Interpretation ID: nht78-4.24
DATE: 12/12/78
FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA
TO: James P. Bally, Esq.
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT:
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
DEC 12 1978 NOA-30
James P. Bally, Esq. Messrs. Brownfield, Kosydar, Bowen, Bally & Sturtz 140 East Town Street. Columbus, Ohio 43215
Dear Mr. Bally:
We understand that you are interested in an interpretation of the relationship of a rear lighting system, developed by your client Mr. Leno Bevilacqua, to Federal motor vehicle lighting requirements. As you described this device in your letter of September 29, 1978, to the Nevada Department of Highways:
"The device will project a green light for the vehicle which would be in a constant or accelerated speed, a yellow light for the vehicle in a decelerated moving state and a red light for the vehicle which would be stopping."
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, (49 CFR 571.108) neither requires nor expressly prohibits a lighting device of this nature as original equipment on motor vehicles. One section of the standard, however, S4.1.3, prohibits the installation of all original lighting equipment not mandated by the standard "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." While we make no judgment with respect to Mr. Bevilacqua's 18-inch long 1 1/2 inch high rectangular device, I think it important to note that the agency's research into rear green signal lights indicate that there may be disadvantages rather than advantages to such a lighting system. One major disadvantage is the problem of confusing the unfamiliar colored rear lamps in urban environments having multicolored lights.
Standard No. 108 does not cover this device as an aftermarket item, and it would therefore be subject to regulation by the individual States.
Sincerely,
Joseph J. Levin, Jr.
Chief Counsel
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION REGION IX TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER - SUITE 610 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
October 24, 1978
Mr. James P. Bally Brownfield, Kosydar, Bowen, Bally & Sturtz Attorneys at Law 140 East Town Street Columbus, Ohio 43215
Dear Mr. Bally:
Your letter of September 29, 1978 concerning an automobile safety signal system with reference to Saflect Signal Corporation and Mr. Leno Bevilacqua, was forwarded to this office. You requested an interpretation concerning conformance to Federal requirements.
We have forwarded the correspondence to our Washington, D.C. headquarters for reply.
Sincerely,
Joseph F. Zemaitis Motor Vehicle Programs Specialist
cc: Associate Administrator for Rulemaking NHTSA, Washington, D.C.
state agencies, therefore, our expression or interpretation is only an unofficial expression of our view in an attempt to be of some assistance to you.
Very truly yours,
William H. Raymond Deputy Attorney General Assistant Chief Counsel Department of Highways
WMR/l
cc: Joe Souza, Highway Engineer Darwin Garvin, FHWA, 1 with enclosure Brian Nelson, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, DMV, with enclosure
STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 12635 SOUTH STEWART STREET CARSON CITY 89712
ROBERT LIST MELVIN L. BEAUCHAMP ATTORNEY GENERAL October 10, 1978 DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL CHIEF COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Mr. James P. Bally Brownfield, Kosydar, Bowen, Bally & Sturtz Attorneys at Law 140 East Town Street Columbus, OH 43215
Dear Mr. Bally:
Your letter of September 29, 1978, to our Highway Engineer was referred to this office for reply. A copy of your letter is attached hereto.
We are also attaching a copy of Nevada's Motor Vehicle laws which relate to "lamps and other lighting equipment." While this Department is not directly involved with motor vehicles and vehicle equipment, it would seem the proposed safety signal system would be subject to regulation, specifically under the provisions of NRS 484.563.
We are sending a copy of your letter to the District Office of the Federal Highway Administration for possible comment. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Darwin Garvin who will, if he can be of assistance, reply to you directly or forward your request to the appropriate office.
In addition, we are sending a copy of your letter to Brian Nelson, Esq., Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Motor Vehicles, whose agency is responsible for enforcing the motor vehicle laws which contain the attached statutes. Since this is their area of expertise, they should be able to give you their interpretation of whether or not your proposed system would meet the legal requirements of our state.
If this office can be of further assistance, please feel free to request the same.
It is the policy of the Nevada Attorney General's Office to give statutory opinions only to state officials or