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: 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: 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: 571.108--NCC-230201-001 LED Headlights_ M. Baker

February 13, 2024

Mr. Mark Baker, B.S.E.E. Soft Lights

9450 SW Gemini Drive PMB 44671

Beaverton, OR 97008

mbaker@softlights.org

Dear Mr. Baker:

This responds to your letter and email dated June 27, 2021 and October 31, 2021, respectively, regarding the legal status and safety of motor vehicle headlamps that use light-emitting diode (LED) technology as the light source. Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your letter and email.

You ask about the “legality of LED headlights.” You state your belief that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 does not regulate “peak luminance, absolute spectral power distribution or flicker” and that the standard “only applies to spherical emitters such as tungsten- filament and gas-discharge and is not applicable to non-uniform luminance flat-source emitters such as LED chips.” You ask whether it is “NHTSA’s position that FMVSS No. 108 is only applicable to uniform luminance emitters which can be regulated by setting maximums for luminous intensity without the need of setting peak luminance maximums” and whether “NHTSA [has] approved the use of spatially heterogeneous visible radiation for use as the light source used in vehicle headlights.” You state your concerns about adverse health impacts due to the performance characteristics of LEDs, such as high peak luminance, high-color temperature, high-energy blue wavelength light, and flicker. You request NHTSA’s opinion about the “sufficiency” of FMVSS No. 108 regarding these health concerns.

We understand you to use “uniform luminance emitters” to refer to filament (halogen/tungsten) and high-intensity discharge (HID) light sources, and “non-uniform” or “heterogenous emitter” to refer to LED light sources. We therefore understand you to be asking whether LEDs are legal as a light source in motor vehicle headlamps under FMVSS No. 108, and, if they are legal, what is NHTSA’s position on the safety of LED light sources in headlamps with respect to “eye safety, mental safety, and visual performance.”

Background

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

FMVSS No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment,” applies to “[p]assenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), and motorcycles” and covers, among other things, “original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment” for motor vehicles. The standard specifies performance requirements for headlamps. The most common types of headlamps are integral beam (S10.14) and replaceable bulb (S10.15, S11) headlamps.

NHTSA has stated that LED light sources are permitted as part of an integral beam headlamp if they are wired in series such that a failure of one LED would cause all the LEDs to cease functioning, and they otherwise comply with all relevant FMVSS.1 Paragraph S4 of FMVSS

No. 108 defines an integral beam headlamp as “a headlamp … comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source, except that a headlamp conforming to paragraph S10.18.8 or paragraph S10.18.9 may have a lens designed to be replaceable.” The standard does not contain performance requirements for a light source that is part of an integral beam headlamp, but instead specifies performance requirements for the complete headlamp. These include (among other things) photometry, through minimum and maximum candela at specified test points,2 color, which must remain within specified boundaries,3 and that the headlamp be steady burning.4

While LED light sources that are part of an integral beam headlamp are permitted as noted above, no LED light source is currently permitted to be used in a replaceable bulb headlamp. FMVSS No. 108 contains specific requirements for the replaceable light sources (i.e., bulbs) used in replaceable bulb headlamps. These requirements are intended to support light source interchangeability. Paragraph S11 of the standard requires that “[e]ach replaceable light source must be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to part 564 of this chapter[.]”5 Part 564 requires that replaceable bulb manufacturers submit to NHTSA for review and acceptance various design specifications for the bulb. If accepted, this design information is then placed in a publicly available docket to facilitate the manufacture and use of those light sources. As of the date of this letter, no submission that includes LEDs as the light source for a replaceable bulb headlamp has been listed in the docket. Therefore, no LED replaceable light source may be used in a replaceable bulb headlamp.

Discussion

Pursuant to FMVSS No. 108, paragraphs S4 and S10.14, LEDs are allowed to be used as a light source in integral beam headlamps as long as the headlamp conforms to all applicable headlamp requirements in FMVSS No. 108. However, LEDs are not currently permitted in a replaceable bulb headlamp. Nevertheless, illegal LED headlamp replaceable light sources may be available for purchase on the internet, and although these lights do not conform to the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, some consumers purchase and install these LED light sources in their replaceable bulb headlamps. While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of light sources, it generally does not regulate the modifications individuals make to their own vehicles. It is therefore left to State law to address installation of an LED replaceable light source in a headlamp.

FMVSS No. 108 does not directly regulate what you describe as peak luminance as measured in nits or the spectral power distribution of the headlamp light source. However, this is indirectly regulated through the headlamp performance requirements, such as the photometry and chromaticity requirements. Additionally, flicker is regulated through the requirement that lower beam headlamps be steady burning. We also note that, although FMVSS No. 108 requires that the light emitted by headlamps be white, the permissible boundary of white includes colors that may be perceived by the human eye as white with a yellow tint and white with a blue tint.6

In your communications, you raise concerns about the health impacts of LED headlamps. We are aware of concerns raised about possible adverse effects of certain LED devices, particularly as used in street lighting that emits excess blue light.7 NHTSA’s focus is on automotive safety, but the agency recognizes that separate expertise resides in sister agencies that are health-focused, such as the Food and Drug Administration.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
 

John Donaldson
Acting Chief Counsel

1 Letter from Stephen Wood, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Takayuki Amma, Manager, Koito Manufacturing Co. (Dec. 21, 2005). Letter from O. Kevin Vincent, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Junichi Hasegawa, Stanley Electric Co. (Apr. 8, 2013). Interpretation letters are available on NHTSA’s online interpretations database at https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa-interpretation-file-search.

2 Photometry requirements for headlamp systems can be found in FMVSS No. 108, Tables XVIII and XIX.

3 See FMVSS No. 108, Table I-a (headlamp color). Chromaticity requirements are pursuant to FMVSS No. 108 S14.4.

4See FMVSS No. 108 Tables I-(a and c). NHTSA has stated that “steady burning” means “light that is essentially unvarying in intensity.” See Letter from Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to United Sidecar Association, Inc. (Feb. 9, 1982). A device may fail to meet this requirement where the driver “would not see a signal that was consistent or reliable in its meaning.” See Letter from Paul Jackson Rice, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Bob Abernathy, Idea’s Inc. (Sept. 7, 1990) (applying steady burning in a taillamps context). In the context of a modulating motorcycle headlamp, we have stated that “there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be a steady beam.” Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Joe De Sousa (March 10, 1994).

5 See Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Nancy Tavarez, Beitrix Industries (Aug. 30, 1995) (clarifying application of Part 564 to replaceable headlamp bulbs).

6 Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Richard Hodson, (July 4, 2000) (stating that “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.”).

7 See “AMA adopts guidance to reduce harm from high intensity street lights,” American Medical Association, June 14, 2016, available at https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-adopts-guidance-reduce-harm-high- intensity-street-lights.

ID: nht88-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/16/88

FROM: RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS INC

TO: ROBERT KNAUFF DESIGN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ROBERT KNAUFF; REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 108; LETTER DATED 06/08/89 FROM ROBERT J. KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH AND DESIGN INC TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- DOT; LETTER DATED 12/07/87 FROM RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS TO ROBERT J. KNAUFF

TEXT: Dear Mr. Knauff:

This is an evaluation of your school bus rear warning lamp demonstration with a pop-flash option.

I initially expected that we would have a problem with high intensity flash washing out the red lens and appearing white. Technically this is what happens and if you concentrate on it, the flash can appear white. The flash duration however was so brief and when used in concert with red in the cycle did not appear white to me. That should clear one obstacle, as white is prohibited in this type of lamp. Dual day/night intensity should not be necessary as long as you stick with red lamps.

You should also not have to restrict the pop to less than every flash, but in any case you will have to locate the discharge bulb so that the parabolic reflector and lens of the host lamp project the energy at very nearly about the H-Y point. Any large amount that occurs down at a level so as to be observed by a passenger car operator less than, let us approximate, 200 feet away would probably be objectionable to some, depending upon a number of factors that I need not go into at this point.

Generally, we have a basic concept that a signal is either required or not permitted. This keeps messages clear between vehicle operators. In this case however, I believe that we can consider this option since it is only an appendage modification of an existing warning system.

When you clear this modification with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compliance office and with the Minnesota Department of Education student transportation office, we would need to have a look at the finished product and your test da ta for purposes of commissioner's authorization or commissioner's approval certification depending upon the marketing approach that is possible and that you wish to take.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Oral Interpretation of Standard No. 108: Optical Combination

From Z. Taylor Vinson Senior Staff Attorney

To: Interpretations Files

Recently a lamp manufacturer phoned to ask whether a replacement lighting device it had developed for installation on trucks and trailers in use would be allowable under Standard No. 108.

The lamp as described is an amber-lensed wrap-around lamp incorporating a clearance lamp to the front and a marker lamp to the side, with one bulb for each function. I replied that the prohibition in S4.4. applicable to clearance lamps forbade their comb ination only with identification lamps and stop lamps, and that if his combination lamp met photometric and mounting requirements applicable to each function, it appeared to be permissible under Standard No. 108.

ID: nht87-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger M. Cox -- R & R Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to J. Mike Callahan (A32; Std. 108); 4/14/87 letter from J. Mike Callahan to Taylor Vinson (occ 409); 9/3/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to David M. Romansky

TEXT: Mr. Roger M. Cox R & R Lighting, Inc. Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, AL 35901

Dear Mr. Cox:

This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1987, with respect to whether a lighting product you intend to market is "in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle." You describe your product as a "lighted decal" which can be mounted in the rear window of any car or pick-up truck, and the photographs you enclosed show it mounted in the center of the rear window of a pre-1980 model Seville. The decal will be wired int o the brake system and when activated by the brake "only the letters in the decal will be lighted." You state further that although the letters will appear red to an observer this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or a tail light.

In our opinion, your product may or may not be in violation of Federal requirements depending upon the following uses. The product does not appear to be intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that has been standard equipment on pas senger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Indeed, it could not be so used unless it met all requirements for such a lamp. The principal requirements are that such lamps have a minimum of 4 1/2 square inches of illuminated lens area, that it meet specified photometrics at 13 test points, ad that it produce a signal visible from 45 degrees from the right to the left and from five degrees up to five degrees down. If your device does not meet these requirements, removal of the lamp and replace ment with your device would violate a prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act against rendering inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, in this case Safety Standard No. 108, Lam ps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. However, a dealer could install it on a new pick-up truck, or to one side of the center lamp in a new passenger car before their initial sale, provided the device did not impair the effectiveness of the r ear lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and the device could be installed on some vehicles in use (cars built before September 1, 1984, and any pick-up) provided that it did not render inoperative in whole or in part other required rear ligh ting equipment.

By this we mean that the device appears allowable for these vehicles under Federal law provided that wiring it into the brake system does not reduce the stop lamp output or otherwise affect the operation or the effectiveness of the stop lamp system. You should also ensure that your product is acceptable under State and local laws as well. Because there are no Federal requirements for your product, each State may regulate it as it deems proper.

I am enclosing the samples that you enclosed, and hope that we have answered your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

R & R Lighting, Incorporated Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, Alabama 35901

July 8, 1987

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Jones

Dear Mrs. Jones:

I am in the final planning stage before marketing/manufacturing a new product. After having exhausted all efforts at state and national levels, I talked with Mr. Brooks in the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. It was Mr. Brooks' opinion that we are no t in violation of any federal laps, but he suggested I correspond with you to get an appropriate legal opinion as to whether my product in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle.

My product. the "#1-American Team Light", is a lighted decal. It is designed to be mounted in the rear window. My product can be mounted onany car or pick-up truck. It will be wired into the brake system and when activated by the brake, only the letters in the decal will be lighted. The letters will appear the same color as automobile manufacturers use in brake lights and tail lights; however, this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or tail light. We have targeted the sport s enthusiast at high school and college level as our market group. We also feel we have a smaller market at local and state levels with a lighted decal that reads "Police" and "State Trooper".

In order to effectively market my product at its peak season, which would be September, time is of the essence. I have enclosed a sample lens and photographs.

Please review my information and sample and let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. If further information is needed, please call me collect at (205) 442-1642 or (205) 442-8436.

Very truly yours,

R & R LIGHTING INCORPORATED

Roger M. Cox

RMC/lc

Enclosures

ID: nht90-3.19

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1990

FROM: J.P. Ravier -- R&D Director, Valeo; Guy Dorleans -- Regulatory Affairs Manager, Valeo

TO: P.J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Ref: 861 M 90

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-13-90 to M.J.P. Ravier from Paul Jackson Rice (A36; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 7-30-90 to J.P. Ravier from Kathleen DeMeter

TEXT:

Valeo Lighting, manufacturer of car headlamps, hereby submits this request for an interpretation relating to the replaceable bulb headlamp aiming provisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, " Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipmen t."

In its issue of May 9th 1989, the Federal Register Vol. 54 No 88 in paragraph S.7.7.5.2. allows the use of a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device for lamps with moving reflectors. This possibility is an important step in the direction of world harmonization, since this concept is widely used in Europe and in Japan. Valeo lighting is determined to use this possibility as soon as possible, and in this purpose has studied the:

" Aiming concept for headlamps. Solution 2." The attached documents explain how our engineers have solved the problems of providing the aiming feature on each lamp, and summarize the instructions which will be written in the maintenance book of each car.

We would greatly appreciate if you would kindly treat all the drawings as confidential, because they involve our own idea for development of on-vehicle aiming which has something related to a patent application.

After our demonstration of a working prototype to NHTSA personnel on June 29th, we would ask you to provide us with your confirmation of our interpretation of Standard 108.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your promptly reply would be greatly appreciated.

Enclosure

July 13th, 1990

Aiming concept for Headlamps. Solution 2. 1) Description of the headlamp.

The lamp is composed of a lens with no aiming pads, a housing bolted on the car body and a reflector which moves independently inside the housing. The lens has a clear area which allows to observe a bubble spirit level fixed on the reflector. This cyli nder has its axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

The horizontal aiming feature consists in two combined coaxial screws and nut, hereafter referred to as AH and BH. The cap which gives access to the AH screw can be removed by using simple tools. The clearly legible outer surface of BH has graduations representing less than .38 degrees and a total amplitude of .76 degrees to the left and .76 degrees to the right.

2) Vertical reaim.

On the assembly lines of the lamp manufacturer, each lamp is individually aimed thanks to photometric means. The car manufacturer, on its assembly lines, also aims each lamp with photometric means. The position of the seating plane of the housing is ch ecked carefully, and each bubble vial is set to zero and then blocked for life in this position by the lamp manufacturer. To reaim vertically:

2 1) Check the car fulfills the specifications of SAE J 599 May '81. 2 2) Measure the longitudinal angular value of the floor slope. Note the figure and its orientation, positive or negative. 2 3) Operate the aiming control until the bubble has slid by an equal number of fiducial marks in the appropriate direction. 2 4) Do the same for both lamps.

3) Horizontal reaim.

On the assembly lines of the car manufacturer, provisions are taken so that the zero position of the BH nut coincides with the specified aim. To reaim horizontally: Rotate the BH nuts until their fiducial mark coincides with the zero of their body counterparts.

4) Vertical reaim after accident dammage.

This procedure is not part of the normal maintenance of the car. It involves tools which are normally owned by dealers or repair shops. The floor of their premices must be rigid, flat and substantially horizontal.

4 1) Rotate the vertical aiming control until the bubble comes to the zero position. If, after severe dammage, the bubble can not reach the origin of the scale because the stroke of the aiming screw is too small, place shims between the body panel and t he housing.

5) Horizontal reaim after accident dammage.

The remarks of the preceeding paragraph also apply.

5 1) Set to zero the fiducial mark on BH, right hand side. 5 2) Remove the bulb service bonnets, and attach the string aimer to the reflector, as shown on section AA of attached documents. No mispositionning can happen, because the aimer for t he left hand lamp cannot fit into the right hand lamp.

5 3) Unroll the string from its right hand reel and affix it to the opposite string aimer. 5 4) Tightly prevent the BH nut from rotating, remove the cap 5 5) Operate the right hand screw AH until the string comes to the zero of

the fiducial marking on the right hand aimer. 5 6) Symetrizing the instructions, do the same for the left hand lamp, remove aimers, reinstall the bonnets.

It is important to note that this example does not exclude the use of conventionnal means, like the aiming screen or even the more modern fractionnal balance aiming machines. Like for vertical reaim after dammage, shims may be necessary if the stroke of the AH screw does not suffice.

Attachments

Drawing of string aimer left hand unit solution 2. (Graphics omitted.)

Drawing of horizontal aiming feature solution 2. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: aiam4412

Dear Mr. Cox: This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1987, with respect t whether a lighting product you intend to market is 'in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle.'; You describe your product as a 'lighted decal' which can be mounted i the rear window of any car or pick-up truck, and the photographs you enclosed show it mounted in the center of the rear window of a pre-1980 model Seville.; The decal will be wired into the brake system and when activated by th brake 'only the letters in the decal will be lighted.' You state further that although the letters will appear red to an observer 'this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or a tail light.'; In our opinion, your product may or may not be in violation of Federa requirements depending upon the following uses. The product does not appear to be intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that has been standard equipment on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Indeed, it could not be so used unless it met all requirements for such a lamp. The principal requirements are that such lamps have a minimum of 4 1/2 square inches of illuminated lens area, that it meet specified photometrics at 13 test points, and that it produce a signal visible from 45 degrees from the right to the left and from five degrees up to five degrees down. If your device does not meet these requirements, removal of the lamp and replacement with your device would violate a prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act against rendering inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, in this case Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. However, a dealer could install it on a new pick-up truck, or to one side of the center lamp in a new passenger car before their initial sale, provided the device did not impair the effectiveness of the rear lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and the device could be installed on some vehicles in use (cars built before September 1, 1987, and any pick-up) provided that it did not render inoperative in whole or in part other required rear lighting equipment.; By this we mean that the device appears allowable for these vehicle under Federal law provided that wiring it into the brake system does not reduce the stop lamp output or otherwise affect the operation or the effectiveness of the stop lamp system.; You should also ensure that your product is acceptable under State an local laws as well. Because there are no Federal requirements for your product, each State may regulate it as it deems proper.; I am enclosing the samples that you enclosed, and hope that we hav answered your questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht69-2.35

DATE: 10/21/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; B. M. Crittenden for Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 20, 1969, concerning multiple compartment tail, stop and turn signal lamps.

The answers to your specific questions (numbered in accordance with your letter) are as follows:

1. (a)(b) 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.

(c) The manufacturer has no choice in interpreting paragraph S3.1.1.7. However, the manufacturer does have a choice in how he designs his turn signal lamps to comply with S3.1.1.7.

2. In your reference to Mr. Baker's letter of May 13, it was interpreted that "all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously." Paragraph S3.1.1.7 clearly states that "photometric requirements . . . . shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps." Therefore, if two lamps or compartments of a three lamp or three compartment lamp meet the photometric requirements, they shall be photometered together as a unit and the third lamp or compartment is considered an "additional lamp."

(a) Individual tests are permitted to determine whether one compartment actually does comply.

(b) No. The intent of paragraph S3.1.1.7 is clear. This section permits the use of either one or a combination of the compartments or lamps in meeting the photometric requirements.

3. (a)(b) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires one tail lamp and one stop lamp on each side of the vehicle. If one lamp of a multiple lamp or one compartment of a multiple compartment lamp meets the requirements, 1(a) above would apply. If two or more lamps or compartments are necessary to meet the requirements, they shall be photometered together as a unit.

4. (a) I am not familiar with State requirements "that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and be approved for that function," and do not read California Vehicle Code Section 24003 as a requirement of this nature. There is no such requirement in Standard No. 108. Lamps on a vehicle, and not required by the Standard, are generally subject to regulation by the States.

(b) Same as 1(a).

(c) Same as 1(a).

5. (a) If one compartment meets the requirements, 1(a) applies. If both are needed to meet the requirements, they are to be tested as a single unit.

(b) Same as 5(a).

In general, we believe that the above replies answer your several questions. However, should you have any additional questions with respect to a specific rear lighting arrangement for a specific vehicle, we would be pleased to provide further clarifying information.

August 20, 1969

Robert Brenner Acting Director National Highway Safety Bureau

We have a copy of a letter to Mr. Charles W. Heyer of Electrical Testing Laboratories from Mr. Charles A. Baker regarding photometric test procedures. That letter quite clearly points out the method in which the National Highway Safety Bureau desires multicompartment turn signal lamps to be photometered. However, it raises additional questions concerning procedures to be used both by a laboratory in determining compliance of a device with the Federal standards and by a manufacturer in designing a lamp to meet those standards.

The photometric requirements in SAE(Illegible Word) were developed several years ago before multicompartment lamps were in common use. These(Illegible Word) reasonably well fulfilled the need in upgrading the performance of single-compartment lamps at that time. Later, experience with some of the original multicompartment lamps and complaints about excessive brightness of the taillamps and stoplamps on vehicles brought about a need for revising the standards.

At that time, each section of a multicompartment lamp was treated in the same manner as an individual lamp, since their performance was little different than that of individual lamps set side by side. Therefore, each compartment of a three-compartment lamp had to(Illegible Words) and the 80 candlepower minimum for a turn signal lamp. In addition, each compartment was allowed to have a maximum intensity of 15 candlepower at or above(Illegible Word) for the taillamp and 300 candlepower in red for the turn signal lamp.

The above maximum values were reasonable when only one or two lamps were used on each side of the vehicle. Unfortunately, the first three-compartment lamps were built with such high light output that each compartment barely(Illegible Word) with the maximum. This meant in some cases that the combined taillamp output on each sivo of the vehicle was over 45 candlepower and the combined turn signal output was barely below the total maximum of(Illegible Word) candlepower, thereby being annoyingly bright to following drivers.

The manufacturers and the SAE Lighting Committee recognized this problem and after a number of demonstration of systems and rewriting of proposed crafts developed the multicompartment rear lamp specification in SAE J575d. The original brightness problem appeares to be quite simple and could have been solved merely by reducing the maximum intensities allowed multicompartment lamps; however, the manufacturers more concerned that they would then be squeezed between a high minimum value for each compartment and a low maximum value which did not allow sufficient leeway for normal design and production.

The SAE studies indicated that with the types of multiple compartment lamps that were in use about three years ago, the values in SAE(Illegible Word) applying to the total light output of the multicompartment lamp were reasonable. This standard did not cover every condition of brightness and lens area that might be involved in providing anytime effectiveness while limiting nighttime brightness to reduce annoyance, but it was a first step in this direction.

Manufacturers who have attempted to comply with both FMVSS 108 and SAE J576d have differences in interpretation of your requirements. We would like to have the following points clarified so we do not cause the manufacturers unnecessary difficulties when we test devices for compliance with Federal and State standards:

1. Section 3.1.1.7 of FMVSS No. 108 specifies in part that the photometric requirements "shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps".

(a) Does this mean that if one compartment or lamp meets the minimum and maximum requirements, the other compartments or lamps can have photometric output either below the(Illegible Word) required or above the maximum permitted?

(b) Does this mean that(Illegible Word) lamps may be used to meet the minimum requirements with the others adding stray light, provided the maximum requirement of 15 candlepower in the case of taillamp and 100 candlepower in the case of turn signal lamps is not exceeded when all lamps or compartments are lighted simultaneously?

(c) Does the manufacturer have the choice in interpreting this section as to which method is most favorable to him for his particular design?

2. Mr. Baker's letter of May 12 states that "The sums of the measured candlepowers at the test points of separately photometered lamps or compartments of a combination shall not be acceptable", whereby implying that all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously.

(a) What was the purpose of stating in Section 3.1.1.7 that photometric requirements shall be provided by "one" or a combination of compartments if individual tests are not permitted to cetorine whether one compartment actually does comply?

(b) If it is the intent that the compartments shall be measured simultaneously, should not the above section be recorded to eliminate the implied alternative of having only one of the lamps comply?

3. FMVSS No. 108 makes no mention of the method of testing multicompartment and multilamp taillamps and stoplamps, as Section 3.1.1.7 applies only to turn signals.

(a) Do the standards require each compartment of a taillamp or stoplamp to be tested separately to show compliance with J575c, or are they to be tested simultaneously as required of turn signals?

(b) Must each separate lamp or individual compartment meet the taillamp-to-stoplamp ratio, or is it sufficient that the compartments when lighted together meet the(Illegible Word) even though a particular lamp or compartment does not comply individually.

4. The California Vehicle Code contains a Section J1000 which prohibits a motor vehicle from being equipped with any lamp or illuminating device not specifically required or permitted by the Code. The manufacturers would like to interpret Section(Illegible Words) permitting any number of additional taillamps and and stoplamps on each side, provided only the lamp meets the requirements of J575c. The only limitation they propose is that all of the lamps taken together do not exceed the maximum candlepower requirements in(Illegible Word), do an example of(Illegible Word) of the(Illegible Word) of the effectiveness of the(Illegible Words) lamp. They would also use photometric(Illegible Word) showing that the total stoplamp to total taillamp output complies with the ratio requirements of J575c; again; to prove non-impairment.

(a) Do the Federal standards preempt States from enforcing present requirements that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and to approved for that function?

(b) Are all of the seneraio lamps in a multiple rear lamp arrangement considered by the bureau as comprising one lamp and(Illegible Word) to be taken as such by the states in enforcing identical standards?

(c)(Illegible Word) the Federal standard merely require the minimum of one stoplamp and raillamp on each side of the vehicle to meet the requirements of(Illegible Word), with the additional optional lamps to be provided at the manufacturers discretion regardless of whatever standards the states may have for any such supplemental lamps?

5. Some modern designs of multicompartment lamps have three compartment configurations where the large(Illegible Word) compartment is a backup lamp and on each side of it is a taillamp-stoplamp combination. Other configurations include a three compartment lamp centeres; on the rear of the vehicle where the(Illegible Word) compartment is a taillamp-stoplamp combination and the compartments on each side of it perform only taillamp functions.

(a) Where two rear lamp compartments are separated by a backup lamp compartment, is the entire lamp to be tested as a simple unit as though the rear lamp sections were adjacent to each other?

(b) With respect to the cervico where a taillamp is on each side of a center-mounted stoplamp, are the taillamps considered a part of the physically integral three-compartment center lamp for the purposes of determining compliance with minimum and maximum specification and ratio requirements? Or, is the taillamp on each side of the(Illegible Word) to be tested simultaneously with the other taillamps on that particular side of the vehicle for the purposes of determining compliance?

The manufacturers have been quite(Illegible Word) in developing different variations of multiple lamps and multicompartment lamps and each has his own interpretation as to how his particular arrangement might be considered as complying with a specific federal or(Illegible Word) standard. We have been asked a number of questions such as those above as a result of our program of purchasing and testing(Illegible Word) for conformance to the standards.

We would very such appreciate your giving consideration to this problem and providing us with specific information that we can use(Illegible Word) injuries from foreign and American manufacturers and in using the correct test procedure for determining compliance of a specific device with the requirements.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

be: George Gaudaen, SAE

Ford Motor Company

June 10, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Esq. Assistant Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

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. S74-120 (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 contend 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 prempted 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 judgment 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 (RED).)

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

Attachments