ID: 3111yy

Mr. Ken Hanna
Lectric Limited, Inc.
7322 S. Archer Road
Justice, Illinois 60458

Dear Mr. Hanna:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. l08 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. l08, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:7/29/9l

ID: 21387.ztv

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
President
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This is in reply to your letter of March 2, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

As you are aware, Mark Rodgers of American Products Company (APC) was informed in a telephone conversation with an engineer from the Office of Safety Performance Standards that it appeared that the company's All Clear replacement rear vehicle lighting assemblies (which they import from China) are illegal did not comply with our safety standard and therefore could not legally be sold as replacement equipment, even though they were being advertised "For Off Road Use Only." You approve of this but have asked three questions:

"1. As I understand the 1966 Vehicle Safety Act . . . Rulemaking Standards have a right and a legal obligation to the American Public to decree these kind of lights as "Illegal" . . . True?"

Pursuant to its authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has promulgated a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires replacement lighting equipment to comply with the same requirements as are applicable to the original equipment that it replaces (see S5.8.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108). If the replacement lighting equipment fails to comply, it may not be sold and the manufacturer (defined to include the importer) of the equipment must make a determination of noncompliance and inform us of that fact, and then notify purchasers and remedy the noncompliance. If the manufacturer fails to make such a determination, NHTSA may make the determination instead and order the manufacturer to notify and remedy.

"2. Without a printed Legal interpretation on this matter somewhere in Accessible Public Files . . . who is going to know of this decision. Therefore, why hasn't this action been publicly printed for all concerned to read?"

As required by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 and by 49 CFR Part 573, APC filed a Noncompliance Information Report with us on November 12, 1999 covering clear taillamp lenses that it had imported. The Recall Campaign Number is 99E-039. All Part 573 Reports are available to the public in NHTSA's Technical Reference section, and all recalls are tracked on the agency's internet Website, at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls.

In addition, we have responded to a request from a law enforcement officer in Arizona for an interpretation on the law on replacement taillamp lenses that are marked as intended for -off road. I enclose a copy for your information.

"3. Under what circumstances will NHTSA continue to decree Obviously "Non-Compliant", or "Confusing," or "Distracting" Lighting products as "illegal" for O.E.M. use by U.S. Vehicle Manufacturers, or for U.S. Aftermarket Sales . . . for the Replacement of Originally Mandated Lights?"

Standard No. 108 will continue to require replacement taillamp lenses and side and rear reflex reflectors to be red, and we foresee no circumstances under which we will change that requirement.

You have asked that we post your letter and our reply on NHTSA's website "so readers can compare my questions with your answers." As I indicated in response to your second question, it is our practice to post copies of our interpretations on our website. This letter repeats the questions you have asked, and it will be posted shortly after I have signed it.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.4/21/2000

ID: 3135o

Mr. Al Cunningham
Chief Engineer
Wesbar Corporation
P.O. Box 577
West Bend, WI 53095

Dear Mr. Cunningham:

This is in reply to your letter of September l4, l988, attaching two lamps, and asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 with respect to each. Specifically, you wish clarifications of SAE J588e, "the definition...2.2 'Multiple Compartment Lamp' and the term used in 3.1 'Single Compartment Lamp'".

SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08, defines a multiple compartment lamp as "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts such as a housing or lens." The term "single compartment lamp" is not used in section 3.1, though the term "single compartment photometric requirements" is used in referencing the values for one "lighted section" given in Table 1 of J588e. For purposes of this discussion we shall define a "single compartment lamp" as one that gives its indication by one lighted area.

You have described your first lamp as "a housing with back and four sides containing a two filament bulb with a single lens covering face of housing." The lamp photometrically complies to the basic requirements of a Class A tail, stop and turn signal lamp. You have asked if this lamp is a single compartment lamp. The answer is yes; your model 3504 Exp. contains a single light source and has a single lighted area.

Your second lamp is described as "a housing with a back, two sides and one end, containing one #57 bulb and one #ll57 (2 filament) bulb. This housing is closed with two red lenses, one on the end and one on the face with an additional clear lens on bottom side. This lamp also complies to all standards of a class A tail, stop and turn lamp plus side marker clearance, license plate illuminator and class a reflex reflector side and rear". You ask if this also is a single compartment lamp. The answer is yes. The term "separately lighted area" in the definition of a multiple compartment lamp is understood to mean an area that is illuminated by a separate light source. In your model 3504 the turn signal light is provided by the #ll57 bulb alone, and not in tandem with the #57 bulb.

I hope that this provides the clarification you seek. We are returning your lamps under separate cover.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:108 d:ll/3/88

ID: nht89-2.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GEORGE A. VAN STRATEN -- PRESIDENT VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT CO. INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/12/89 FROM GEORGE A. VANSTRATEN -- VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT; OCC 3732; LETTER DATED 05/16/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD -- AGAPE PLASTICS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Van Straten:

This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1989, to this Office, requesting a copy of any agency correspondence with Thomas Gravengood, well as an interpretation of Federal requirements as they apply to heated motor vehicle lamps produced by your compan y. Your company manufactures "heated lights" which are intended to melt snow that accumulates on them in the winter months. In Mr. Gravengood's letter of April 3, 1989, to us he 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 moto r 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 relationshi p 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 or iginal 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 manufact urers 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 appli es 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 th at it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S5.1.3, formerly paragraph S4.1.3). Your lamps "splice into" the wiring for the taillamps and "marker lamps", according to your product literature. Therefore, it is incumb ent 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 ex ists, 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 t he clearance lamps required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.4) 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 ne w 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 eq uipment 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 obligati on 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 t o 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. As you requested, we are enclosing a copy of Mr. Gravengood's letter of April 3.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam2513

Dear Mr. Moore: This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1976, asking severa questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You referenced my letter of October 7, 1976 to Wesbar Corporation, and my views about the prohibition against the optical combination of lamps (S4.4.1).; It is evident from your letter and others that our previou interpretations of the term 'optical combination' have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is 'optically combined' when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (*e.g.* taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the 'same light source'. In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. our re- interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over from one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.; You have also asked whether the November 1975 amendments (S4.3.1.1.1 'permit clearance lights that are designed *for OEM application only* be allowed to have lower or no photometrics in this area but still be considered a combination clearance and sidemarker lamp' as the lamp otherwise complies with Standard No. 108.; The amendment in question was intended to cover clearance lamps only If a lamp is intended as a combination clearance and side marker lamp and does not meet the requirements for a clearance lamp because of the exemption provided by S4.3.1.1.1, it must nevertheless meet the requirements for side marker lamps. If it doesn't, a separate conforming side marker lamp must be provided.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-2.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1990

FROM: William Waltz -- Wagner Division, Cooper Industries, Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-25-90 to W. Waltz from P. J. Rice; signature by S. P. Wood; (A34; Std. 108) TEXT:

Wagner Lighting Division of Cooper Industries would like to petition N.H.T.S.A. for a "Determination of Inconsequentiality" for non-compliance. We have been asked to assemble antique-appearing sealed beam headlamps for Lectric Limited.

Lectric Limited, a small manufacturer of parts geared toward the antique automobile industry, perceived a need among automobile collectors and hobbyists for sealed beam headlight bulbs for their cars which cosmetically appeared to be the same as those which were originally supplied with their vehicles. These authentic styled bulbs would enhance the value of their vehicles and also add valuable points to their scores at various shows.

Most of these same auto enthusiasts are acquiring old bulbs from wrecking yards which in most cases are extremely dim due to their age and the fact that they were built to the J579A spec. These old bulbs are also prone to sudden failure which is of no consequence at a car show; but can be hazardous on the occasional drive that these vehicles are sometimes used for. In spite of these risks, auto enthusiasts search the junk yards for these rare bulbs and use them.

After considering this problem, Lectric Limited requested a license from Fisher Guide Division of General Motors to duplicate their original lens design on October 6, 1987. On November 9, 1988, a license was granted to Lectric Limited to produce these bulbs.

On March 4, 1989, Lectric Limited contracted with Corning Glass to produce the lenses in accordance with J579A spec. It should be pointed out, that at the time the order to produce these lenses was given, the J579A spec was still on the books. However, shortly after Corning manufactured the tooling to produce these lenses the J579A spec was taken out of the book.

After the J579A spec was declared obsolete (approximately May, 1989), Lectric Limited requested that Corning attempt to upgrade the lens designed to meet J579C. This change also added to the cost of the project, but since the J579C spec would produce a superior and safer product it appeared that the added expenditure would be justified.

Corning was successful in modifying the design to meet J579C spec without noticeable change to the outward appearance of the bulbs and thereby still allowing these bulbs to be acceptable to the vast majority of antique auto enthusiasts.

Lectric Limited was not aware, at the time, that the markings 1D1 or 2D1 were a part of the spec and were required to be on the top of each bulb

produced. These markings on the face of each bulb would in effect make them useless to the antique auto enthusiasts. With no alternative, the car hobbyist would continue to purchase the unsafe but cosmetically accurate junk yard bulbs.

Lectric Limited is a small company and this waste of funds invested would be devastating to its financial future. This, in turn, would cause layoffs and a curtailment in new investments and projects.

OPTION #1

Wagner is requesting permission to produce these bulbs to 579A spec which would allow the use of the word TOP on #6012 (7") bulbs, #1 on 4001 (5 3/4") bulbs and #2 on 4002 (5 3/4") bulbs. We would also not be using the D.O.T. identification on the bulbs.

OPTION #2

Wagner would produce these bulbs to meet 579C specs and would use the word TOP on #6014 (7") bulb in place of 2C1, use the #1 designation on the 5001 (5 3/4") bulbs in place of the 1C1 designation and use the #2 designation on the 4000 (5 3/4") bulbs in place of the 2C1 designation. We would also not be using the D.O.T. identification on these bulbs.

ADDENDUM TO OPTION #2

Lectric Limited is willing to ink stamp the 1D1 or 2C1 and DOT designation on either the face and or the rear of each bulb, in order to avoid mistaking these bulbs for J579A spec bulbs.

Lectric Limited would produce an instruction sheet for insertion in each bulb package or print instructions on each box explaining the variations to the end user. This would also help to avoid confusion.

Lectric Limited is also willing to assure that these bulbs will only be marketed through antique auto specialty retailers and not through major chain stores and retail outlets. This, in addition to the added cost of the bulb which will be necessitated by the small production volume, and the need to amortize the tooling cost over a limited run will help to assure that these bulbs will not be in wide use in everyday transportation vehicles.

In short, Lectric Limited is willing to do whatever is necessary to satisfy the NHTSA requirements in order to obtain a reasonable variation to the 579C spec in regard to the 1D1 and 2C1 designation issue.

We believe that this product will, in effect, enhance the safety of antique automotive enthusiasts and a variation should be granted on these grounds as well as the others stated in this request.

ID: 24345.ztv

Mr. Ronald E. Kish
Plastics by Design, Inc.
P.O. Box 220
Marcellus, MI 49067

Dear Mr. Kish:

This is in reply to your recent undated letters to Frank Seales, Jr., and John Womack, with reference to a license plate lamp you intend to market for use on a cargo utility trailer. You enclosed a test report and stated that the test results are "within the SAE Standard J587 and FMVS 108." You asked "may we market this model as compliant with D.O.T. ???"

Under the primary motor vehicle safety statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment must certify that its product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) if there is a FMVSS that applies to its product (49 U.S.C. 30115). Paragraph S5.8, the replacement equipment provisions of FMVSS No. 108, applies to the license plate lamp you intend to manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 allows you, as the manufacturer, to certify compliance by labeling each lamp with a DOT symbol (S5.8.10). Use of this symbol identifies the lamp as compliant with DOT standards applicable to license plate lamps, but if you wish to use further language indicating compliance, we prefer that you say the lamp "complies with FMVSS No. 108" rather than "compliant with D.O.T."

We express no opinion as to whether your lamp design complies with FMVSS No. 108. The test report you sent us relates to the photometric performance of a center highmounted stop lamp with a clear red lens, and you cannot use this as a basis for certifying conformance of a license plate lamp.

Assuming that you have, or will have, a test report indicating that your license plate lamp meets SAE J587, the fact that a prototype lamp meets the tests specified in applicable SAE standards does not necessarily indicate that all production lamps will comply with SAE specifications incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108. A manufacturer must exercise "reasonable care" in ensuring that each of its products complies with all applicable FMVSS and in certifying such compliance (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A), 30115) in order not to violate the provisions of Chapter 301. Occasional surveillance testing of production items is one means of ensuring continuing compliance of products.

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

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/14/02

ID: aiam3649

Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This is in reply to your letter of November 23, 1982, to Mr. Elliott o this agency asking whether you may distinguish between U.S. and Japanese-manufactured lighting equipment subject to Federal Standard No. 108 by marking the lenses 'U.S.A. DOT' and 'JAPAN DOT', rspectively (sic).; As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no adopted the SAE standard on equipment marking, J759c. This means that the only marking subject to Standard No. 108 is that which certifies compliance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the DOT symbol. We believe that the intended proximity of the words 'Japan DOT' in your Japanese- manufactured equipment might create the impression that Stanley was certifying compliance to the requirements of the Japanese Ministry of Transport, rather than to those of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Therefore, we suggest that you place the word 'Japan' at the end of the line rather than adjacent to the 'DOT' symbol.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3694

Dear Mr. Bennett: This is in response to your letter of April 12, 1983, asking for a interpretation of paragraph S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; This paragraph states in pertinent part that 'means may be provided t flash...side marker lamps for signalling purposes.' You have first asked whether the rear side marker can be made to flash. You have also asked whether this language may be interpreted as allowing both front and rear side marker lamps to be flashed. The answer to both questions is yes. In the absence of restrictive language, paragraph S4.6 may be interpreted as allowing flashing of either front or rear side marker lamps, or both sets of lamps.; You have also asked whether, where the rear side marker and taillam use the same optical source ('minor filament of a 1157 or similar bulb'), it is acceptable to have an overriding signal visible through the rear side marker lens when the turn signal lamp is actuated. The answer is yes. The standard's prohibition against optical combinations (paragraph S4.1.1) does not preclude this design.; We hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1989

FROM: BILL WALTZ -- WAGNER DIVISION, COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.

TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED APRIL 8, 1990 TO BILL WALTZ FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108)

TEXT:

Lectric Limited has asked Wagner to assemble some round glass headlights for them, designed to appear as closely as possible to those produced by Guide Lamp in the 1950's.

All markings and configurations on the original lamps are being reproduced and this creates a problem in complying with "108". The lamps they are interested in are 6012 (7"), 4001 (5 3/4" #1) and 4002 (5 3/4" #2). In accordance with the original marking they will have a "1" or "2" at the top of the lens, not the "2D1", "1C1" and "2C1" now required by NHTSA.

Secondly, the inscription DOT, indicating compliance with existing regulations, will be omitted, since this was obviously riot on the original lamps.

We are asking your permission for those deviations since the lamps will be made to today's photometric standards and will be distributed on a limited basis through antique part dealers. The lamps will be subjected to all the tests currently required of the round headlights.

If there is any problem with this production, please let me know, so that we can try to worK out a solution satisfactory to all parties involved.