ID: aiam2493

Dear Mr. Heath: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1976, which raise several questions with respect to motor vehicle lighting and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; First I want to comment upon this statement: >>>'A NHTSA representative recently indicated that the standard applie to 'original equipment' replacement items such as lenses and lamps designed for specific year model vehicles, but does not apply to 'aftermarket' lighting equipment that is not manufactured for a particular vehicle but is sold for general use on any vehicle.'<<<; This is not entirely true. Standard No. 108 applies in pertinent par 'to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment or vehicles to which this standard applied.' The standard applies to motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. Thus, any replacement of an original equipment item specified by Standard No. 108 must meet original equipment requirements. This not only includes lenses and lamps, such as parking lamps and tail lamps designed for specific year model vehicles but also lighting equipment sold for general use, such as headlamps, clearance lamps, and identification lamps, whose dimensions do not vary over the years.; Your first question is: >>>'1. Some aftermarket-type manufacturers produce lamps and othe devices that are shown in their catalogs for universal use with no vehicle model being mentioned. Some of these lamps may also be supplied to producers of motor homes, boat trailers, horse trailers, commercial trucks and trailers, etc., as original equipment on those vehicles. Does the fact that a portion of the production of a particular lamp is sold as replacements for the original equipment mean that the other portion sold for use on any 1976 truck or trailer is also governed by Standard No. 108 with respect to the 'aftermarket' sales?'<<<; The answer is yes, as I explained in my preliminary remarks about th applicability of Standard No. 108 to all replacement equipment.; >>>'2. In the past, motor vehicles were equipped with round-type seale beam units. Now that rectangular units are available, some owners are interested in converting the original round headlamps to the rectangular type. Are these rectangular sealed beam units and conversion kits sold to the user considered replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies or are they subject to state regulations?'<<<; We construe the words 'like equipment' broadly. If one headlightin system is being replaced with another, the replacement headlighting system must meet the requirements of Standard No. 108, even though its configuration differs from that of the original. Obviously, a State may also regulate sale of this equipment if its requirements are identical with the Federal ones.; >>>'3. Manufacturers of nonsealed, quartz-halogen headlamp units ar energetically promoting the sale of the units in many areas of the country. These lamps differ considerably from the sealed beam units originally required on late model vehicles at the time of first sale. Do these lamps fall within federal jurisdiction or are they subject only to state regulation?'<<<; Quartz-Halogen headlamps sold in the aftermarket, intended a replacement for headlamps that comply with Standard No. 108, must also meet Federal requirements. If the lamps do not conform, not only would their sale be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Section 108(a) (1) (A), but the removal of sealed beam headlamps by the seller or a motor vehicle repair shop to facilitate the installation of the nonconforming ones would also be a violation of the Act (Section 108(a) (2) (A).; >>>'4. A number of items such as flashers, school bus warning lamps and headlamp units are sold for universal use. They might be part of a new vehicle at time of sale or be sold separately as a replacement for vehicles manufactured both before and after 1972 or as an addition to such vehicles. Does this mean that dual regulations are permissible with NHTSA setting standards for the production items used as original equipment replacement and the states setting standards and requiring approval for the identical item for usage not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?'<<<; It is NHTSA's position, as explained earlier, that if an item o lighting equipment 'sold for universal use' is capable of replacing equipment on a vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, then it must meet Standard No. 108, and a State may also regulate it in an identical manner.; You also asked our advice 'on the problem of not being able t recognize whether a particular item has been certified or not.' As an alternative to the DOT mark permitted by S4.7.2 of Standard No. 108, replacement lighting equipment may be certified in two other ways. Pursuant to Section 114 of the Act certification 'may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such time is delivered.' Thus, access by a State enforcement officer to corporate records is not required.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

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: nht90-4.94

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 24, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herr T. Spingler

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of July 19, 1990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking for confirmation of an oral interpretation provided you by Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, defines (section S3) a replaceable bulb headlamp as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sour ces." In Europe you fix the lens to the reflector assembly with a rubber seal and clips. For the U.S. market you propose to add "silicone-glue at four places between lens and housing to prevent removal of the lens." Mr. Medlin informed you that this w ould be a "bonded lens and reflector assembly."

The standard does not define "bonded", but the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable. Any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond for purposes of the d efinition. If the application of silicone glue at four places between the lens and the reflector assembly is sufficient to prevent manual separation of the lens from the assembly, then it would be a sufficient bond.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: 21883.ztv

Mr. Arman Asinmaz
611 Golden Harbour Drive
Boca Raton, FL 33432





Dear Mr. Asinmaz:





This is in reply to your e-mail of July 1, 2000, in which you ask "what color lights are permitted inside the headlight." We are unsure whether you are asking about the color of the headlamp beam or whether headlamps may incorporate a colored light source for a function other than headlighting, but we shall answer both questions.

The color of light from headlamps is specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. A state may not prohibit or allow any color for a headlamp other than that specified by Standard No. 108. The Federal standard requires that the light emitted by headlamps be white and comply with SAE Standard J578c, Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices, February 1977. The SAE standard defines colors in terms of spectral coordinates, and the coordinates of white are such that near the boundaries the color white may be perceived as having a bluish cast. This bluish cast is especially noticeable in the light emitted by high intensity discharge headlamps.

Standard No. 108 also allows turn signal lamps and front side marker lamps to be incorporated "inside the headlight," to use your phrase, that is, to be in the same housing as headlighting sources. The color of light from these lamps is required to be amber. The amber light can be produced by an amber bulb emitted through a clear lens. Thus, amber is a color permitted "inside the headlight " (amber light can also be produced by the combination of a clear bulb and amber lens).

If you have further questions, you may e-mail Taylor Vinson of this Office as you did before

(tvinson@nhtsa.dot.gov).





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref.108
d.8/11/00

ID: nht90-3.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice, NHTSA

TO: T. Spingler, Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 7-19-90 to R. v. Iderstine from T. Spingler; (OCC 5014)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of July 19, 1990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking for confirmation of an oral interpretation provided you by Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, defines (section S3) a replaceable bulb headlamp as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sour ces." In Europe you fix the lens to the reflector assembly with a rubber seal and clips. For the U.S. market you propose to add "silicone-glue at four places between lens and housing to prevent removal of the lens." Mr. Medlin informed you that this w ould be a "bonded lens and reflector assembly."

The standard does not define "bonded", but the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable. Any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond for purposes of the d efinition. If the application of silicone glue at four places between the lens and the reflector assembly is sufficient to prevent manual separation of the lens from the assembly, then it would be a sufficient bond.

I hope that this answers your question.

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

ID: 7008

Mr. S. Watanabe
Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal
& Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This responds to your letter of February 6, l992, to the Administrator, requesting an interpretation of section S7.2(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Section S7.2(b) requires that headlamp lenses be marked "with the name and/or trademark of the manufacturer, which is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office." Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan has subsidiaries in Thailand and Taiwan. Each subsidiary uses three manufacturer identification marks, and you have asked whether each subsidiary may use one of the marks as a manufacturer identification under S7.2(b).

You also relate that application has been made to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with respect to one of those identification marks. Certainly, once registration has been completed, Stanley of Thailand and Stanley of Taiwan may use the registered mark and this will be in compliance with Standard No. 108. Stanley has not registered the other two identification marks (TH STANLEY or TW STANLEY, and STANLEY TH or STANLEY TW) because it has concluded that these are not trademarks but the manufacturer's name.

We agree with your suggestion that the identification marks TH STANLEY, TW STANLEY, STANLEY TH, and STANLEY TW are just the manufacturer's name, not a trademark. Section S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108 does not specify any particular form in which the manufacturer's name must appear on the lens, nor does that section require the manufacturer's name to be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, there would be no violation of S7.2(b) if your Thai and Taiwanese subsidiaries mark the lenses of their headlamps with the identification marks identified in your correspondence as manufacturer names.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/12/92

ID: nht90-3.87

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Loughran -- V.P. Engineering, The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-13-90 from T.J. Loughran to J.R. Curry; Also attached to article entitled It's the Law - Rear Amber Reflector (Text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to the Administrator of August 13, 1990, in which you point out an error in an interpretation of Standard No. 108 furnished The Bargman Company on February 26, 1990.

The interpretation intended to refer to an amber turn signal lens, not an amber taillamp lens, as you surmise. We regret the confusion that we have inadvertently caused; the agency does not intend to allow an amber taillamp lens.

Nevertheless, tbe interpretation correctly stated that use of an amber reflex reflector with an amber lamp on the rear is permissible, providing that it does not impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting and marking equipment, but that it is nevertheless subject to State and local laws regarding vehicles in use. This is consistent with long-standing interpretations on the use of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment other than those that Standard No. 108 requires.