Interpretation ID: nht94-3.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President - Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to John Womack, letter dated 5/12/89 from Donald W. Vierimaa to Billy Mohr, and letter dated 5/16/89 from Billy Mohr to Donald W. Vierimaa

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning whether a section of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code is preempted by Federal law. I apologize for the delay in our response.

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 "tw o 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 th e "two clearance lamps" are the "intermediate side marker lamps" specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10*8, and, if Michigan is requiring two additional intermediate side marker lamps "then it would appear that your requirement is inval id 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 m entioned 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 requirem ents.

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 1O3 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 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 specifically addresses what lamps must be provided on trailers more than 50 feet in length for purposes of side conspicuity, any State requirement that such trailers be equipped with a supplementary set of lamps for purposes of s ide conspicuity is preempted by Federal law. The fact that Michigan calls the lamp a "clearance" lamp rather than a "marker" lamp does not affect this conclusion, since the relevant aspect of performance addressed by the lamps in question is side conspic uity. 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 Stand ard No. 108 those laws were preempted by section 103(d).