ID: nht76-2.41

DATE: 10/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is a reply to your letter of September 16, 1976, referencing an opinion letter to you dated October 21, 1969, and asking whether it conflicts with an opinion letter to Ford Motor Company dated "December 5, 1975". (The true date of the letter is July 7, 1975, we do not know why your copy is dated otherwise).

The 1969 letter informed you that "if one compartment or lamp [in a multicompartment lamp] meets the photometric requirements [of Standard No. 108] the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore not regulated by . . . Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2.". The letter also stated that "lamps on a vehicle and not required by this standard are generally subject to regulation by the States." Our 1975 letter to Ford, on the other hand advised the company in effect that the performance of the entire multicompartment assembly was covered by Standard No. 108, and that section 25950(b), of the California Vehicle Code was preempted by it. You have asked whether our letter to Ford conflicts with our earlier letter to you.

There is no present conflict. In an amendment to Standard No. 108 effective January 1, 1973, (copy enclosed) the agency adopted paragraph S4.1.1.12 and figure 1 which established minimum photometric requirements that must be met by multicompartment tail, stop, and turn signal lamps. The act of establishing requirements for the additional compartments in a multicompartment lamp thus voided the 1969 letter to you and the interpretation to Ford is the correct one.

The Monarch taillamp, therefore, must meet the requirements of Table 1 of standard No. 108 and is not a lamp that is "in addition to the minimum required number" as that term is used in California Vehicle Code section 25950(b), which appears to have been amended in an effort to include it.

We appreciate your suggestion on an amendment to Standard No. 108 on lens color.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

September 16, 1976

File No.: 61.A218.A3107

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We recently received a copy of Mr. James C. Schultz's opinion of December 3, 1975, to Ford Motor Company regarding the color of unlighted taillamps. This interpretation appears to conflict with the enclosed interpretation of October 21, 1969, we requested from NHTSA on a similar subject.

In answer to a question we raised on multicompartment lamps, Dr. Robert Brenner informed us that, "if one compartment or lamp meets the photometric requirements, the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore, not regulated by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2". He also stated that "lamps on a vehicle, and not required by this standard, are generally subject to regulation by the states". These statements appear to mean that once a manufacturer meets the minimum requirements for taillamps for FMVSS No. 108, any additional lamps he chooses to add do not fall under that standard. With respect to the unlighted color of the minimum required lamps, we agree that we are preempted. However, in the case of the Ford lamp, the taillamp section in question was an additional one to which Ford, as an afterthought, attached an amber filter. This lamp was not needed to comply with the federal standards for taillamps, and was an additional lamp not governed by the federal standards as stated in the October 21, 1969, NHTSA interpretation. We, therefore, request that you reconsider whether the interpretation in your letter to Ford Motor Company was overly broad.

The color requirements of the Vehicle Code were amended last year and Section 25950(b) referred to in Ford Motor Company's letter now reads as follows:

"All lamps and reflectors visible from the rear of a vehicle shall be red, except that stop lamps, turn signal lamps and front side-marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show amber to the rear."

"This section applies to the color of a lamp whether lighted or unlighted, and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candlepower or more per foot-candle of incident illumination, except that taillamps, stop lamps, and turn signal lamps that are visible to the rear may be white when unlighted () and, with respect to vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1974, only such lamps that are in addition to the minimum required number and are visible to the rear may be white or amber when unlighted."

Until 1961, the Vehicle Code color requirements applied to all lamps, whether lighted or unlighted. In that year, the Legislature amended the Code to permit rear lamps to be white when unlighted in view of the General Motors and Chrysler taillamps which, for styling purposes, had white lenses to blend in with the chrome trim on the rear fenders and bumpers. At that time, the visibility problem with the white lenses was not initially apparent. It was then found that, in at least one design, the white lens reflected so much sunlight during the daytime that it washed out much of the effectiveness of the red stoplamp and turn signal. The white lenses were not objectionable on lamps that supplemented the regular red lensed rear lamps, but they were not satisfactory as a total replacement for those lamps.

Even though we recognize NHTSA's preemption in allowing a manufacturer to use any unlighted lens color he wishes for the minimum required rear lamps, we have a strong objection to that position. Observations of stoplamps in the daytime have shown that those with white lenses are less effective in attracting another person's attention than a lamp of the same output with a red lens. It might be argued that this problem of reduced signal effectiveness does not apply to taillamps, since they are only lighted at nighttime. However, during high brightness day-time fog when lights were required on vehicles, the red taillamps are so dim that the white or amber lens covers become a safety hazard due to the high brightness masking of the red light.

We have no technical objection to a rear lamp lens being any color darker than red, because this would improve the contrast of the red signal against its background. We are highly concerned about the use of lenses that are lighter than the required red because of their effect in washing out the signal in daylight. Standard No. 108 already acknowledges this difference with respect to turn signals where amber is required to have more candlepower output than red for equivalent daytime effectiveness. You might wish to make observations yourself in comparing the daylight effectiveness of the red lens on the Monarch with that of the amber lens when the taillamps are turned on. Daytime observations of the white lens on the various Cadillac year models illustrate varying degrees of effectiveness depending upon the slant of the lens and the taillamp intensity.

We would appreciate hearing from you with respect to a clarification of the two interpretations. We also ask that NHTSA consider amending Standard No. 108 to prohibit taillamps and stoplamps from having a lens cover of white, amber, or any other color that has a lighter contrast with the signal than the red lens.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

ID: aiam4599

Dear Mr. Gravengood: This is in reply to your letter of April 3, l989 to this Office enclosing samples of plastic lenses. Your company manufactures 'heated lights' which appear beneficial in melting snow that accumulates on them in the winter months. In your letter, you stated: 'All lights, lenses, and materials to assemble the heated safety lights have already been certified and passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have been advised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that there is no motor vehicle safety standard no. for heated lights. In order for us to do business at the O.E.M. level we require a letter of approval from you to us that we may pass on to our customers so they may start ordering and we may start producing.' We have no authority to 'approve' or 'disapprove' items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, an equipment manufacturer 'approves' each of its own products that are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard by certifying that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or (if it is a vehicle manufacturer), that the vehicle on which the lamp is installed, complies with the standards. However, we can advise you of the relationship of your product to Standard No. 108. This should prove helpful in dealings at the O.E.M. level. There are two types of O.E.M. lighting equipment: lamps that are required by Standard No. 108, and supplementary lamps that do not come under its coverage. Although your product literature indicates that the highmounted heated taillamp supplements the original equipment lamp, it is not clear whether the heated signal lamp serves as the required signal lamp or is a supplement to the original equipment. Accordingly, this letter discusses how Standard No. 108 treats both original required and original supplemental lighting equipment. If you are the manufacturer of original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, but not the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed, the vehicle manufacturer, and not you, has the legal responsibility under the Act and Standard No. 108 of ensuring that the equipment complies with the standard, and of certifying that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a practical matter, however, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufacturers provide assurance that their products meet Federal standards, but the 'certification' they may insist upon is not required by the Act. You are correct that there is no standard that applies to heated lamps as such. The Federal standard that applies is the one imposed by Standard No. 108 for the particular equipment item (taillamps or signal lamps in this instance). If you are manufacturing a lamp as an original equipment supplement to required original lighting equipment, the burden remains on the vehicle manufacturer who installs it. The only restriction on a supplementary lamp that Standard No. 108 imposes is that it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S4.1.3). Your lamps 'splice into' the wiring for the taillamps and 'marker lamps', according to your product literature. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the vehicle manufacturer to ensure that this installation does not negatively affect the performance of the required taillamps and signal lamps, or otherwise impair its effectiveness. If the vehicle manufacturer determines that no impairment exists, then it may certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Observing that the product literature depicts the heated taillamp installed in the upper corners of a school bus body, we must also call attention to an additional provision of Standard No. 108. The location depicted is one that is frequently used for the clearance lamps required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.4 of Standard No. 108 forbids the optical combination of clearance lamps and taillamps. Thus, your lamp cannot optically combine these two functions if it is to be used as new vehicle equipment. Other enclosures to your letter indicate that at present the heated lamp is being installed on buses in use, that is to say, as non-original equipment. The requirements imposed by Standard No. 108 and the Act for aftermarket manufacturers of lighting equipment differ from those for original equipment. If the lamp you produce is intended to replace an original equipment certified lamp, it is considered replacement equipment. As a manufacturer of a replacement taillamp or signal lamp, the legal obligation to produce a complying equipment item falls squarely upon you, as does the certification responsibility. If the lamp is intended only to replace a supplemental lamp, you are not required to certify. However, there may be instances in which your lamp is interchangeable with original certified equipment, and even though you may not intend it as replaceable lighting equipment, you may encounter questions from state and federal authorities if it is not manufactured and certified in accordance with Standard No. 108. Finally, you should be aware of your responsibilities under the Act in the event that your products do not comply with Standard No. 108, or incorporate a safety related defect (an example would be the inability of the lens to withstand the heat produced during the lamp's operation without warping or cracking). If you or this agency determine that a noncompliance or safety related defect occurs in any item of replacement equipment that you manufacture, you have the obligation to notify purchasers, and to remedy the problem through repair, repurchase, or replacement of the item. With respect to original equipment, this obligation falls upon the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed. If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them. We are returning your samples. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking;

ID: aiam4713

Dear Mr. Waltz: This is in reply to your letter requesting permissio for deviations from marking requirements for round sealed beam headlamps. Wagner has been asked to assemble some headlamps designed to appear as closely as possible to those produced by Guide Lamp in the l950's. The lamps would be marked 'l' and '2' in accordance with the nomenclature of the day, rather than '2Dl', '1C1', and '2C1', as required by Standard No. 108. The DOT symbol would not be provided, 'since this obviously was not on the original lamps.' You have informed us that the lamps 'will be made to today's photometric standards' and 'subjected to all the tests currently required of the round headlights.' Finally, 'they will be distributed on a limited basis through antique parts dealers.' I am sorry, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment from any requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our temporary exemption authority under l5 U.S.C. 1410 extends only to motor vehicles. Further, we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of either vehicles or equipment from their statutory obligation to certify through use of the DOT symbol that their products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the motor vehicle lamps which you have identified, and for which you ask an exemption are designated Type C and Type D sealed beam headlamps. As such, they must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c, December l978, which are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. They are considered replacement equipment, and must conform to all requirements of Standard No. 108, including marking and certification. Standard No. 108 covers both original and replacement vehicle equipment. Depending on the vehicle category, it became effective for original equipment on January 1, l968, and January 1, l969. On January 1, l972, it became effective for equipment intended to replace original equipment on all motor vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, l972. Therefore, it might appear that the standard would not apply in any event to replacement equipment for l950's vehicles. However, the headlamps you describe are designed to conform to all contemporary requirements, except marking and certification. Even though intended for use on l950's vehicles, these circular headlamps are interchangeable with circular headlamps installed on any vehicle manufactured after the effective dates of Standard No. 108. Therefore, they must be designed to conform with Standard No. 108, and marked and certified accordingly. The intended markings 'l' and '2' would signify mistakenly that the headlamps were designed to conform to SAE Standard J579a, October l965 (which also did not require the DOT symbol on the lens). Until June l989, SAE J579a was incorporated in Standard No. 108 as a permissible option to SAE J579c, but the agency deleted it as the lamps appeared to be out of production. However, even had J579a been retained, we could not have allowed the lenses of headlamps manufactured to J579c to be marked according to J579a. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /;

ID: nht75-2.43

DATE: 08/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1975, asking whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 preempts Section 25950 of the California Vehicle Code with respect to Mercury Monarch taillamps.

Section 25950 requires in pertinent part that all lamps visible from the rear of a vehicle be red, "whether lighted or unlighted", except that taillamps may be white when unlighted. Standard No. 108 requires passenger car taillamps to be "red" (Table III), and "the taillamp indication" to be red (SAE Standard J585, Tail Lamps, June 1966, incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108). The taillamps on the Mercury Monarch are covered with amber lenses. Although the lamp meets the color and photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when lighted, California is of the opinion that use of the amber lens is prohibited by Section 25950.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits a State from establishing or continuing in effect any motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a vehicle or equipment item as a Federal standard which is not identical to it. We interpret Standard No. 108 as requiring only that the color of the taillamp "indication" be red. The method by which this is accomplished is left to the vehicle manufacturer. The indication could be provided by a combination of a white bulb and a red lens (the conventional taillamp), a red bulb and white lens (permitted by California) or, as in your case, a red bulb and an amber lens. Although the color of the taillamp lens is not directly specified by Standard No. 108, the performance of the lamp as an assembly is covered in detail by the standard, and we consider that the color aspects of taillamps are within the scope of these requirements. If the lamp assembly complies with the Federal standard, then a State may not prohibit its use. We therefore find that in this instance 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, renders void the requirement of Section 25950 of the California Vehicle Code that unlighted taillamps be colored red.

Sincerely,

Office of the General Counsel

Ford Motor Company

June 10, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Esq. Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Re: 1975 Monarch Rear Taillamp Part No. (2) (A) (2) - IP2R(2)S(3)T75CT

We are writing to seek the express confirmation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the preemptive effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, 49 CFR 571.108 ("Standard 108") on passenger car lighting, as was provided by NHTSA in Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. v. Younger, No. Civ. S74-126 (D.C.E.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 1974).

This request is being made so that we may respond to the attached correspondence (Attachment I) from Mr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, California Highway Patrol, concerning compliance with Section 25950* of the California Vehicle Code by the 1975 Monarch rear taillamps. Mr. Heath's letters of April 8 and May 25 content that the amber lens applied over a red lens on one of the monarch taillamp compartments violates that provision of the California Vehicle Code Section 25950 which does not permit a taillamp to be amber when unlighted. On this basis, Mr. Heath has stated that similarly equipped 1976 model year Monarchs will not be eligible for registration in California. * Section 25950 provides in pertinent part: "(b) All lamps and reflectors visible from the rear of a vehicle shall be red, except that stop lamps, turn signal lamps and front side-marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show amber to the rear.

This section applies to the color of a lamp whether lighted or unlighted, and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candlepower or more per foot - candle of incident illumination, except that taillamps, stop lamps and turn signal lamps visible to the rear may be white when unlighted."

We believe the provisions of Section 25950 are preempted by Standard 108, and that pursuant to Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392 (d)), California is precluded from the enforcement of any nonidentical standard.

As the NHTSA has confirmed on several occasions, the Standard's lighting requirements are intended to be comprehensive and exclusive, and leave no room for differing state standards. The statement of the Administrator cited by the Court in the Motorcycle Industry Council judgement is particularly pertinent here where California seeks to enforce a differing standard for the precise function (i.e., taillamp color) covered by Standard 108. (Letter from James B. Gregory, Administrator NHTSA, to W. Pudinski, Commissioner, Dept. of Highway Patrol, dated Nov. 8, 1973, N40-30 (RBD).)

Compliance of the Monarch rear lamps with the requirements of Standard 108 has been confirmed by tests conducted at Ford. (Attachment II) Therefore, we seek an opinion on the issue of preemption with respect to the differing California requirements of Section 25950.

For your assistance, we are enclosing color photos of the Monarch and Monarch Ghia rear lamps which demonstrate their appearance when lighted and unlighted. (Attachment III) Photo #1 is of the Monarch rear lamp unlighted. Photo #2 shows the taillamp (3 exterior red compartments) lighted. Photos #3 and #4 are of the Monarch Ghia.

If you have any questions on this matter, please so inform me. I may be reached by telephone at (313) 337-6462. We hope to receive a response at your earliest convenience.

Nancy Kolodny Staff Attorney

ID: 22310.ztv

Mr. Paul DeStefano
Optical Engineering Supervisor
Valeo Sylvania L.L.C.
1231 'A' Avenue North
Seymour, IN 47274





Dear Mr. DeStefano:

This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 2000, asking for an interpretation of S7.5(g) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S7.5(g) requires in pertinent part that the lens of a replaceable bulb headlamp be marked with the bulb marking designation provided in compliance with 49 CFR Part 564. In the hypothetical you present, the same headlamp lens would be used for two similar headlamp systems. The lower beam of one system would include a type H7 halogen bulb. The other system's lower beam includes a high intensity discharge (HID) D2S light source. You would like to mark the lens in front of the lower beam with both "H7" and "D2S," either one positioned above the other, or side by side. In a third variant, the marking could read "H7 or D2S." You state that it would not be possible to interchange the H7 and D2S light sources due to the different mechanical designs and electrical connections. You ask that we concur in your belief that this dual marking satisfies the intent of Standard No. 108.

We cannot concur. The lens marking must indicate only the light source that is behind the lens. The purpose of the marking is to ensure that there is a proper replacement for the light source if required. The aftermarket has begun to offer equipment that can convert filament lamps into HID lamps. This results in significant increases in intensity to the extent that the headlamps may no longer comply with the maximum candela restrictions of Standard No. 108. Dual marking of the lens could be interpreted as countenancing the replacement of an H7 filament type light source with a D2S HID type light source. In addition, local law enforcement officers are aware of the importance of complying lighting equipment to safety in their jurisdictions, and depend upon unambiguous lens marking to assist them in enforcing local lighting laws.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/19/01

ID: 02388.ztv

Ms. Collette Walsh
345 University Avenue
Belleville
Ontario K8N 5T7
Canada

Dear Ms. Walsh:

This is in reply to your fax of November 12, 2002, with respect to your fax requests of September 4 and 5, 2002, for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Im sorry to say that we have no record of receiving your earlier faxes.

The interpretation you requested on September 4 concerns the headlamp lens marking requirement of the standard for a Type H headlighting system, specifically S7.3.9(c). Paragraph (c) requires that "The face of letters, numbers, or other symbols molded on the surface of the lens shall not be raised more than 0.020 in. (0.5 mm) . . . ." It also requires that "The marking shall be molded in the lens and shall be not less than in. (6.35 mm) in size."

You asked whether "the lens marking (pattern) [must be] in the mold at the time of manufacture" and whether "an acceptable alternative [would be] . . . to laser etch the lens after the molding process." You explained that the marking would be indelible and not raised more than 0.020 in.

We have no information on the durability of laser etching on a headlamp lens but note that a laser etching would not be "molded into the lens" as specified in S7.3.9(c). Therefore, we do not regard your alternative as one that would comply with the standard.

The interpretation you requested on September 5 again involves lens marking. You asked whether it is acceptable to place the information required to be on a lens "on the top of the housing of a tail lamp or headlamp assembly" You added that "the marking would be clearly visible only if the trunk lid or engine compartment lid was open." This would not be acceptable. The information required to be on a lens must be placed on the lens.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
12/10/02

ID: 15291.ztv

M. Guy Dorleans
International and Regulatory Affairs Manager
VALEO Vision
34, rue Saint-Andre
93012 Bobigny cedex
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

This is in reply to your letter of May 22, 1997, regarding the "Baroptic" lower beam headlamp developed by VALEO. This headlamp is visually/optically aimable, incorporating one removable light source. You have enclosed drawings (Figs. 1-4) illustrating the new headlamp.

You believe that the headlamp would be permitted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, but you have asked the following three questions:

"a) Does the provision in S7.4(a)(3) apply? We think it does not, since the 'Baroptic' is not an integral beam. As a matter of consequence, the ratio between the luminance of each light-emitting surface is not a legal criterion. Nor is the relative contribution of each Fresnel lens to the lowbeam beam pattern."

If you have decided that the "Baroptic" is not an integral beam headlamp system, then paragraph S7.4(a)(3) would not apply since paragraph S7.4 applies only to integral beam headlamp systems. The "Baroptic" lower beam headlamp will be a "replaceable bulb headlamp" regulated under paragraph S7.5 provided that its replaceable light source is designed to conform to the requirements of Appendix A or Appendix B of Part 564 and the appropriate information has been submitted to and accepted by NHTSA.

"b) Where do we need to mark the name of the light source as required in S7.5(g)? We propose to place this mandatory marking on the outer lens (6), in front of the center of the midpoint Fresnel lens if an odd number of lenses is used (Figure 3a), or in between the central Fresnel lenses if their number is even (Figure 3b)."

S7.5(g) requires only that the lens of a replaceable bulb headlamp be marked "in front of " each replaceable light source. The locations you have chosen meet this requirement.

"c) We have the same question and same proposal as above for the 'mark' of the optical axis' as per S7.8.1(b) of FMVSS 108."

S7.8.1(b) requires headlamps to have a mark or markings that are visible from the front of the headlamp . . . to identify the optical axis of the headlamp . . ." These markings " may be on the interior or exterior of the lens or indicated by a mark or central structure on the interior or exterior of the headlamp." The marks for optical axis that are shown in Figure 3(a), Figure 3(b), and Figure 4 of your submission would appear to indicate the optical axis itself of the respective headlamp design, but must be placed in the location necessary for correct aiming and photometric testing.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-2830).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:7/3/97

ID: nht94-4.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 24, 1994

FROM: Bryan J Williams -- Director, International Operations, Red Spot Paint And Varnish Co., Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office Of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: REF: Request For Written Interpretation / FMVSS108 and AAMVA Listing

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/7/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO BRYAN J. WILLIAMS (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co. Inc. is a manufacturer of specialty coatings for plastics. Our major market is for automotive applications; one of which is UV Curable SRC coatings for polycarbonate headlamp lenses. These products (specifically UVT200) pro vide abrasion resistance properties as well as protecting the plastic lens from the deleterious effects of outdoor exposure.

UVT200 has approvals from Ford Motor Company, General Motors and Chrysler Corporation for application on polycarbonate headlamp lenses to Specifications ESB-M80J-3A, MG5060 and MS-PP5-5 respectively. The coating was approved following the completion of 3 year Florida and Arizona weathering; measurements indicating the coating's conformity to the standards of SAEJ576(c) [1970] ref: chromaticity, haze, luminous transmittance and appearance were performed by the Red Spot Test Laboratory (which has "Self C ertifying" status from these US automakers.) The coating is currently being used in production at finishers for all three of these OEMs; there have been no questions about the "acceptability" of this coating on polycarbonate from any US State or Territor y.

I have received several requests from overseas headlamp manufacturers (potential users of UVT200) with respect to the fact that UVT200 does not appear on the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) "Listing of Acceptable Plastics for Optical Lenses and Reflectors Used on Motor Vehicles."

The question for which written interpretation is requested is as follows:

Must a coating for plastic (polycarbonate) headlamp lenses appear on the AAMVA "Listing . . ." in order to meet the requirements of FMVSS108?

The perception exists among overseas headlamp manufacturers that AAMVA Listing of a coating is required by Federal Law . . . that appearance on this list is a prerequisite for the certification to FMVSS108 standards.

Your written comments clarifying the status of AAMVA (and their "Listing . . ." publication) and its relationship to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are requested.

Please respond via facsimile to (812) 467-2388 to my attention.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and I shall await your response. If you have questions or find issues which require further clarification, please contact me directly: Bryan J Williams

Director, International Operations

Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co. Inc.

1111 East Louisiana Street

Evansville IN 47711

P: (812) 428-9192

F: (812) 467-2388

ID: nht76-2.22

DATE: 04/30/76

FROM: JOHN WOMACK FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Allegrette; Newitt; Witcoff & McAndrews

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 12, 1976. Currently, 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, does not require, or provide for, a manufacturer code number. The use of a code number has been proposed, but not adopted. If the use of a code number becomes mandatory, notice will appear in the Federal Register and a sufficient amount of time allowed for your client to comply.

The information you submitted in your letter is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Part 566. Inasmuch as Tsuyama Mfg. Co., Ltd., is a foreign corporation, it will be necessary for them to designate an agent pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45.

Your understanding with respect to certification of lenses is correct. Section S4.7.2 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), permits replacement equipment to be marked with the symbol DOT as a certification that it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and there is no need to submit lenses to us for approval.

ALLEGRETTI, NEWITT, WITCOFF & MCANDREWS

February 12, 1976

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I am writing in behalf of Tsuyama Mfg. Co., Ltd. of Osaka, Japan re Title 49 CRF, Part 566 and 567. Tsuyama Mfg. Co., Ltd, is a Japanese corporation and has its principal place of business at 53, 3-Chome, Kuwazu-cho, Higashi Sumiyoshi-ku, Osaka, Japan. Our client manufacturers reflectors, lenses and lamps for motor vehicles. The foregoing should enable you to provide a code number for our client under 49 CRF @ 566.5. If anything more is required, please advise.

Tsuyama Mfg. Co., Ltd. intends to sell a replacement lens for a combination rear lamp that meets all applicable SAE standards. I understand it would be proper for my client to emboss, mark or label its lenses with the symbol DOT after the lenses have been tested for compliance with the applicable standards and that there is no need to submit specimens of the lenses or other products to the Administrator for prior approval. Please confirm that my understanding is correct.

Seymour Rothstein

ID: 22968.ztv.wpd

Mr. Hugo De Roo
Area Export Manager
Van Hool N.V.
Bernard Van Hoolstraat 58
B-2500 Lier Koningshoolkt
Belgium

Dear Mr. De Roo:

This is in reply to the letter that you and Mr. Van Hool wrote on March 20, 2003, asking for an interpretation with respect to required markings on lenses of certain rear lamp clusters on Van Hool buses. You asked that we address both original and replacement lenses. You believed that Van Hool may have failed to comply with our regulations.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, does not require lenses of any rear lamp, whether original or replacement, to be marked with the SAE identification code or any other markings (although the standard permits replacement equipment to be marked with the DOT symbol as a certification of compliance). Therefore, the fact that Van Hool lenses may not be marked is not a failure to comply with a FMVSS that would require the company to notify owners and to remedy a noncompliance.

We understand that owners and users of Van Hool buses may also be subject to the lighting equipment regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of the Department of Transportation, 49 CFR Part 393 (2002). These regulations state that any required reflector on a motor vehicle subject to FMCSA regulations must comply with FMVSS No. 108, and be marked with the manufacturers name or trade name and the letters "SAE-A." See Sections 393.26(b) and (c). As for the marking of lamps, under Section 393.25(d), all lamps "required to conform to the requirements of the SAE standards" are to be marked with SAE designations and other information. However, since March 7, 1990, lamps are no longer required to conform to SAE requirements but must meet FMVSS No. 108 instead. See footnote (b)(2) to Section 393.24(c) (which also specifies that in a conflict between an SAE standard and a FMVSS, the latter shall prevail). Accordingly, with the exception of reflectors as noted, Section 393 has not required lighting equipment to be marked on any vehicles manufactured since March 7, 1990.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.5/29/03