Interpretation ID: nht95-1.24
TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA
DATE: January 12, 1995
FROM: Jeffrey Echt -- President, Saline Electronics, Inc.
TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA
TITLE: In Re: Saline Electronics
ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/2/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO JEFFREY ECHT (REDBOOK(4)); STD. 108 AND 30122 (6)
TEXT: Saline Electronics, Inc., has developed and applied for a United States patent on a new type of automotive stop lamp system. During normal braking, this new system permits the stop lamps, which are original equipment, to operate in a steady burning mode . However, during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration, the system flashes the stop lamps it controls on and off. The flashing stop lamps could be the original equipment stop lamps required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ( FMVSS) No. 108 (49CFR571.108), or one or more lamps in addition to those required by FMVSS No. 108.
The purpose of this letter is to obtain clarification of the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with respect to our new system. We realize that individual states may regulate such devices, causing non-Federal limitati ons upon its use.
Apparently, deceleration warning systems, such as ours, are not specifically mentioned in FMVSS No. 108. Yet, in an interpretative letter, dated July 30, 1993, to the Virginia Transportation Research Council, the NHTSA stated:
Virginia could permit the use of a red or amber original equipment deceleration warning system operating in a steady burning mode through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones.
In the same interpretative letter, you also indicated that "unless otherwise provided by Section 5.5.10 [of FMVSS 108], all original motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether or not required by Standard No. 108, must be steady burning in use."
These interpretations suggest room for experimentation by governmental agencies with our new system, and also the possibility of aftermarket products designed for installation by the individual motor vehicle owners. Hence, we seek your opinion on the fo llowing questions, based solely upon Federal law:
1. May states specifically permit (by statute or regulation) the use of deceleration warning systems which are neither original equipment nor replacements for original equipment? For example, may states specifically permit the use of an aftermarket dec eleration warning system which a) permits all original equipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 to operate in a normal steady burning mode, and b) flashes one aftermarket center-mounted stop lamp or two side-mounted stop lamps, on vehicles not requ ired to be so equipped?
2. In the absence of state regulation of flashing deceleration warning systems, is it lawful for individuals, states or municipalities to install such systems on their vehicles, provided they do not alter the steady burning operation of the original equ ipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108? For example, may mass transist districts operate busses with flashing deceleration warning lamps, if the systems are installed by their own mechanics and the steady burning operation of the original equipment stop lamps is not altered? May individuals install such equipment on their own vehicles?
3. May individuals, states or municipalities, who are not manufacturers, distributors or motor vehicle repairs businesses, lawfully install flashing deceleration warning systems which would prevent the original equipment stop lamps from steadily burning during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration? For example, may a mass transit district install a deceleration warning system which would flash some or all of the original equipment stop lamps during and after rapid deceleration due t o hard braking, if the system were installed by its own mechanics?
We know that the NHTSA receives many requests for interpretation and petitions for rule making with regard to vehicle lighting. We appreciate your consideration of our request and thank you for your prompt action. Saline Electronics, Inc., has no objec tion to this letter and your response becoming a part of the public record.