ID: Maxzone Interpretation EPLLA 571.108_(002) signed

October 4, 2024

VIA EMAIL

Ms. Penny Chiu 

Product Marketing Coordinator 

Maxzone Auto Parts Corp. 

mkt1363@maxzone.com

Dear Ms. Chiu, 

This responds to your email, dated July 7, 2023, seeking a legal interpretation regarding the proper calculation of the “effective projected luminous lens area” (EPLLA) under Federal Motor Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, and the inclusion of a “diffusion element,” as well as the “distinctive water wave pattern” on your product. You also submitted additional information via email to NHTSA staff, such as diagrams of your product and other supporting information, on June 28, 2023, and July 12, 2023, which was taken into consideration in developing this response. 

In responding to this request, NHTSA notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

Based on the information you have provided and for the reasons explained below, our answer is that the area you describe as the “diffusion element” and the area you describe as having a “distinctive water wave pattern” can be included in the calculation of the EPLLA of your lamp under FMVSS No. 108 only if those elements are not transparent and direct light toward the photometric test pattern. However, based on the information you have provided, we are unable to state whether such elements do or do not perform such a function. 

Background 

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture before the products can be offered for sale. In so doing, manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards, and they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA.1 This requirement does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard, in this case FMVSS No. 108. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard’s test conditions and other specifications. Manufacturers must also ensure their products are free of safety-related defects. This letter represents NHTSA’s opinion concerning how your product, as you describe it, would be analyzed under FMVSS No. 108. It is not an approval of your product. 

In your July 7, 2023, email, you ask whether the EPLLA of your lamp, as defined in FMVSS No. 108, should include the area you describe as the “diffusion element,” or only the area you describe as the “refractive element.”2 You note that what you describe as the “diffusion element” of your product includes scattering structures as well as a “distinctive water wave pattern,” which you state “serves the purpose of diffusing light” and which you believe contributes to spreading the light emitted from the lamp. Your June 28 email includes two diagrams of the product which you state show the product’s EPLLA3 and the impact of the scattering structures on the surface. Finally, your July 12 email includes an image identifying the elements of your lamp. We note that although your question is regarding your product, which is a turn signal lamp, you have not asked about the EPLLA requirements applicable to a specific type of motor vehicle lamp. Therefore, your question, and this response, may be applicable to multiple lamp types. 

FMVSS No. 108, S6.4.1 states that “[e]ach turn signal lamp, stop lamp, high-mounted stop lamp, and school bus signal lamp must meet the applicable effective projected luminous lens area requirement specified in Tables IV–a, IV–b, and IV–c.” Furthermore, the lens area certification and compliance option in S6.4.3(a) states that “[w]hen a vehicle is equipped with any lamp listed in Table V–b each such lamp must provide not less than 1250 sq mm of unobstructed effective projected luminous lens area in any direction throughout the pattern defined by the corner points specified in Table V–b for each such lamp.” Table V-b includes turn signal lamps, stop lamps, taillamps, and parking lamps. Turn signal lamps certified under the lens area option must provide unobstructed minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 1250 sq mm at a horizontal angle of 45° and a vertical angle of 15°. 

As defined in FMVSS No. 108, EPLLA “means the area of the orthogonal projection of the effective light-emitting surface of a lamp on a plane perpendicular to a defined direction relative to the axis of reference. Unless otherwise specified, the direction is coincident with the axis of reference.”

1 Letter to Helen A. Rychlewski, responding to letter received June 7, 1995, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/aiam5591.
2 Your submission also cites to the definition of “Diffusion Element” in Society of Automotive Engineers standard J2999. This definition is not incorporated into FMVSS No. 108.
3 The image submitted appears to indicate that your calculated EPLLA is 5648.159 sq mm.

FMVSS No. 108 also defines “effective light-emitting surface” as “that portion of a lamp that directs light to the photometric test pattern, and does not include transparent lenses, mounting hole bosses, reflex reflector area, beads or rims that may glow or produce small areas of increased intensity as a result of uncontrolled light from an area of ½° radius around a test point.” 

The definition of “effective light-emitting surface” was added to FMVSS No. 108 in a final rule published on August 11, 2004 (2004 final rule).4 This action amended the standard for turn signal lamps, stop lamps, taillamps, and parking lamps to increase compatibility with the requirements of the Economic Commission for Europe and to improve the visibility of these lamps. In the 2004 final rule, NHTSA responded to comments on the proposed amendments and definitions. In so doing, we noted that “transparent lenses cannot be included in the determination of the effective light-emitting surface.”5 Furthermore, we also stated the following:

“[T]here does not appear to be any substantive change in determining the effective projected luminous lens area. However, the proposed definition clearly stated that only the portion of the lamp that directs light to the photometric test pattern may be included in the determination of the effective light-emitting surface. … we believe that transparent lenses do not direct light to the photometric test pattern and may not be included in the calculation. However, portions of translucent lenses intended to deliberately scatter the beam pattern within the allowable photometry (e.g., frosted or stippled lenses), are permissible as part of the effective projected luminous lens area.”6 

This statement makes clear that EPLLA does include translucent structures that direct light to the photometric test pattern by diffusing or scattering light, even if such structures are on otherwise transparent lenses. 

Discussion 

We now turn to your questions regarding your product. We understand you to be asking two distinct but related questions. First, whether the area that you describe as the “diffusion element” may be included for EPLLA? Second, does the presence of what you describe as the “distinctive water wave pattern” allow an area to be included in the EPLLA? We take these questions in turn. 

Regarding the first question, the definition of effective light-emitting surface makes clear that the area of transparent lenses may not typically be included in the calculation of the effective light

4 69 FR 48805 (Aug. 11, 2004). See also Letter to Dennis Moore, Nov. 15, 2006, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/06-003601as.
5 69 FR 48805, 48811 (Aug. 11, 2004). This statement was consistent with a June 14, 2000, letter of interpretation in which we stated that the transparent lens covering a large lamp assembly was not the “outer lens surface” of a turn signal lamp that is part of that assembly for the purposes of calculating its visibility requirements. Letter to Shigeyoshi Aihara, June 14, 2000, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/20836ztv.
6 69 FR 48805, 48811 (Aug. 11, 2004).

emitting surface. As explained in the 2004 final rule, such elements do not direct light toward the photometric test pattern. 

However, as we have stated in the past, areas of otherwise transparent lenses that incorporate scattering structures, such as frosted or stippled lenses, as well as certain cuts such as prism or pillow cuts and other similar structures, are not “transparent” for purposes of determining the effective light-emitting surface. Rather, these areas are “translucent” and may be included in the calculation of EPLLA, so long as such elements direct the light to the photometric test pattern. Based on the submitted materials, it appears that the area of the “diffusion element” you describe on the lens on your product has such cuts. If these cuts direct light toward the photometric test pattern, then the area of these cuts may be counted as part of your product’s EPLLA. 

We now turn to your second question regarding the “distinctive water wave pattern.” Similarly, if the “distinctive water wave pattern” has the effect of scattering light and directing the light toward the photometric test pattern, then its area may be included in the calculation of the effective light-emitting surface (and therefore, EPLLA). We note, however, that we are unable to determine whether the wave pattern has such an effect based on the information you have provided. As previously stated, the manufacturer must certify the product as compliant with the applicable standards and must exercise reasonable care in making such a certification. 

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992. 

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel

Dated: 10/4/24
Ref: Standard No. 108

ID: aiam2395

Dear Mr. Weber: This is in reply to your letter of September 7, 1976, asking severa questions concerning paragraph S4.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I am sorry that we were unable to respond by September 29 as you requested. Your questions and our answers are as follows:; '1. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the word 'combined optically' as they appear in paragraph S4.4.1 of DOT 108?'; In pertinent part, S4.4.1 states that 'no clearance lamp may b combined optically with any taillamp.' The phrase 'combined optically' as used here means that the luminous area of a lens used for a taillamp may not be also used as the luminous area of a lens for a clearance lamp. In other words lamps are 'combined optically' when the same luminous area of a lens is lighted for more than a single function.; '2. Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a singl compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?'; The answer is no because the same luminous area of the lens would b lighted when both lamps are in use, and the lamps would be 'combined optically.'; '3. Does the DOT have no objection to a flashing red signal issuin from the side (at right angles to the fore-aft center line of the trailer) of the clearance lamp?'; Generally S4.6(b) requires most vehicle lamps to be steady burning i normal operation. If the right angle lamp serves as the rear side marker lamp, however, S4.6(b) allows it to be flashed for signaling.; '4. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the ter 'clearance lamp' as it is used in DOT 108?'; The term 'clearance lamps' is defined by SAE Standard J592e incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and are 'lamps which show to the front or rear of a vehicle. . . to indicate the overall width and height of the vehicle.'; '5. Does the 'clearance lamp' as the words are used in DOT 108 indicat a lamp intended to serve as its major function, a back up lamp in the event of failure of the tail light filament in the combination tail, turn and stop light bulb.'; There is no intent that a clearance lamp serve as a back-up lamp in th event of a taillamp filament failure though obviously both lamps perform a marking function.; '6. If DOT approves the combination of a clearance lamp and tail lam in the same compartment, would it also approve for a boat trailer, moving the tail light outboard to show the extreme width of an over 80 foot vehicle and eliminate the need for a clearance lamp under those circumstances.'; The question is moot since a combination clearance lamp-taillamp is no permitted.; I understand that you discussed the photometric test procedure fo optically combined lamps with Mr. Owen of this agency, by telephone on September 22, 1976. So that there may be no misunderstanding I would like to set forth the test procedure in this letter. If a single lamp bulb (or filament) is used in the combined lamp, the photometrics for all of the functions must be met simultaneously. If two or more lamp bulbs (or filaments) are used and each is to provide a separate function, only those which provide that function are to be energized during the photometric test. Therefore, in a multiple compartment side marker and clearance lamp (or a multiple compartment tail and clearance lamp that is not optically combined), the clearance lamp bulb is not energized during the photometric test for the other function, and vice versa.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4283

Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1986, with respect to new headlamp and aiming adaptor design. The lens of the headlamp will be titled 60 degrees from vertical. Although this is too extreme an angle for use of mechanical aimers for headlamps, you have developed an adaptor for use with the aimer whereby the new headlamp may be mechanically aimed. You have asked whether mechanical aim using the new adaptor is permissible.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does prescribe the type of aimers to be used with replaceable bulb headlamps, but not the adapters. As you have noted, the standard does require such headlamps to be capable of mechanical aim by incorporating on the lens face three pads which meet the requirements of the standard's Figure 4. You have informed us that your headlamp design complies with this requirement, and furthermore meets the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108.; However, there are some practical considerations that are important i you intend to market this headlamp. Although providing an aimer adaptor is not required by Standard 108, no adapters for your unique lamp have been provided to service facilities. The only adaptor which exist today are those designed to accommodate sealed beam headlamps, and replaceable bulb headlamps with lens angles up to 50 degree for smaller lamps and 40 degrees for large ones. Neither of these can accommodate the lamp you have proposed.; In summary, the standard does not appear to preclude use of your ne designs, and although not specifically required by the standard, an adaptor should be provided as original vehicle equipment since suitable adapters do not exist in the service community.; Subsequent to August 4, we received your request for confidentia treatment of the letter. We replied that it is our policy that substantive interpretations be made publicly available but informed you that we would be willing to delete all identifying references to you and your company. You replied that this was agreeable to you. However because this headlamp is the subject of SAE Technical paper 870064 *Development of MR (Multi- Reflector Headlamp)* and was discussed at SAE meetings in February 1987, Stanley has waived all considerations of confidentiality through its public disclosure of the matter. Consequently, this letter will be made publicly available.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4478

Dear Mr. Cunningham: This is in reply to your letter of September l4 l988, attaching two lamps, and asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to each. Specifically, you wish clarifications of SAE J588e, 'the definition...2.2 'Multiple Compartment Lamp' and the term used in 3.1 'Single Compartment Lamp''. SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, defines a multiple compartment lamp as 'a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts such as a housing or lens.' The term 'single compartment lamp' is not used in section 3.1, though the term 'single compartment photometric requirements' is used in referencing the values for one 'lighted section' given in Table 1 of J588e. For purposes of this discussion we shall define a 'single compartment lamp' as one that gives its indication by one lighted area. You have described your first lamp as 'a housing with back and four sides containing a two filament bulb with a single lens covering face of housing.' The lamp photometrically complies to the basic requirements of a Class A tail, stop and turn signal lamp. You have asked if this lamp is a single compartment lamp. The answer is yes, your model 3504 Exp. contains a single light source and has a single lighted area. Your second lamp is described as 'a housing with a back, two sides and one end, containing one; 57 bulb and one 1157 (2 filament) bulb. This housing is closed with two red lenses, on on the end and one on the face with an additional clear lens on bottom side. This lamp also complies to all standards of a class A tail, stop and turn lamp plus side marker clearance, license plate illuminator and class a reflex reflector side and rear'. You ask if this also is a single compartment lamp. The answer is yes. The term 'separately lighted area' in the definition of a multiple compartment lamp is understood to mean an area that is illuminated by a separate light source. In your model 3504 the turn signal light is provided by the; 1157 bulb alone, and not in tandem with the 57 bulb. I hope that this provides the clarification you seek. We ar returning your lamps under separate cover. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3033

Dear Mr. Latshaw: RE: The Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier by Ennova, Inc. This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1979, to John Womack o this office on behalf of your client Ennova, Inc. Ennova wishes to market a 'back rack carrier', and you have asked several questions with respect to its legality under Federal requirements. The photographs which you enclosed show that the carrier structure is attached to both the front and rear bumpers, and that loads may be carried on the top of the vehicle as well as on a shelf directly behind the vehicle's rear bumper.; Your questions and our answers are: '1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned moto vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is preempted?; 2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining t roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?'; An equipment carrier that attaches to a motor vehicle is an item o 'motor vehicle equipment' as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), and your client is a 'manufacturer' as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that cover this type of motor vehicle equipment, and, therefore, a State is not preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) (sic) from prescribing its own safety standards for it. If a safety related defect were discovered in the 'Back Rack', Ennova would be responsible for notification and remedy of it, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1411 *et seq*.; '3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumper or fenders which the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any Federal standards?; The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in semipermanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? Is (sic) so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?; 4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rac (T.M.) Carrier present a problem?; 5. The structural supports of the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier obscure th vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?; 8. If the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier as it appears in the photograph were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment.'; Your questions concern our jurisdiction over a vehicle before and afte its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. A dealer has the responsiblity (sic) to deliver to its owner a new vehicle in full compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of any 'additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment ... that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.' Paragraph S4.3.1 requires that 'no part of the vehicle shall prevent a parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, turn signal lamp, or backup lamp from meeting its photometric output at any applicable group of test points specified in Figures 1 and 3 [Standard No. 108], or prevent any other lamp from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable 'SAE Standard on Recommended Practice'. Therefore, a dealer could not deliver a new car with the Back Rack installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the car's lamps or reflectors or impairs photometric output. After sale, a dealer (or distributor or manufacturer, but not the vehicle owner) has a responsibility under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2) (A) of not 'knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element design installed on ... a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' In the context of Standard No. 108 we have equated a rendering inoperative with impaired effectiveness or impaired photometrics so that the same consideration would apply, a dealer could not install the Back Rack on a used vehicle if it affects compliance with Standard No. 108.; The installation of the Back Rack appears to present some complianc problems. Based upon an informal review and the photographs you submitted, the front part of the carrier may reduce headlamp candlepower output below the required minimum at several test points, as for example, at test points HV, H-3R and 3L and H 9R and 9L on the upper beam, and at test points 1 1/2 D-2R, 1/2 D-1 1/2 R on the low beam.; Looking at the turn signals which are required to have an 8.0 squar inch minimum projected luminous area, the carrier support design may mask them to the extent that the direction of the turn signal might not be clearly understood. The carrier support location may not allow these lamps to provide an unobstructed effective projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, of at least 2 square inches, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. This requirement must also be met by the taillamps. Further with respect to the taillamps, with the carrier in place, they may not be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left and/or right, as Standard No. 108 requries (sic).; The design location of the carrier supports may reduce the minimu effective projected luminous area of the stop lamps below the 8 square inch minimum of Standard No. 108.; As for backup lamps, the visibility requirements are complex, those o SAE Standard J593c as modified by S4.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108, but in essence the lamps must be 'readily visible' to use your phrase.; These interpretations are based upon the photographs you supplied, an are meant to be illustrative as there are many different lighting configurations on vehicles, and we do not know that the Back Rack would affect compliance in all instances.; '7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?'; Dimensional requirements of headlights conform to SAE J571d *Dimensional Specifications of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units*, June 1966, parking lights, SAE J 222, *Parking Lamps (Position Lamps)* December 1970, direction lights (turn signals) SAE J588e *Turn Signal Lamps (Rear Position Light)*, August 1970. Copies of the foregoing SAE Standards are attached. In addition, the minima and maxima of lens visibility requirements for parking lamps, turn signal lamps and taillamps are set forth in these SAE Standards. The minimum and maximum photometric requirements of headlights are set forth in SAE J 579a, August 1965 and J 579c, December 1974, as well as the design parameters of rectangular headlamp units SAE J 1132, *Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles* (copies also attached).; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4158

Dear Mr. Williams: This is in reply to your letter asking about regulations applicable t the 'new lights that are now being seen on the trunk lids, and the rear windows of new automobiles'.; The specific legal name for this light is 'center high-mounted sto lamp.' It was optional for use as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured between August 1, 1984 and September 1, 1985. It has been mandatory original equipment since them. The Federal regulation that requires it is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation. This standard specifies color, minimum illuminated lens area, mode of operation, etc. for original equipment, and for equipment intended to replace that original equipment. The standard does not cover center high-mounted stop lamps intended for use on cars that never had them, and a manufacturer of such aftermarket motor vehicle equipment is subject only to State laws on their design, installation, and use. We encourage aftermarket manufacturers to follow the Federal standard so that the full potential of the lamp may be realized. This means that the lamp should be steady- burning rather than pulsating, and that the lens not have logos, trademarks, or other markings on it to interrupt the transmission of light from the lamp. The standard does not specify the shape of the lamp but virtually all to date have been rectangular (photos of the 1984 Cadillac Allante show a circular one), and some have exceeded the minimum requirement of a lens area of at least 4 1/2 square inches.; Noting your interest as a prospective manufacturer of these devices, enclose a copy of Standard No. 108. Sections 4.1.1.41 (page 218), Section 4.3.1.8 (page 227) and Table III (page 256) provide the relevant requirements for center high-mounted stoplamps. Should you proceed to manufacture aftermarket lamps, you would be subject to the agency's notification and remedy procedures should a safety related defect occur in them. Otherwise, you would appear to be subject only to State laws.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3010

Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1979, to Bill Eason wit respect to headlamp lens marking. Mr. Eason is no longer associated with the Office of Rulemaking and we regret the delay in writing you.; You have asked for a confirmation of your interpretation that: >>>'The headlamp designed to conform to J579c shall be provided wit the lens marking specified in S4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 *even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the conventional maximum restriction of 37,500 cd*.'<<<; You are correct that S4.1.1.21 permits the new code marking fo headlamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J579c even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the maximum of 75,000 cds permissible under J579c or the previous maximum of 37,500 cd of J579a. But because the code could be misleading, we are considering proposing an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would delete the new code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed a certain value, such as 40,000 cd.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2897

Dear Mr. Eguchi: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1978, to Bill Eason o our Office of Rulemaking asking several questions about motor vehicle headlamps and the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 issued on July 27, 1978.; Your questions and our answers are: 1. Ichikoh headlamps are designed to comply with SAE Standard J579 with maximum candela not exceeding 37,500. Does the amendment allow Ichikoh to place 'DOT' and the new designation code on the lens of each headlight?; Ichikoh's practice reflects compliance with the option afforded b S4.1.1.33 until July 27, 1978. The deletion of candlepower permitted by J579c but does not require it. Thus, Ichikoh may continue its existing practice under the amendment. One purpose of the marking code, however, is to enable a consumer to replace original equipment headlamps with lamps of compatible photometric output. Currently, S4.1.1.21 as amended requires the lens of each Ichikoh headlamp designed to conform to J579c to be marked with the new code on and after July 1, 1979. Obviously such a marking will be misleading if, even though designed to conform to J579c, a headlamp's maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. Accordingly, we are reviewing this problem with the idea of proposing rulemaking that would delete the code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. We do not anticipate a change in the requirement of S4.1.1.21 that the lens of each J579c headlamp be marked with the 'DOT' symbol since Ichikoh headlamps comply with J579c, even if they do not take advantage of the now-permissible maximum.; 2. With reference to your quality control system, will the headlamp 'be allowed to exceed 37,500 cd without any modification of the light source (filament) and wattage?'; I am not quite sure what you mean. If you are asking whether Ichiko may relax quality control so that an occasional headlamp may exceed 37,500 cd, the answer is yes. Headlamps designed to J579c are not restricted to the maximum imposed by J579a.; 3. You ask our comments on possible mismatch of headlamps on the sam vehicle, i.e., one low intensity headlamp and one high intensity headlamp.; NHTSA is concerned about this possibility and, as indicated in reply t your first question, is considering rulemaking to delete the code requirement for low intensity J579c headlamps. Your second question, however, does raise the issue of identification of headlamps whose candela may exceed 37,500 but whose maxima are far less than 75,000. We shall also consider this issue and may issue a consumer bulletin advocating replacement of headlamps in pairs to help resolve this potential problem.; 4. You ask whether NHTSA intends to adopt the concept of ECE Regulatio No. 20 in the near future. This Regulation requires a mark on a headlamp lens indicating candlepower grade.; The NHTSA does not plan to adopt the requirements of Regulation No. 2 because this regulation is in essence an indicator of quality control.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3106

Dear Mr. Bachynsky: This is in reply to your letter of August 21, 1979, asking for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it may apply to a proposed new product of your company.; This product, as you have described it, is a bi- directional Emergenc Vehicle Warning Lamp, with one lens facing to the front of the vehicle, and one to the rear. Each lens contains a 5/8 inch wide bank of relfex (sic) reflector around its periphery. The lamp would be supplied in a variety of colors (red, blue yellow) and a similar device. Less the reflex reflector area, is currently in production.; You have asked whether the inclusion of the reflex reflector in th device, 'impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment' within the prohibition of S4.1.3. You have also asked whether the equipment and location tables of Standard No. 108 restrict the use of a red reflex reflector facing the front and yellow reflex reflector facing the rear.; The determination of whether installation of additional lightin devices impairs the effectiveness of required equipment may be made either by the vehicle manufacturer or by NHTSA. Since your company already markets an emergency vehicle warning lamp we shall assume for purposes of discussion that vehicle manufacturers have determined that the lamp as currently manufactured does not impair other lighting equipment. Nor does it appear to us that the addition of the limited reflex reflector area would contribute to a degradation of the effectivenss (sic) of required lighting equipment, although a definitive judgment could not be made until the lamps were actually installed on a vehicle. The tables do not apply to supplementary lighting equipment such as your emergency lamp though the agency believes there is less likelihood of confusion if the public associates amber lighting devices with the front part of a vehicle, and red ones with the rear.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 21575.ztv

Mr. Randy Burns
Rt. 2, Box 267
Linden, TX 75563

Dear Mr. Burns:

We are replying to your e-mail of April 25, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You relate that you have bought a set of "clear tail lamps" for use on your truck, which "state that they are dot approved." The units "have the red reflector." You are "using red bulbs in the lamps to make the lights red." You ask whether the lenses are legal.

In our view, the manufacture and/or sale of clear lenses intended for use on stop lamps or taillamps violates Federal law because they are not identical to the original lenses they are intended to replace, and would not provide a proper lamp color. We further advise that, under certain circumstances, installation of clear lenses on the rear of a motor vehicle could also violate Federal law. And as we have advised before, whether it is legal to drive a vehicle with clear lenses installed is a question to be answered under the laws in effect where the vehicle is driven. We have enclosed materials indicating that lamps with clear lenses and red bulbs are not legal in Texas.

The Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment are established by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which applies to lighting equipment on new vehicles, and replacement equipment for that original lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.8, Replacement Equipment, of Standard No. 108 requires lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment to be designed to conform to Standard No. 108.

Under Table I and Table III of Standard No. 108 and appropriate SAE Standards incorporated by reference, the color of the light from taillamps and stop lamps must be red (If a manufacturer chooses red rather than amber for the rear turn signal lamp, the color from that lamp must be red as well. Rear clearance and identification lamps, and rear side marker lamps must also be red). The color red is defined by SAE Standard J578c, Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices, February 1977, which S5.1.5 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference. Although Standard No. 108 does not expressly state that the lens of a rear signal lamp must be red and the bulb white for the light to achieve the color red, we are unaware of any original equipment lamp required to emit the color red that consists of a clear lens and a red bulb and that is certified to comply with Standard No. 108. This is not simply a design choice; we know of no red bulb in production that conforms to Standard No. 108's color specification. The combination of a clear bulb and a red lens, therefore, is the only way to design a lamp that conforms to Standard No. 108's requirement that its light be red. This means that the manufacture of clear lenses or lamps intended to replace lenses or lamps on lamps whose original color was red is a violation of S5.8 of Standard No. 108, and the manufacture and sale of clear lenses or lamps for these purposes is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). This means that the use of the DOT symbol on the lamp's lens or its container will be regarded as a violation of the certification provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30115. We shall maintain this position until we determine that a bulb conforming to the color red is in production, and specifically intended for use in lamps that will be certified as complying with Standard No. 108.

We contrast this with clear replacement lenses and lamps for turn signal and parking lamps (and front side marker lamps, as well as front clearance and identification lamps on wider vehicles). The light from these lamps must be amber (also when amber is chosen over red for the rear turn signals). The amber light from these lamps furnished as original equipment is produced by either a white bulb and amber lens, or by an amber bulb and a white lens. The latter is permissible because amber bulbs meeting J578's color specification for amber are available. Lamps incorporating white lenses and amber bulbs are being certified as conforming to Standard No. 108. Thus, a clear lens for these specific lamps is permissible as original equipment, provided that the lamp with an amber bulb produces light meeting J578's amber color specification. It follows that replacement lenses or lamps for original equipment lamps with amber bulbs may also be clear, and that it is not a violation of Federal law to manufacture and sell them, provided that they comply in every way with Standard No 108.

We also note that, if any replacement lens or the lens of a replacement headlamp is plastic, S5.1.2 requires it to conform to the specifications of SAE Recommended Practice J576, Plastic Materials for use in Optical Parts, Such as Lenses and Reflectors, of Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, JUL91. Since conformance is determined after a three-year outdoor exposure test, we have substantial doubts that any aftermarket clear plastic lens or lamp intended for replacement use on lamps required to produce red or amber light is manufactured from materials that have been tested in accordance with SAE J576 JUL91, as required for compliance with Standard No. 108.

You report that the clear lenses you bought incorporate a red reflector. One of our previous objections to clear replacement taillamp lenses was their lack of a red reflex reflector, present in many original equipment red taillamp lenses and which the vehicle manufacturer may have used to fulfill the requirement of Standard No. 108 that vehicles have red reflex reflectors on the rear, and if included in the original lamp, a red reflector on the side that fulfills the requirement for a red side reflex reflector.

You use the term "dot approved," but we have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" vehicle lighting equipment, and such language is improper. We believe you must mean that the lenses are marked with a DOT symbol, or that the package in which they were sold stated "DOT approved." The use of the DOT symbol is reserved for representing the manufacturer's own certification that the lens or lamp complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and not that we have approved the product. As noted above, we doubt whether manufacturers of these lenses have conducted the outdoor exposure test to which they may be certifying compliance by use of the DOT symbol. It is possible, also, that other tests for determining compliance have not been done as well.

At the beginning of my letter, I remarked that the installation of clear stop lamp and taillamp lenses could be a violation of Federal law under certain circumstances. Under 49 U.S.C. 30122, manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses are forbidden from making inoperative any equipment installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If one of these persons replaces the original red lens by a white lens, we will consider that a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 has occurred, even if that person installs a red bulb.

However, this prohibition does not apply to an individual vehicle owner.

We enclose material that was published on June 8, 2000, on its internet website by the Texas Department of Public Safety which states that "clear tail lamp lenses utilizing red bulbs" are "in violation of Texas law."

If you have any questions, you may again contact Taylor Vinson by e-mail.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.6/20/00