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: nht87-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Mark Roberts

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mark Roberts 40 East Stillforest Houston, Texas 77024

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1987, with respect to an aftermarket motorcycle lamp that you wish to produce. You refer to the lamp as a "motorcycle safety light" that would supplement other motorcycle lighting and "would be a rear facing or all direction light with an amber colored lens that would flash". You have asked if there are any restrictions or guidelines for such a lamp.

Your letter does not indicate the size, flash rate, or intensity of the light, nor whether you intend it to be installed by motorcycle dealers prior to the first sale, or available only for installation on motorcycles already in use. However, I can give you some general guidelines.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment contains the requirements that apply to motorcycles and must be met at the time of sale and delivery to their first owners. Generally, except as provided i n the standard (e.g. motorcycle headlamp modulating devices) all lamps must be steady burning in use. Your lamp, however, would flash, and therefore appears precluded as an item of original equipment. Further, vehicle equipment must not impair the effect iveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Although in the absence of specifications of your lamp we cannot say whether it would impair the effectiveness of required motorcycle lighting equipment, we note that an rearward facing amber flashi ng lamp could create confusion with a rearward facing amber turn signal lamp.

As an aftermarket device intended for vehicles in use, your lamp is subject only to the Federal restriction that its installation by a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business shall not render inoperative in whole or in part other required l ighting equipment. Should your device place an excessive drain on a motorcycle battery affecting the operability of other lighting equipment it could be viewed as violative of the Federal restriction. However, even if this question is answered in the neg ative, the question of the acceptability of the supplemental lamp is determined by the laws of the state in which the device is sold or used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write American Association of Motor Vehicle Admi nistrators, 1301 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016, for further information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Dept. of Transportation Erika Jones Chief Council Natl. Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones,

Our company is interested in producing a motorcycle safety light intended as an after market piece of equipment, and not to replace original equipment. It would be a rear facing or all direction light with an amber colored lens that would flash.

Please tell me of any restrictions and / or guidelines that might affect the design and production of such a light. Is there is a manual of such information, I would greatly appreciate being sent one. Thank you for your attention.

Yours,

Mark Roberts

ID: nht80-1.34

DATE: 03/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: G. Mack Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1980, asking about the legality in the United States of a lamp with the words "DON'T PASS" which you are presently manufacturing for school buses in Canada. The lamp is intended for mounting on both the front and rear of the bus.

Such a lamp is not required in this country under Federal law. Its use as original equipment on U.S. school buses would not be prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, since its installation would not appear to impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Its legality would be determined by that of the State in which the bus is registered and operated, and therefore, you should contact the individual State for their opinion in this matter.

SINCERELY,

G. MACK INDUSTRIES LTD.

February 18, 1980

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Dear Sir:

In a letter I received from Mr. David Soule he suggested that I write you directly as to finding out the legality of our "DON'T PASS" light, we are presently manufacturing for the school buses in Canada.

The "DON'T PASS" light features consist of one or two flashing thirty-five candlepower seal beam units or six thirty two candlepower bulbs. The base is made out of A.B.S. a hard tough space age material that is weather resistant, and is suited for outdoor applications. The lens is made out of san and is a chemical scratch resistant plastic. Dimensions are 10" x5" x2" with a simple six screw molding which will adapt to any school bus. As to the electrical hook up we are presently using the four way flashing switch.

Enclosed is a picture and a newspaper clipping as to our headway we have made in Canada.

Appreciating your valued opinion in your early reply as to our position in the United States. I remain,

J. Leftrook Jr. President

ENC.

The Big Safety Lamp has been included in the Manitoba school bus specifications and the Manitoba Highway Traffic Act has been amended to give approval of the light. It is now in use in all of the 52 Manitoba school divisions. Application to have the lamp made standard equipment will go before the next meeting of the Canadian Standards Association.

The lamp which is produced for the company by Melet Plastic Ltd., 670 Golspie Street, Winnipeg, is injection moulded on custom made steel dies. The lens is made of SAN, a scratch and chemical resistant plastic, and the back of the unit is made of ABS, a hard, tough, space age material that is weather resistant and specially suited to outdoor applications.

Gerry Leftrook is optimistic about the future. Negotiations are underway to have the light standardized in the United States as well as Canada. It is estimated that there are some 25,000 school buses operating in Canada and 348,000 in the United States. Production of new buses has been projected at about 7,000 per year in Canada and 35,000 per year in the United States over the next five years.

The light can be adapted to transport trailers and trucks, house trailers and campers, all of which provide a wide market potential.

(Graphics omitted)

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

ID: nht93-1.10

DATE: January 14, 1993

FROM: Bob Dittert -- Trooper, Texas Department of Public Safety, Safety Education Service

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Janet Monteros -- Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Section

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-5-93 from John Womack to Bob Dittert (A41; Std. 205; VSA 103(d))

TEXT: It would be appreciated if your agency would make clear the authority of the CFR's concerning automotive equipment standards for new vehicles and after- market equipment.

1. Are the CFR's law and enforceable only by federal agents?

2. Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?

3. Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFR's?

4. Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp 'black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?

I am of the understanding that the CFR 48, Part 571.105 requires light transmission of 70% minimum (words illegible) is this correct? If this is correct and Texas law, VCS S701(illegible) Art. XII, Sec. 184(C), allows light transmission of only 35% (words illegible) action of Federal law? (Words illegible) Sec. 108 stated that if a Federal standard for any item of automotive equipment exists that standard will take precedence over any state standard and this section also empowers the Department (Texas Department of Public Safety) to control the sale and use of automotive equipment. If the state statutes are in error can that be remedied by the Federal Government? If so, how?

It doesn't seem realistic that every state could have different standards for automotive equipment, either new manufactured vehicles or after-market!

Your answers to these questions are awaited in ernest.

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: nht71-1.42

DATE: 07/22/71

FROM: E. T. DRIVER -- NHTSA OFFICE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: LOUIS C. LUNDSTROM -- DIRECTOR, AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY ENGINEERING GENERAL MOTORS ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lundstrom:

This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Acting Administrator, concerning replacement equipment covered in FMVSS No. 108, effective January 1, 1972.

The requirements for original and replacement equipment in FMVSS No. 108 cover those items listed in Tables I and III, namely: Headlamps Turn signal operating units Tail lamps Turn signal flashers Stop lamps Vehicular hazard warning signal License plate lamps operating units Reflex reflectors Vehicular hazard warning signal Parking lamps flashers Side marker lamps Identification lamps Backup lamps Clearance lamps Turn signal lamps Intermediate side marker lamps Intermediate reflex reflectors

In addition the requirements cover the following items specified in the text of the standard:

School bus warning lamps

Headlamp beam switching devices

Headlamp upper beam indicator lamps

Turn signal pilot indicator lamps

Hazard warning signal pilot indicator lamps

Plastic lenses

Sincerely,

ID: nht72-2.16

DATE: 05/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Norman W. Quinn, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 5 on behalf of your client Lee Ross. Mr. Ross has developed a motor vehicle deceleration warning system that, as described by you, activates two amber lights on the rear of a vehicle. Your letter indicate that these lamps would be incorporated into a vehicle back-up lamp system and that Mr. Ross envisions his system as an aftermarket accessory item rather than as new vehicle original equipment. You state your understanding that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 would not preclude marketing the system as an aftermarket accessory, and that back-up lamps are required to be white in color. You ask our advice whether Standard No. 108 prohibits amber lamps in the back-up lighting system and, if so, whether a proposal for amendment of the Standard to allow the system would be feasible.

Standard No. 108 would in certain instances preclude the aftermarket sale of an amber deceleration warning system incorporated into a back-up lamp system. Standard No. 108 as of January 1, 1972, does cover certain aftermarket equipment items, and in some instances would preclude the sale of a back-up light system with amber lamps. Lighting equipment manufactured on or after that date as replacement for similar equipment on vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, must meet Standard No. 108 which, as you have noted, requires that the color of the back-up lamps be white. Federal law would not preclude sale of this system for use on motor vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1972, or purchase of an amber system by the owner of a vehicle manufactured after that date if he wished to change over from a white to amber system. As a practical matter, however, I believe That virtually every State has a requirement that back-up lamps be white, and that a back-up light with amber bulbs or lenses would be forbidden. Standard No. 108 would not preclude sale of the Ross System as a separate lighting device. I do not know what position the States would take on such a matter.

Our research contracts on deceleration warning system indicate that further development and testing under field conditions is necessary before specific proposals can be made by NHTSA. Therefore, I do not think action on a proposal by Mr. Ross would be feasible at this time, though we would welcome his comments to our Docket 69-19 as a comment to be considered in future rulemaking on this subject.

ID: 19219.ztv

Ms. Jacqueline Glassman
Senior Staff Counsel
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
1401 H Street, NW CIMS 936-00-00
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005-2110

Re: Interpretation of S7.8.1(b) of Standard No. 108;

Petition for Decision of Inconsequentiality

Dear Ms. Glassman:

I am responding to your letter of December 3, 1998, asking for an interpretation of S7.8.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This question arises in the context of an apparent noncompliance in certain Plymouth and Dodge Neon headlamps, duly reported to us, and which is the subject of an inconsequentiality petition that you have filed with us.

S7.8.1(b) requires motor vehicles manufactured on and after September 1, 1998, to be equipped with headlamps which have a mark or markings that are visible from the front of the headlamp, to identify the optical axis of the headlamp, to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment for aiming purposes. The choice of the design of the mark or markings is left to the manufacturer. The mark or markings may be on the interior or exterior of the lens or indicated by a mark or central structure on the interior or exterior of the headlamp.

Apparently, your company decided that it failed to comply with S7.8.1(b), and filed a Part 573 report with a petition for a decision that the noncompliance was inconsequential to safety. Afterwards, "agency staff asked the company to consider whether a conspicuous horizontal line that fully crosses the headlamp and from which the optical axis easily may be approximated serves as the marking required by S7.8.1(b)." You have "used that line to approximate the optical axis and has confirmed through appropriate testing that aiming the lamps from that point falls within applicable parameters." You have asked "whether the simple measurement from the conspicuous horizontal line across the front of the headlamp constitutes a mark sufficient to comply with S7.8.1(b)."

The horizontal line across the face of the headlamp, which identifies the optical axis, is a "mark" within the meaning of S7.8.1. This has been confirmed by direct examination of a Neon headlamp by our senior lighting engineer, Rich Van Iderstine, the "agency staff" you referred to. Accordingly, the Neon headlamps are considered to meet the marking requirements of S7.8.1(b), and your inconsequentiality petition is moot.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.1/21/99

ID: 2109y

Mr. Mark F. Holmes
2605-C Norris Ct.
Philadelphia, PA 19121

Dear Mr. Holmes:

This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1989, with respect to two lighting devices known as the Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarm. You are interested in selling these devices in the aftermarket, and have asked whether they would be in violation of any of the standards and regulations of this agency.

These devices are "designed to be used only when a vehicle is parked or broken down." As we understand your letter and the materials you enclosed, both devices can be incorporated into existing alarm systems, to indicate when an attempted theft is in progress. The "locator" feature of the devices allows activation from a distance of 400 feet, enabling an approaching owner to easily identify his vehicle. With the use of a pink colored lens, the Strobalarm is intended to serve as an "emergency distress flare." You have enclosed two color renderings of these devices, titled "Interior/Strobe Alarm Light," and "Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light."

The Federal law and regulation that must be considered to answer your question are the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 138l and following), and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.108), and Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). Under Section 1397(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any item of equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You will note that this prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner.

Thus, the question to be addressed is whether the installation of either device by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would affect the performance of required safety equipment. The "Interior Strobe/Alarm Light" appears intended as a "dome" light, mounted centrally on the headliner above the passenger seats. In this position it has the potential to affect the field of view of the inside rear view mirror required by Standard No. lll, as prescribed by paragraph S5.1.1 (copy enclosed). If the field of view is not met, an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger side. You have not provided the dimensions of this device, and we are unable to advise you further. Other than this cautionary note, the "Interior Strobe/Alarm Light" does not appear affected by the laws and regulations of this agency. It would, however, be subject to state and local laws where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these, and suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

The "Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light" raises another consideration. The collision avoidance portion of the lamp appears intended to serve as a center highmounted stop lamp. Under paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08, the center lamp may not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Thus, removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device by a person other than the vehicle owner would be regarded as partially rendering inoperative the original safety equipment, even if your device complied with all other requirements for the center lamp. The center lamp has been required on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985.

The restriction does not apply, of course, to installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, or other types of motor vehicles regardless of date of manufacture. Consideration must still be given, however, to continued compliance with Standard No. lll, and to whether any state specifications exist covering aftermarket center stop lamps. Again, the AAMVA may be able to help you.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure / ref:VSA#l08#lll d:l0/3l/89