ID: 1984-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ivie -- Manager, Support Section, Motor Vehicle Division Department of Transportation (Oregon)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 27, 1984, to Mr. Frank Turpin, which was forwarded to my office for reply, asking several questions concerning our regulations on certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The following discussions answer your questions.

You have asked first if there are any provisions in Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, for or against the use of blue warning lamps on police vehicles, if the lamps are steady burning rather than rotating. You have been unable to answer this question by referrals either to Standard No. 108 or SAE materials. Because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act allows States and municipalities to impose higher standards than the Federal ones for vehicles procured for their own use (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), the agency has generally deferred to the judgment of governmental bodies in their equipment specifications.

You have not stated whether the blue warning lamps would be supplemental to the vehicle's existing lighting, or replacing some item of the vehicle's original equipment. If the lighting is supplemental (e.g., roof-mounted as are the warning lamps on police vehicles in this area), Standard No. 108 permits it if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). Thus, a roof-mounted lamp, whether steady-burning or rotating, would appear permissible. If, however, the warning lamp was adjacent to a stop lamp or headlamp, or replaced a lamp such as a taillamp, a question of impairment could arise, and the burden would be on a State to demonstrate it had adopted a higher standard of performance.

Your second question asked whether there is a specific statement in our regulations or elsewhere which prohibits the attaching of materials to vehicle windshields and windows. The following discussion explains the effect of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and section 108(a)(2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) on tinting films and other materials placed on windshields and other windows.

Pursuant to the Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

Tinting and other films are not glazing materials themselves and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard.

A vehicle manufacturer or a dealer may place the film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle only if that manufacturer or dealer is able to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

However, vehicle owners may not go to a commercial establishment to have darkly tinted films installed for them. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

You mentioned that you have recently received an inquiry from the U.S. Air Force concerning the placement of identification decals on a vehicle. We have received a similar inquiry and I am enclosing a copy of our response.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

ENC.

Department of Transportation MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION

July 27, 1984

NHTSA

Attention: Francis J. Turpin

Dear Frank:

We would appreciate your help on some questions we have concerning federal regulations/requirements on certain vehicle equipment items.

1. Are there any provisions for or against use of blue warning lamps on police vehicles, if the lamps are "steady burning" -- non flashing or rotating? We were unable to find any information regarding this in FMVSS 108 or in the SAE Standards covering vehicle lighting.

2. Is there a specific "statement" in the federal regulations or elsewhere that prohibits attaching material to vehicle windshields/windows? Presently it is not allowed by our state laws, if "the material prohibits of impairs the ability to see into or out of the vehicle." The availability of various window tinting materials and screening causes constant inquiries from law enforcement, manufacturing companies, repair shops, and individuals regarding this law. Also, we have recently received inquiries from the U. S. Air Force on placing their Identification Decals on windshields of Air Force personnels' private vehicles.

We respond to the window glazing inquiries with information from FMVSS 205 and ANSI Z26. (Ie, the 70% light transmittance requirements.) Also, we mention Section 108 (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, concerning rendering inoperative of vehicle equipment. But, we would like to also be able to provide a definite federal prohibition, with possible penalties, etc.

Thank you for any assistance you can give us.

Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section

ID: etnyre.ztv

Michael J. Hedeen, Esq.
Haldeman & Associates
308 West State Street, Suite 210
Rockford, IL 61101-1140

Dear Mr. Hedeen:

This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 2002, asking for clarification of the "early warning reporting" final rule (49 CFR Part 579, Subpart C) on behalf of your client, E.D. Etnyre & Company ("Etnyre").

You related that Etnyre has an agreement with an entity under which it provides partially-completed trailers, which are completed by the other entity who "rebadges the product [under its own name] for ultimate sale to its customers." In this fact situation, Etnyre is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer and not required to report comprehensive early warning information. It is required only to report claims and notices it receives on incidents involving death, as specified in Section 579.27.

Etnyre also has an agreement with another entity which supplies Etnyre with fully-manufactured trailers which it "rebadges as an E.D. Etnyre & Company product." Etnyre issues the warranties on these trailers and administers any warranty claims. You understand that Section 579.3(b) allows the fabricating manufacturer or brand name owner to report early warning information. You then asked

Where the fabricator reports on its wholly finished products and a brand name owner reports on the "rebadged" products, is the fabricator required to count the "rebadged" products under its production numbers and as part of its aggregate number of trailers manufactured for sale under Sec. 579.24?

With respect to vehicles badged with the Etnyre name but manufactured by another entity, that entity is the "manufacturer" who must report to NHTSA; however, Section 579.3(c) permits Etnyre to assume this obligation. If the brand name owner, Etnyre, does not assume the obligation to report, the fabricating manufacturer must count the rebadged trailers in the aggregate of its own production. If Etnyre chooses to report, the fabricating manufacturer should not include the Etnyre-badged trailers as part of its production. This choice should be made on a consistent basis, and not be revised from year to year or within a given year.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/11/03

ID: 3298yy

Mr. S. Suzuki
Managing Director
Suzusho Trading Co.
Center Building No. 601
Fuchucho 1-12-7, Fuchu-shi
Tokyo, Japan

Your ref: ST-9015/91

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This responds to your letter of October 16, l991, to the Director, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, with reference to the "Safety Shot" lighting device that you have developed. You have enclosed photographs illustrating three types of this device in operation.

In brief, the device consists of a center red highmounted stop lamp, immediately flanked by amber lamps that serve as supplementary turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps. Although the photos are not entirely clear, the device appears to consist of segmented compartments in a common housing, with thicker dividers separating the signal and stop functions. Type I incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the top of the rear window. Type II also incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the bottom of the window. Type III is located at the top of the rear window and uses conventional bulbs for its light source. You have been referred to us by Chrysler Corporation. We assume that you approached Chrysler with a view towards having your device accepted as original motor vehicle equipment. You have asked for our views on whether it is possible to use this device in the U.S. market.

In the United States, the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard for rear lighting is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Section S5.4 of Standard No. l08 does not allow a center high-mounted stop lamp to be physically combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Because Safety Shot appears to have a common housing for signalling and stopping functions, the lamps are "combined" within the meaning of the prohibition.

This means that the Safety Shot may not be used as original equipment on motor vehicles, and it may not be offered as a replacement for original equipment center highmounted stop lamps (required on each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, l985). If you wish to sell the Safety Shot as an accessory in the aftermarket, for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, different considerations apply. Installation of the Safety Shot by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is not permitted if it renders inoperative, in whole or in part, the function of any other rear lighting device.

The question, therefore, is whether the effectiveness of the function of any other rear lighting device is compromised by the Safety Shot to the extent that the other device's function is rendered, at the minimum, partially inoperative. We note that original equipment amber signal lamps are not prohibited from flashing when the stop lamps are operating. It would not appear that the addition of the Safety Shot to a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, would compromise the signals from the original turn signal and stop lamps in a manner to render them, at least, partially inoperative. However, the Safety Shot is subject to regulation by the individual States of the United States in which it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Motor vehicles are also required to be manufactured to conform to Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Under this standard, if installation of the Safety Shot prevents the vehicle from meeting the rearview mirror field of view requirements specified, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the Safety Shot must install a rear view mirror on the passenger side of the vehicle (as a practical matter, most vehicles in the U.S. are manufactured with this additional mirror).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:1/31/92

ID: nht92-9.33

DATE: January 31, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Suzuki -- Managing Director, Suzusho Trading Co.

TITLE: Your ref: ST-9015/91

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/16/91 from S. Suzuki to Director, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, NHTSA (OCC 6611)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 16, 1991, to the Director, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, with reference to the "Safety Shot" lighting device that you have developed. You have enclosed photographs illustrating three types of this device in operation.

In brief, the device consists of a center red highmounted stop lamp, immediately flanked by amber lamps that serve as supplementary turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps. Although the photos are not entirely clear, the device appears to consist of segmented compartments in a common housing, with thicker dividers separating the signal and stop functions. Type I incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the top of the rear window. Type II also incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the bottom of the window. Type III is located at the top of the rear window and uses conventional bulbs for its light source. You have been referred to us by Chrysler Corporation. We assume that you approached Chrysler with a view towards having your device accepted as original motor vehicle equipment. You have asked for our views on whether it is possible to use this device in the U.S. market.

In the United States, the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard for rear lighting is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Section S5.4 of Standard No. 108 does not allow a center high-mounted stop lamp to be physically combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Because Safety Shot appears to have a common housing for signalling and stopping functions, the lamps are "combined" within the meaning of the prohibition.

This means that the Safety Shot may not be used as original equipment on motor vehicles, and it may not be offered as a replacement for original equipment center highmounted stop lamps (required on each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1,1985).

If you wish to sell the Safety Shot as an accessory in the aftermarket, for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, different considerations apply. Installation of the Safety Shot by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is not permitted if it renders inoperative, in whole or in part, the function of any other rear lighting device.

The question, therefore, is whether the effectiveness of the function of any other rear lighting device is compromised by the Safety Shot to the extent that the other device's function is rendered, at the minimum, partially inoperative. We note that original equipment amber signal

lamps are not prohibited from flashing when the stop lamps are operating. It would not appear that the addition of the Safety Shot to a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, would compromise the signals from the original turn signal and stop lamps in a manner to render them, at least, partially inoperative. However, the Safety Shot is subject to regulation by the individual States of the United States in which it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Motor vehicles are also required to be manufactured to conform to Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors. Under this standard, if installation of the Safety Shot prevents the vehicle from meeting the rearview mirror field of view requirements specified, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the Safety Shot must install a rear view mirror on the passenger side of the vehicle (as a practical matter, most vehicles in the U.S. are manufactured with this additional mirror).

ID: nht75-2.33

DATE: 09/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tokio Iinuma

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 27, 1975, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 219 with respect to certain of your test results.

The primary purpose of Standard No. 219 is to protect vehicle occupants from impact with vehicle parts that have penetrated into the passenger compartment through the windshield during a crash. The inner surface of the windshield is the area of interface between the windshield and the passenger compartment. Therefore, the standard is designed to ensure that nothing penetrates into the passenger compartment by precluding penetration of the inner surface of the windshield below the protected zone in a crash test.

In Case 1, although the windshield below the protected zone was cracked, nothing penetrated the inner surface of the windshield. Therefore, it would appear that the windshield is in compliance with S5 of Standard No. 219.

Similarly, in Case 2, it appears that the object did not penetrate the inner surface of the windshield, although the windshield was deformed. Therefore, it would appear that the vehicle is also in compliance.

We hope this information is of assistance. Please contact us if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

August 27, 1975

Frank Berndt Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 219: Windshield Zone Intrusion

This is to request your interpretation of FMVSS 219; S.5 which states, "no such part of a vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield below the protected zone defined in S.6"

Something hit against the portion of the windshield below the protected zone and cracked it in the following cases:

Case 1. As the deformation of the glass was very little, it could not be observed even in the movie analysis. However, the shock was enough to crack the glass.

Case 22. The deformation of the glass could be observed visibly, but the film between glasses was not broken and nothing went through the windshield.

That is, the object did not get in touch with the air in the occupant compartment.

May we understand that the tested vehicles in the above two cases are in compliance with the requirement respectively?

Thank you for your attention to the above request. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Tokio Iinuma

Staff, Safety

ID: 2855o

Mr. Richard J. Matysiak
President
Auto Chek, Inc.
P.O. Box 258
Stone Mountain, GA 30086-0258

Dear Mr. Matysiak:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Frank Ephraim of our Office of Plans and Policy, asking about the effects of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541; copy enclosed) on certain body repair processes. Specifically, you asked how the theft prevention standard would affect the body repair process of "clipping" body sections from one vehicle and attaching the clipped section to a different vehicle. This repair process is not prohibited or regulated by the theft prevention standard, as explained below.

The purpose of the theft prevention standard is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. To achieve this purpose, the theft prevention standard requires manufacturers to affix or inscribe identification markings onto 14 major original equipment and replacement parts of certain high theft cars. Dealers and repair shops are prohibited from removing, obliterating, tampering with, or altering these identification markings, unless the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary to repair the part or vehicle; see 18 U.S.C. 511.

These requirements should not significantly impact the repair process of "clipping" described in your letter. Nothing in the theft prevention standard or the law prohibits a repair shop from clipping sections from wrecked vehicles. The repair shop would be required by law to leave in place any identification markings on the "clipped" section that were not damaged in the "clipping" process.

As noted in your letter, the repaired vehicle might have two different vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) marked on its major parts, with some parts marked with the VIN assigned to the repaired vehicle and other parts marked with the VIN assigned to the damaged vehicle from which the section was "clipped." The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, which ordered this agency to promulgate the theft prevention standard, clearly contemplates that vehicles undergoing repair could wind up with some parts numbered differently than the parts originally on the car. That law is based on the idea that some major parts are likely to survive a crash undamaged and that those parts can legitimately be used to repair other vehicles. Such repairs would naturally result in repaired cars having some parts numbered differently than the rest of the car. Since the law enforcement community vigorously supported this law, they must not have believed that cars with some parts numbered differently than the other parts of the car would pose particular problems for them.

You also asked how the "clipping" process would affect our disclosure and titling requirements. We answered the question of how the disclosure requirements apply in an October 15, 1980 letter to Mr. John Kelly of the Iowa Department of Transportation. In the letter to Mr. Kelly, we said, "... if a vehicle is constructed from the parts of several vehicles, the odometer statement must still be completed at the time of sale. If the seller knows the mileage on the various components used to construct the vehicle, he should inform the purchaser of the highest mileage that he knows, or the mileage on the chassis if he knows it. If he does not know the mileages, he will be required to state that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. Titling requirements and designations such as "salvage" and "rebuilt" vehicles are determined by State law, not Federal law.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:541#580 d:3/30/88

ID: 86-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Michael Love

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager Porsche Cars North America. Inc. 200 South Virginia Street Reno, NV 89501

Dear Mr. Love:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office, with respect to an aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamp kit that Porsche wishes to offer through its dealer network.

You initially reference the preamble of August 31, 1984 (49 FR 34488) in which NHTSA stated that it would study the request of General Motors to supply an aftermarket kit "and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use". You ask the following questions:

"1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?"

NHTSA has not proceeded to the study referenced because it subsequently decided such a study was unnecessary for the reasons set forth in our answer to your second question.

"2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?"

NHTSA does not consider that any Federal impediments exist to the sale, installation, and use of such aftermarket devices, and further is not aware at this time of any State impediments to such sale, installation and use. However, we strongly recommend that these devices be designed to comply as closely as possible with those meeting Federal requirements. For example, a State may have a law prohibiting interior-mounted lamps that cause reflections on the rear window; Standard No. 108 requires original equipment center high-mounted stop lamps to be provided with means to minimize such reflections, and aftermarket lamps should also be so designed to minimize reflections in order to comply with the State requirement.

"3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?"

NHTSA believes that retrofitting passenger cars with a center high-mounted stop lamp meeting original equipment specifications will prove to be as beneficial in reducing the incidence of low speed rear end collisions as in the population of passenger cars on which it has been installed as original equipment, and NHTSA encourages such retrofit. However, NHTSA's research study did not include other types of motor vehicles such as buses, trucks, and trailers though intuitively the concept would appear to have some merit.

(4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any States passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights?"

No.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1985

Z. Taylor Vinson Office of Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson,

Due to customer demand, Porsche AG is considering offering through Porsche Cars North America, Inc., a Center High Mounted Stop Light (CHMSL) aftermarket kit for sale and installation by its Dealer network.

This kit would be intended for installation on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1985 and not originally equipped with a CHMSL. Porsche has several questions regarding the language in the supplementary information for the August 31, 1984 final rule on FMVSS 108, 49 FR 34488. It states:

"GM further commented that the proposal did not address the after market package which General Motors had intended to make available through our dealers, since it only speaks of passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1989 and September 1, 1985".

Also,

"The agency was not aware that GM had intended to offer an aftermarket package until receiving its comment. Such an amendment would be outside the scope of the proposal, and accordingly, was not considered. Under paragraph S4.7.1, the standard covers the aftermarket only to the extent that GM (or any manufacturer) offers a lamp intended as replacement for an original equipment center high-mounted stop lamp. However, to encourage retrofit in the aftermarket, NHTSA will study GM's request and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use".

Specifically,

1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?

2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?

3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?

4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any states passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights:

Respectfully,

Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager

cc: Kurt Meier

ML/ma

ID: GF003174

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This responds to your facsimile dated April 9, 2004, seeking further clarification of our interpretation letter sent to you on April 2, 2004. You believe we mistakenly assumed that your hazard warning signal flasher is a closed type instead of an open type flasher.

In the April 2, 2004, letter, we indicated that the newly reprogrammed flash rate of your hazard warning signal flasher would comply with the current requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (FMVSS No. 108). However, we also stated that the flash pattern in your device is very different from what the agency contemplated in incorporating SAE Recommended Practice J945 by reference in the standard, and noted that existing hazard warning signal flashers operate at an essentially constant rate. Because we believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals and because very different flash patterns have the potential to cause confusion, we indicated that we plan in the near future to modify Standard No. 108 in a way that would preclude your design.

In your latest facsimile, you state that your hazard warning signal flasher is a closed type flasher, as opposed to an open type flasher. You also ask that we explain how your flasher can comply with the requirements set forth in J945, and fail to comply with the requirements of Figure 1.

First, J945 and its accompanying Figure 1 specify requirements for "Flash Rate and Percent Current On Time." The flash rate must be 60 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally open" (i.e., variable load) flashers, and 90 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally closed" (i.e., fixed load) flashers. In the present case, the distinction between "normally open" or "normally closed" flashers is irrelevant because your hazard warning signal flasher would satisfy either requirement of flashes per minute.

Second, our previous letter did not indicate that your hazard warning signal flasher failed to comply with the requirements of Figure 1. Instead, we indicated our concern with the fact that while your flasher met the flashes-per-minute average identified in Figure 1, each individual flash cycle in your flash pattern is outside the parameters established in Figure 1.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.6/14/04

ID: 21118.ztv

Richard H. Hodson, Esq.
310 North Main Street
P.O. Box 435
Garden City, KS 67846-0435

Dear Mr. Hodson:

Your letter of December 16, 1999, addressed to Ms. Nancy McFadden, the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation, has been forwarded to this Office for reply. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of the Department responsible for issuing, interpreting, and enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am sorry that our response to your letter has been delayed.

You relate that a client of yours was charged with operating a motor vehicle with improper headlamps, specifically that the headlamp bulbs have a blue tint to them. The bulbs are replacement bulbs, and were installed by the previous owner of the vehicle. Your review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment has led you to conclude that the only permissible colors for headlamps are white and yellow. Yet you understand that some cars have this color of headlamp as original equipment, and you report seeing replacement headlamps, with a similar tint, that are stamped DOT "which presumably reflects approval by your agency," and packaging stating they are legal in all states.

When we revise Standard No. 108 in the near future, we will clearly state that the color of headlamps must be white. The interpretation I am providing, of course, is for the standard as it is presently written. Paragraph S7 of Standard No. 108 sets forth the requirements for headlamps. In various places, S7 specifies that headlamps must meet Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1383 APR85. This refers to SAE Recommended Practice J1383 APR 85 "Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps." Of particular interest to you will be the provisions of S7.5 of Standard No. 108 covering replaceable bulb headlamps, the type used by your client. S7.5(c) in pertinent part requires replaceable bulb headlamps to meet "performance requirements of section 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85." This version of SAE J1383 appears in the SAE Handbooks for the years 1986 through 1990 when J1383 APR85 was revised. Section 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85 states that "The color of the headlamp shall be white as specified in SAE J578." This refers to SAE Standard J578c, February 1977 "Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices" (see S5.1.5 of Standard No. 108). This version appeared only in the 1978 SAE Handbook.

SAE J578c defines white by blue, yellow, green, red, and purple boundaries within a chromaticity diagram. Thus, it is possible to design a headlamp that emits a light that approaches the blue boundary and is perceived as having a blue tint but which nevertheless remains within the boundaries that define "white." These headlamps would comply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108. Without an actual test of your client's headlamp bulbs, it is not possible to say whether the color emitted remains within the boundaries of "white."

A headlamp's replaceable light sources themselves, whether new or replacement equipment (see S5.8.1) must meet the requirements of S7.7 of Standard No. 108 and bear the DOT symbol that represents the light source manufacturer's certification that the light source meets all applicable requirements of the standard. Though not specifically stated in S7.7, which contains no reference to 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85, these bulbs obviously must project a white light in order for the headlamps to comply when the bulbs are installed. Thus, we regard the color white as one of the performance requirements of replacement replaceable light sources covered by the DOT certification. That is why you see replacement bulb packages (presumably containing DOT-certified light sources) stating that the bulbs are legal in all states.

Please note that the DOT symbol does not represent our "approval." We have no authority to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. 30115, the manufacturer must certify conformance of its product, and we play no role in the certification process.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/4/00

ID: 8301

Mr. Guy Dorleans
International and Regulatory Affairs Manager
Valeo
34, rue Saint-Andre
93012 Bobigny Cedex
France

Dear Mr. Dorleans:

We have received your letter of January 22, 1993, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to aimability of headlamps.

Valeo is currently studying new principles for aiming small circular headlamps. It appears that these headlamps will require unique aiming adaptors (meaning that the Hopkins universal adaptor cannot be used with them). These adaptors will be placed in the trunk of any vehicle with which they are supplied, and relevant instructions for use will be included in the vehicle operator's manual. Valeo has asked for confirmation that each version complies with Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 does not require that an aiming adaptor be provided with a motor vehicle, only that the vehicle's headlamps be capable of mechanical aim. Therefore there is no legal requirement that an adaptor be provided. However, without such an adaptor, an owner of a vehicle with the new headlamps may encounter difficulties at State inspection stations where the Hopkins adaptor is in use, and at repair facilities when headlamps are replaced or after body work has been performed that necessitates reaim of headlamps. Therefore we believe that provision of the adaptor and aiming information would enhance consumer acceptance of the new headlamps.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 D:3/4/93