Interpretation ID: flaherty

Lt. Col. Steve Flaherty, Director
Bureau of Administrative and Support Services
Virginia State Police
P.O. Box 27472
Richmond, VA 23261-7472

Dear Col. Flaherty:

This is in reply to your recent e-mail regarding "undercover type warning lights." By this phrase, we understand you to mean the system under discussion in our letter of July 3, 2001, to Col. Massengill of the Virginia State Police (the "Massengill letter."). When activated, that system, would cause the taillamps and side marker lamps of otherwise conventional passenger cars to flash as strobe lights.

You have informed us that there is "pre-filed" legislation in the Virginia House of Delegates which would permit the use of undercover type warning lights "on fire fighting apparatus and fire department vehicles." You have further informed us that "these are all classified under state law as emergency vehicles and are entitled to use traditional type warning lights." Present Virginia law "specifically requires conformance to federal requirements." You understood the Massengill letter to restrict undercover type warning lights to law enforcement vehicles, and have asked whether state-regulated fire fighting/department vehicles be equipped with these lights and still conform to Standard No. 108.

The question is not really whether such vehicles equipped with the strobe light system would still conform to Standard No. 108; clearly they would not because they are causing lamps to flash that Standard No. 108 requires to be steady burning. The real question is whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would provide the same interpretation regarding the use of strobe lights on state-regulated fire fighting/department vehicles as it had in the Massengill letter for police vehicles. And our answer is yes.

As noted in that letter, our traditional position is that we defer to the judgment of States as to the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on its vehicles. We also noted that, under Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122), the State, as the owner of a vehicle,

may itself modify a vehicle after its purchase even if this modification results in a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. With these factors in mind, we believe that a law allowing use of the strobe system on state-regulated fire fighting/department vehicles is acceptable.

The emergency vehicles discussed in the Massengill letter were not of a traditional nature. They were unmarked Ford Crown Victoria sedans identical in exterior appearance to Crown Victorias sold to the public and which were intended for sale to the public at the end of their useful life with the State Patrol. For these reasons, we developed the rationale expressed in the Massengill letter under which we could justify deferring to the judgment of the State for the use of these vehicles. Perhaps this led you to conclude that we had advised that the use of strobe lights should be restricted to law enforcement vehicles.

We contrast the Crown Victorias with fire fighting apparatus, the former often intended for undercover use, the latter, never. Thus, we surmise that fire fighting apparatus would not use strobe lights for "undercover" purposes, but as an added warning when they are endeavoring to reach a fire or other emergency site through traffic as rapidly as possible. We see no reason to question the judgment of the State in allowing strobe lights on fire vehicles, if such legislation is enacted in Virginia.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref.108
d.5/2/03