practicable is preempted by section 103(d)", and that "the lamp is not a marker lamp as mentioned in 1.7 of the DOT interpretations." You indicate that this is a reference to our letter of December 10, 1974, to the California Highway Patrol. You ask for our concurrence in your conclusion that Michigan is preempted from enforcing its requirements.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting is 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective devices, and Associated Equipment. Table II of Standard No. 108 applies, in pertinent part, to trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and requires them to be equipped with front and rear side marker lamps as far to

the front and to the rear as practicable, and with "intermediate side marker lamps", amber in color, "located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps." All side marker lamps are to be mounted not less than 15 inches above the road surface. However, paragraph S5.1.1.3 states that intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State "shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle . . . which is not identical to the Federal standard" (emphasis added). In our opinion, the "aspect of performance" covered by Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code is the side conspicuity of extra long trailers, the same "aspect of performance" that is addressed by the requirements of Table II that I have discussed in the preceding paragraph.

Because Standard No. 108 requires trailers more than 50 feet in length to be equipped with intermediate side lamps located not less than l5 inches above the pavement, any State requirement that such trailers be equipped with a supplementary set of lamps on the same approximate vertical plane but as near the top of the trailer as practicable is preempted by Table II of Standard No. 108. The fact that Michigan calls the lamp a "clearance" lamp rather than a "marker" lamp does not affect this conclusion (in fact, we regard all non-signal lamps other than headlamps as "marker" lamps, including the "clearance" lamps Table II requires on the front and rear of wide trailers). The purpose of the preemption clause is to relieve the burden on interstate commerce that would result from a manufacturer having to meet more than one set of safety requirements to address the same safety concern. It does not affect the right of a State to establish its own safety requirements in areas where there are no Federal ones.

The interpretation provided the California Highway Patrol is consistent with this one. There we advised that to the extent

that California law prohibited multiple marker lamps or prescribed different mounting requirements other than as permitted by Standard No. 108 those laws were preempted by section 103(d).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel /BODY>