ID: 06-003601as

ID: 11673ZTV

Mr. James Baker
Technical Services Bureau
State of New York
Department of Motor Vehicles
Division of Vehicle Safety Services
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12228

Dear Mr. Baker:

This is in reply to your FAX of March 14, 1996, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have assumed that vehicles "that bore a federal certification statement had SAE/Dot approved lighting", and believe that you are "finding out that may not be true." Specifically, you asked whether the agency "would accept lighting that does not bear the SAE/Dot lens markings. Eg. SAE STL-79, SAE DP-81."

The answer is yes, except for original and replacement headlamps covered by paragraph S7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment ). The lenses of these headlamps must be marked DOT as a certification of compliance (paragraph S7.2(a)). These are headlamps manufactured for use on vehicles other than motorcycles.

The SAE codes you quote appear to relate to motorcycle lighting equipment other than headlamps. Thus, it may be that this type of motor vehicle is of some concern to you. Standard No. 108 contains alternative specifications for motorcycle headlighting systems. If the motorcycle has a headlamp system conforming to SAE J584 April 1964, no lens marking is required. However, if the motorcycle is equipped with one half of a type of headlighting system specified in S7, as it is permitted to do pursuant to paragraph S5.1.1.23 of Standard No. 108, the marking requirements of S7.2 continue to apply.

No DOT marking is required for the lens of any other original or replacement lamp. If a manufacturer wishes to certify compliance of a replacement lamp, paragraph S5.8.10 of Standard No. 108 permits it do so by putting a DOT symbol on the lens (otherwise the manufacturer is expected to certify by a label attached to the lamp, or a statement on the container in which it is

shipped). We have never required that lenses be marked with SAE code functions, and note that even the SAE materials that cover individual types of lighting equipment do not contain a specification that lighting devices be marked in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J759 Lighting Identification Code though many manufacturers do so.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/4/96

ID: 1984-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend, Wisconsin 53095

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

This is in reply to your letter of May 16, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office seeking an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You wish to know whether the minimum effective projected luminous lens area for stop lamps and turn signal lamps on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater is 8 square inches or 12 square inches. You cite an apparent conflict between paragraph S4.1.1.6 and SAE Standard J586d, and paragraph S4.1.1.7 and SAE Standard J588f. You have asked for an interpretation so that Wesbar may properly design a "combination tail lamp."

First, we will confirm the advice provided by "D.O.T. staff people" that the latest SAE revisions, J586d and J588f, have not been adopted.

You do not state the intended use of your proposed lamp, so we will assume that it will be sold to trailer manufacturers as original equipment, and to the aftermarket as replacement equipment. As original equipment, it must comply with the requirements specified in Table I of Standard No. 108, SAE J586c for stop lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 3.2 of each standard specifies a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 8 square inches.

Paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 become relevant, however, if Wesbar intends the lamp as replacement equipment on trailers manufactured before September 1, 1978, and after January 1, 1972 (turn signal lamps) and January 1, 1973 ( stop lamps). Under paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 replacement stop and turn signal lamps for trailers manufactured within the 1972-1978 time frame may meet either J586b or J586c, and either J588d or J588e. We note that neither J586b nor paragraph S4.1.1.6 establish a minimum luminous lens area for stop lamps. However, a manufacturer who chooses to comply with paragraph S4.1.1.7 rather than J588e would have to provide the minimum specified luminous lens area of 12 square inches for turn signal lamps of trailers whose overall width was 80 inches or more, the requirement specified in J588d for Class A turn signal lamps. We view this interpretation as one of historical interest than current relevance.

In summary, if Wesbar designs its lamp to the 8-inch requirement, it would appear to meet specifications for application either as original or replacement equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 16, 1984

Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Taylor Vincent, Legal Counsel

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Re: Request for D.O.T. 108 Interpretation

Wesbar is a lamp manufacturer currently designing a new submersible boat trailer lamp, which we would like to introduce this fall at the national trade show. The reason we are writing you at this time is that we find we have a need for a written interpretation clarifying a section of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding the lamps used on trailers over 80 inches wide.

The need for the interpretation arrives from several sources, which include the latest SAE Engineering Handbook, several D.O.T. staff, and the marketplace. The area needing clarification is the number of square inches actually needed (of effective projected luminous area) for a STOP LAMP (D.O.T.-108, S4.1.1.6 vs. SAE J586d) and a TURN LAMP (D.O.T.-108, S4.1.1.7 vs SAE J588f). The current SAE Handbook calls out 8 square inches of "effective projected luminous lens" area as the minimum for either a turn or stop lamp used on a trailer 80 inches or more in width. We followed this up by questioning several D.O.T. staff people. They stated the latest SAE standards revisions had not been adopted by D.O.T. and therefore the 12 square inch requirement (of effective projected luminous lens area) must still be met when the light is used on trailers 80 inches or more in width. This was consistent until one staff member learned of Peterson Manufacturing's (Anderson Marine Division) #450 series "8-in-one", which is promoted for use on over 80 inch wide trailers, that has only 8 square inches of lens -- then we were told 8 square inches would be sufficient.

As you are probably well aware, the U.S. marketplace is more price competitive and quality conscious than ever before. Therefore, while we, as a lamp manufacturer, sincerely wish to meet every letter of the law, we also need to be as up-to-date and cost competitive as possible, and this is why we have been directed to you. Is the old standard still current or is a new generation of tail lights, such as Peterson's #450 series submersible tail light, now acceptable to meet the standard?

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in reviewing this matter. It is important that we receive your written interpretation as soon as possible for it will have great impact on the design and cost of our new proposed combination tail light, as well as keep us "on schedule" for its introduction.

Sincerely,

WESBAR CORPORATION

C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing

CIN:mk

ID: nht79-1.15

DATE: 10/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Leo Bachynsky -- Laboratory Manager, R.E. Dietz Co.

TITLE: Emergency Warning Lamp - Use of Relfex

ATTACHMT: 8/21/79 letter from Leo Bachynsky to NHTSA

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Bachynsky:

This is in reply to your letter of August 21, 1979, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it may apply to a proposed new product of your company.

This product, as you have described it, is a bi-directional Emergency Vehicle Warning Lamp, with one lens facing to the front of the vehicle, and one to the rear. Each lens contains a 5/8 inch wide band of reflex reflector around its periphery. The lamp would be supplied in a variety of colors (red, blue, yellow) and a similar device, less the reflex reflector area, is currently in production.

You have asked whether the inclusion of the reflex reflector in the device, "impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment" within the prohibition of S4.1.3. You have also asked whether the equipment and location tables of Standard No. 108 restrict the use of a red reflex reflector facing the front and yellow reflex reflector facing the rear.

The determination of whether installation of additional lighting devices impairs the effectiveness of required equipment may be made either by the vehicle manufacturer or by NHTSA. Since your company already markets an emergency vehicle warning lamp we shall assume for purposes of discussion that vehicle manufacturers have determined that the lamp as currently manufactured does not impair other lighting equipment. Nor does it appear to us that the addition of the limited reflex reflector area would contribute to a degradation of the effectiveness of required lighting equipment, although a definitive judgment could not be made until the lamps were actually installed on a vehicle. The tables do not apply to supplementary lighting equipment such as your emergency lamp though the agency believes there is less likelihood of confusion if the public associates amber lighting devices with the front part of a vehicle, and red ones with the rear.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 21, 1979

Chief Council NHTSA 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Our company is presently developing a new product and is in need of a clarification concerning the legality of the proposed product as it pertains to FMVSS 108.

Briefly, the device is a bi-directional Emergency Vehicle Warning Lamp consisting of two 7-1/2 inch diameter lenses. The lenses contain a 5/8 inch wide band of reflex reflector around their periphery. The two lenses are locked to a mounting flange by a special locking feature and two screws. When mounted, the device will have one lens facing to the front of the vehicle and the other to the rear. The device is to be supplied in a variety of colors, red, yellow, blue, and can be used in either a steady or flashing state.

We manufacture a similar device less the reflex reflector area and previous sales data indicates the majority of the market for this type of device is for tow trucks and utility company vehicles.

We are aware of the fact that Emergency Warning Lamps are not regulated by FMVSS 108 or any other Federal standard, but rather our questions concern the reflex reflector area in the device.

The areas that need clarification with respect to our application are the following:

1. Paragraph S.4.1.3 of FMVSS 108 - "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of the equipment required by this standard."

Does this Paragraph S.4.1.3. restrict the use of the reflex reflector in our proposed device as imparing effectiveness of required equipment?

2. Do Tables 1-4 of FMVSS 108 "Required Equipment for Motor Vehicles" and "Locations of Required Equipment" restrict the use of a red reflex reflector facing the front and yellow reflex reflector facing the rear of the vehicle?

An early reply will be appreciated.

Enclosed is our blueprint of the subject device and an advertising poster showing exact application of the intended device.

Sincerely,

Leo Bachynsky Laboratory Manager

LB/sg Enclosure (2)

ID: nht78-2.10

DATE: 11/29/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1978, to Bill Eason of our Office of Rulemaking asking several questions about motor vehicle headlamps and the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 issued on July 27, 1978.

Your questions and our answers are:

1. Ichikoh headlamps are designed to comply with SAE Standard J579c with maximum candela not exceeding 37,500. Does the amendment allow Ichikoh to place "DOT" and the new designation code on the lens of each headlight?

Ichikoh's practice reflects compliance with the option afforded by S4.1.1.33 until July 27, 1978. The deletion of the option has the effect of allowing the higher maximum candlepower permitted by J579c but does not require it. Thus, Ichikoh may continue its existing practice under the amendment. One purpose of the marking code, however, is to enable a consumer to replace original equipment headlamps with lamps of compatible photometric output. Currently, S4.1.1.21 as amended requires the lens of each Ichikoh headlamp designed to conform to J579c to be marked with the new code on and after July 1, 1979. Obviously such a marking will be misleading if, even though designed to conform to J579c, a headlamp's maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. Accordingly, we are reviewing this problem with the idea of proposing rulemaking that would delete the code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. We do not anticipate a change in the requirement of S4.1.1.21 that the lens of each J579c headlamp be marked with the "DOT" symbol since Ichikoh headlamps comply with J579c, even if they do not take advantage of the now-permissible maximum.

2. With reference to your quality control system, will the headlamps "be allowed to exceed 37,500 cd without any modification of the light source (filament) and wattage?"

I am not quite sure what you mean. If you are asking whether Ichikoh may relax quality control so that an occasional headlamp may exceed 37,500 cd the answer is yes. Headlamps designed to J579c are not restricted to the maximum imposed by J579a.

3. You ask our comments on possible mismatch of headlamps on the same vehicle, i.e., one low intensity headlamp and one high intensity headlamp.

NHTSA is concerned about this possibility and, as indicated in reply to your first question, is considering rulemaking to delete the code requirement for low intensity J579c headlamps. Your second question, however, does raise the issue of identification of headlamps whose candela may exceed 37,500 but whose maxima are far less than 75,000. We shall also consider this issue and may issue a consumer bulletin advocating replacement of headlamps in pairs to help resolve this potential problem.

4. You ask whether NHTSA intends to adopt the concept of ECE Regulation No. 20 in the near future. This Regulation requires a mark on a headlamp lens indicating candlepower grade.

The NHTSA does not plan to adopt the requirements of Regulation No. 20 because this regulation is in essence an indicator of quality control.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES, LTD.

ISEHARA-PLANT

September 22, 1978

Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Subject: Motor Vehicle Headlamps

We, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd., are an original equipment manufacturer of sealed beam headlamps, signalling lamps, rear view mirrors and other accessories for motor vehicles.

With regard to the recent amendment of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Docket No. 78-5 : Notice 3, issued on July 27, 1978, we would like to confirm you the following matters:

1. All our sealed beam headlamps (circular and rectangular types) have been approved in each States including AAMVA compliance with the applicable (photometric) requirements of FMVSS 108 : that is, SAE Standard J579c.

At the present, the maximum candlepower of each headlamp is maintained as not exceed 37,500 cd, and we have no intention changing to the higher wattage allowed in the above new amendment.

In such a case: Does it permit to indicate "DOT" and new "designation code" defined in new paragraph S4.1.1.21 on each lenses of our headlamps?, and

2. May we interpret that, by the new amendment, the old requirements of the maximum candlepower 37,500 cd to headlamps will be allowed to exceed 37,500 cd without any modification of the light source (filament) and wattage?

This problem concerns to our quality control system.

3. Besides, according to the amended regulation, it can not install both headlamps compliance with SAE J579a and J579c on one (1) vehicle.

However, if the above item No. 1 is accepted, it result in allowing to use the different type headlamps with the same code on a vehicle, that is, the lower candlepower headlamp(s) (not more than 37,500 cd) and the higher candlepower headlamp(s) not more than 75,000cd.

This means headlamp users can not select such different type headlamps with the same identification code, and such mixed use of headlamps would give rise to undesirable influence on the visibilities for road users.

Besides, it would lead to substantially allow the use of both headlamps compliance with SAE J579a and J579c on a vehicle.

We would like to hear your view point on this problem.

4. As you well know, ECE Regulation No. 20, Halogen Headlamps, requires to mark on each headlamp lens severally graded identification indicating the reference of the maximum candlepower. This make easy to know the headlamp grade.

On the other hand, it is impossible to know the headlamp grade (candlepower) with the identification code on the lens under the amended regulation of FMVSS 108.

Do you have the intention to adopt the conception of ECE Regulation No. 20 in the near future?

With regard to the above matters, your kind and early reply would be highly appreciated.

Suminori EGUCHI, Chief Engineer Technical Department.

ID: aiam3599

Dear Mr. Donley: This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1981, regardin continuing compliance of lighting equipment after repairs.; You have asked the following questions: '1. If the original lens is replaced during a field repair by one no manufactured by the original manufacturer, would the lamp's original certification with FMVSS 108 be nullified?'; Repair of a vehicle in service is irrelevant to its certification Certification is the assurance given by the manufacturer to distributors, dealers, and purchasers, that Federal standards are met by his product upon its sale when new. There is no requirement that the certification be valid for the life of the product.; '2. Must a lamp in use remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after suc repair is made?'; This is a good question, and the answer is no. When repairs ar necessary there is no Federal legal requirement that the lamp remain in conformance afterwards. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not alter fully functional lamps in a manner that renders them nonconforming, or substitute nonconforming equipment. This prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner, his modifications are subject only to State and local restrictions.; '3. If the lamp must remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after suc repair is made, who is responsible for certifying same?'; As I stated earlier, repairs of used vehicles and equipment are no subject to conformance or certification. However, if a lamp is replaced in its entirety, the manufacturer of the replacement lamp is responsible for certifying conformity to Standard No. 108 because that standard covers replacement equipment of the types you mentioned ('e.g., stop lamp, turn signal lamp, school bus warning lamp, marker lamp').; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 21214.ztv

Officer, Richard L. Purvis #4726
Arizona DPS Highway Patrol
District 13
2610 South 16 Street
Phoenix, AZ 85040

Dear Officer Purvis:

This is in reply to your letter of January 16, 2000, with respect to aftermarket clear lamp assemblies.

You report that you have cited motorists for using replacement lamp assemblies that "have totally clear exteriors," having "no red reflectors on the rear product and no amber reflectors on the front product." You would now like to bring enforcement actions against sellers of this equipment, and you have asked "to have any Federal standards reference material that shows clearly that all U.S. vehicles must have the red rear reflective lenses and the amber front reflectors."

The basic Federal motor vehicle safety lighting regulation is 49 CFR 571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 applies to both original and replacement lighting equipment. Title 49 U.S.C. 30115 and Standard No. 108 require that all lighting equipment that is intended to replace original lighting equipment be certified as complying with Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.8.10 allows the certification to be in the form of a DOT symbol on the product. If the certification is not on the product, Section 30115 requires it to be on a label or tag on the item or the box in which the lighting item is shipped. Therefore, in any enforcement action, it is important for us to examine the item or its container for certification to see whether the certification requirement of Section 30115 is being met.

Table I of Standard No. 108 (applicable to trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses whose overall width is 60 inches or more) and Table III (applicable to motor vehicles whose overall width is less than 60 inches) require front parking lamps to be white or amber, and front turn signal lamps and front side marker lamps and reflectors to be amber, and all rear and rear side lamps and reflectors to be red, (except that amber is permitted as an optional rear turn signal lamp color, and white is required for backup lamps). The colors themselves must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J578c, Color Specification for Electrical Signal Lighting Devices, February 1977. The colors amber and red may be produced by either a white bulb and amber or red inner or outer lens, or by an amber or red bulb and a colorless or clear lens.

Manufacturers are producing amber bulbs that meet the SAE color requirements. Thus, a replacement turn signal lamp incorporating a clear lens and an amber bulb is permitted by Standard No. 108 if it is certified by its manufacturer as discussed above. However, the same lamp with a bulb that is clear, blue, green, or any color other than amber would not be in compliance with Standard No. 108.

The clear lens - red bulb lamp raises different considerations. A red bulb is very expensive to manufacture, as gold must be used in order to meet the color specifications for red imposed by the standard. In fact, we know of no manufacturer who is producing a red bulb that is intended to make signal lamps with colorless lenses comply with Standard No. 108.

Your letter recounts another problem we have encountered with this type of replacement taillamp, i.e., the absence of a red reflex reflector on the lamp, and possibly the absence of a red reflex reflector on the side at the rear. If the original lamp incorporated a red reflex reflector(s) and the replacement lamp does not (and a separate reflector(s) is not provided in the package), the substitution of the new lamp for the old one will create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, as the vehicle will no longer meet the requirements of Tables I and III, which require red reflex reflectors and side red reflex reflectors. The same would be true for the front, if amber side reflex reflectors were absent. You will be interested to know that one importer, American Products Company of Corona, California, is currently in the process of recalling 28,542 replacement taillamp lenses which were clear in color and lacked side and rear red reflex reflectors.

The removal of the original lamp and substitution of one that does not meet the color specifications for red or any other required color, or the removal of a lamp incorporating a reflex reflector(s) and replacing it with a lamp that has none, would be violations of Federal law, specifically 49 U.S.C. 30122, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business.

You also mention that sales of this replacement equipment may be a violation "of the business license to sell illegal and unsafe safety products," and ask if we have "any federal publications . . . that deal with this issue." We have no publications or advisories that would help you. However, I would like to point out that, under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), it is a violation of Federal law to sell, or offer for sale, any item of motor vehicle equipment unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and is certified as complying under Section 30115. Thus, the businesses that you mentioned may be violating this Section.

If you have information indicating that manufacturers or distributors are offering noncomplying signal lamps and that motor vehicle equipment dealers are selling or installing them, please send this information to Ms. Marilynne Jacobs, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20950.

We have seen no insurance industry articles of the nature that concerns you.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/7/2000

ID: 22250

Trooper Dene Kay
Utah Highway Patrol
P.O. Box 1112
St. George, UT 84771





Dear Trooper Kay:

This responds to your letter to this agency regarding Federal standards on "altering" motor vehicles, specifically with regard to taillights, door handles, and windshield wipers. I will begin with some background information on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards and then address each of your questions in turn.

Background

Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code (the Act), authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S. must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Also enclosed is a brochure entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which includes a listing of FMVSS that apply to different vehicle type classifications.

Persons altering a new motor vehicle prior to its first retail sale to a consumer are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles. A person who alters a previously certified motor vehicle must affix an additional certification label to the vehicle which states that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable FMVSS.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a motor vehicle after its first retail sale are prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. However, the "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit consumers from modifying their own vehicles, even if such modifications adversely affect the compliance of the vehicle with the FMVSS. Such modifications may, nevertheless, be regulated by State law.

I will now address each of your specific questions.

Taillights

You state that individuals are installing clear taillight lenses with no red reflectors. The Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment are established by FMVSS No. 108 (49 C.F.R. 571.108), Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which applies to lighting equipment on new vehicles and replacement equipment for that original lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.8, Replacement Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 requires lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment to be designed to conform to FMVSS No. 108.

Table I and Table III of FMVSS No. 108 require reflex reflectors (on the rear and the sides of the vehicle at the rear), tail lamps, and stop lamps to be red in color. The color red is defined by Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J578c, Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices, February 1977, which S5.1.5 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference. Thus, the manufacture of clear lenses or lamps intended to replace lenses or lamps whose original color of light emitted was red is a violation of S5.8 of FMVSS No. 108, and the manufacture, importation, and sale of clear lenses or lamps for these purposes is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112. You also state that these taillight lenses do not have red reflectors; this too would be a violation.

If a noncompliant lamp or lens is installed as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer is in violation of FMVSS No. 108. If a noncompliant lamp or lens is installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as a replacement item, that entity is in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122. Note, however, that no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the clear lenses, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with an applicable safety standard.

You should note that many lamps such as you describe have been recalled. Many were also missing side markers and side reflectors in red.

Whether it is legal to drive a vehicle with clear lenses installed by the vehicle's owner is a question to be answered under the laws in effect where the vehicle is driven. While we cannot provide an opinion about Utah law, we note that our search of the Utah administrative code showed Rule R714-200-3, "Standards for Vehicle Lights and Illuminating Devices," incorporates FMVSS No. 108 as the standard governing motor vehicle lighting equipment. Thus, it appears that motor vehicle lighting equipment that does not comply with FMVSS No. 108 may also be illegal for use in your state.

Door Handles

You state that individuals are removing vehicles' outside door handles and replacing them with hidden switches to open the doors. FMVSS No. 206 (49 C.F.R. 571.206), Door Locks and Door Retention Components, applies to new motor vehicles and includes requirements that may affect this type of modification. The standard does not require that motor vehicle doors have outside door handles. However, the standard does require each motor vehicle door to "be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle." (49 C.F.R. 571.206, S4.1.3). When the locking mechanism on the side front door is engaged, "the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative." (S4.1.3.1, emphasis added). When the locking mechanism on the side rear door is engaged, "both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative." (S4.1.3.2, emphasis added).

We consider the hidden switches you described in your letter to be "other latch release controls." Thus, these hidden switches must be inoperative when the locking mechanism on the doors is engaged.

If these hidden switches are installed by an alterer prior to first sale, then the alterer must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the switches are installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business after first sale, the installation must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including FMVSS No. 206. However, no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the switches, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Such a modification could, however, be regulated by State law.

Windshield Wipers

You also state that individuals are removing vehicles' windshield wipers and replacing them with "just one large wiper." FMVSS No. 104 (49 C.F.R. 571.104), Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, specifies windshield wiper requirements for new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.

The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS No. 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared.

All of the aforementioned vehicles must have a power-driven windshield wiping system that meets specific frequency or speed requirements, e.g., cycles per minute, as identified in the standard. FMVSS No. 104 requires that passenger car windshield wiping systems wipe that specified percentages of the critical windshield areas defined in that standard and SAE Recommended Practice 903a, May 1966. As you will see in copies of the enclosed documents, defining these critical windshield areas is a complex process.

Additionally, FMVSS No. 104 requires that passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses have windshield washing systems. A passenger car's windshield washing system in conjunction with its associated wiping system shall clear the critical windshield areas identified above. For multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, the standard states that the critical windshield areas may be specified by the vehicle manufacturer.

The number of windshield wipers required is not specified by this standard.

If the single wiper described in your letter is installed by an alterer prior to first sale, then the alterer must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the wiper is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business after first sale, the installation must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including FMVSS No. 104. However, no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the wiper, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Such a modification could, however, be regulated by State law.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:104
d.3/8/01

ID: 1982-2.41

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Weldon Incorporated -- Robert P. Donley (Columbus, Oh)

COPYEE: Raymond Peck

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1981, regarding continuing compliance of lighting equipment after repairs.

You have asked the following questions:

"1. If the original lens is replaced during a field repair by one not manufactured by the original manufacturer, would the lamp's original certification with FMVSS 108 be nullified?"

Repair of a vehicle in service is irrelevant to its certification. Certification is the assurance given by the manufacturer to distributors, dealers, and purchasers, that Federal standards are met by his product upon its sale when new. There is no requirement that the certification be valid for the life of the product.

"2. Must a lamp in use remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made?"

This is a good question, and the answer is no. When repairs are necessary there is no Federal legal requirement that the lamp remain in conformance afterwards. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not alter fully functional lamps in a manner that renders them nonconforming, or substitute nonconforming equipment. This prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner; his modifications are subject only to State and local restrictions.

"3. If the lamp must remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made, who is responsible for certifying same?"

As I stated earlier, repairs of used vehicles and equipment are not subject to conformance or certification. However, if a lamp is replaced in its entirety, the manufacturer of the replacement lamp is responsible for certifying conformity to Standard No. 108 because that standard covers replacement equipment of the types you mentioned ("e.g., stop lamp, turn signal lamp, school bus warning lamp, marker lamp").

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 10, 1981

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel

We are seeking an understanding of what would nullify the original certification of a motor vehicle lamp (e.g. stop lamp, turn signal lamp, school bus warning lamp, marker lamp) to conformance with FMVSS 108 as result of a certain field repair.

A motor vehicle lamp is a mechanical composite of its housing, lens, bulb and miscellaneous other parts. The lamp is designed to conform with FMVSS 108 as originally designed and manufactured.

On the basis of an approved independent laboratory report (sample enclosed) a lamp is certified by the original manufacturer as being designed to conform with FMVSS 108.

Specifically, we would like answers to the following questions:

1. If the original lens is replaced during a field repair by one not manufactured by the original manufacturer, would the lamp's original certification with FMVSS 108 be nullified?

2. Must a lamp in use remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made?

3. If the lamp must remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made, who is responsible for certifying same?

We respectfully request your reply by January 11, 1982. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Robert P. Donley President

[Text information omitted]

Sign off: 6:47 A.M. Eastern Time, FEBRUARY 7, 1996

ID: nht76-2.26

DATE: 10/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 7, 1976, asking several questions concerning paragraph S4.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I am sorry that we were unable to respond by September 29 as you requested. Your questions and our answers are as follows:

"1. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the words 'combined optically' as they appear in paragraph S4.4.1 of DOT 108?"

In pertinent part, S4.4.1 states that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp." The phrase "combined optically" as used here means that the luminous area of a lens used for a taillamp may not be also used as the luminous area of a lens for a clearance lamp. In other words lamps are "combined optically" when the same luminous area of a lens is lighted for more than a single function.

"2. Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?"

The answer is no because the same luminous area of the lens would be lighted when both lamps are in use, and the lamps would be "combined optically."

"3. Does the DOT have no objection to a flashing red signal issuing from the side (at right angles to the fore-aft center line of the trailer) of the clearance lamp?"

Generally S4.6(b) requires most vehicle lamps to be steady burning in normal operation. If the right angle lamp serves as the rear side marker lamp, however, S4.6(b) allows it to be flashed for signaling.

"4. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the term 'clearance lamp' as it is used in DOT 108?"

The term "clearance lamps" is defined by SAE Standard J592e, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and are "lamps which show to the front or rear of a vehicle . . . to indicate the overall width and height of the vehicle."

"5. Does the 'clearance lamp' as the words are used in DOT 108 indicate a lamp intended to serve as its major function, a back up lamp in the event of failure of the tail light filament in the combination tail, turn and stop light bulb."

There is no intent that a clearance lamp serve as a backup lamp in the event of a taillamp filament failure though obviously both lamps perform a marking function.

"6. If DOT approves the combination of a clearance lamp and tail lamp in the same compartment, would it also approve for a boat trailer, moving the tail light outboard to show the extreme width of an over 80" vehicle and eliminate the need for a clearance lamp under those circumstances."

The question is moot since a combination clearance lamp-taillamp is not permitted.

I understand that you discussed the photometric test procedure for optically combined lamps with Mr. Owen of this agency, by telephone on September 22, 1976. So that there may be no misunderstanding I would like to set forth the test procedure in this letter. If a single lamp bulb (or filament) is used in the combined lamp, the photometrics for all of the functions must be met simultaneously. If two or more lamp bulbs (or filaments) are used and each is to provide a separate function, only those which provide that function are to be energized during the photometric test. Therefore, in a multiple compartment side marker and clearance lamp (or a multiple compartment tail and clearance lamp that is not optically combined), the clearance lamp bulb is not energized during the photometric test for the other function, and vice versa.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

WESBAR CORPORATION

September 7, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Refer: DOT 108, paragraph S4.4.1

On June 9, 1975 your predecessor in office answered an inquiry we made relative to a light design, and the last paragraph of his letter stated in part:

"Since the clearance lamp and tail lamp are in separate compartments and not optically combined -- the lamp design does not violate S4.4.1."

We have recently seen two lamps which bear the letters "DOT", in each of which the clearance, tail light and turn signal bulbs are all in the same compartment, i.e. the clearance lamp is not in a separate compartment.

It has always been the opinion of the writer and of boat trailer manufacturers, that in order to comply with S4.4.1, the clearance lamp would have to be in a compartment separated from the tail and stop lamp. However, while we were in Washington last week visiting your compliance office, we were advised that a Mr. Lou Owen had given a verbal interpretation of S4.4.1 in which he gave approval for the tail and clearance lamp to be in a single compartment, with no separating wall between them.

It would seem logical that tail lamp and clearance lamp should be separately compartmented. If the bulbs were in the same compartment with no shielding between them, the stop and turn light would illuminate that section of the compartment intended as a clearance lamp area, and at times the clearance lamp would appear to be flashing as well as varying in intensity. This would make for a confusing and hazardous situation for a driver traveling some distance behind a trailer equipped with such a combination lamp.

If this verbal interpretation which approves having the two lamp bulb mounted in the same compartment without a separating wall is valid, why should there be any need for a clearance lamp on a boat trailer since the tail lights could be mounted sufficiently outboard so they would indicate, when lighted, the overall width of the trailer?

We would appreciate receiving the DOT's specific interpretation of the words "combined optically". In its usual context, the words "combined optically" would mean a combination of light source and lens, and applied to S4.4.1 would seem to indicate that, in fact, the clearance lamp would have to be separately compartmented from the tail, stop, turn, and hazard lamp compartment.

When the clearance and tail lamp are housed in the same compartment there is a definite impairment of the combination turn, stop and hazard function of the lamp and an unsafe and confusing situation exists. We can report to you that while conducting an actual night test at a country road intersection, when a trailer was approaching the intersection with turn signal bulb flashing in the uncompartmented tail light, at 150 feet distance it was difficult to tell if the trailer ahead was on the same course as the following vehicle or crossing ahead of it at right angles.

While we were at the compliance section office, we were appalled to hear an interpretation of the term "clearance light" to the effect that the clearance lamp was not necessarily a separate lamp but was intended as a "back-up" light in the event the tail light filament should fail.

We have never ever heard or had it intimated to us that such was the purpose of a clearance lamp and we don't believe that it was ever intended to be so defined. When you consider the fact that the lamp on a semi trailer is at the uppermost corner of the trailer body (a long distance from the tail lamp!), and that travel trailers, buses and other vehicles also have the clearance lamp at the top extreme corners of the vehicles, it is difficult to conceive of their application as being a back up substitute for a defective tail lamp.

Carrying our argument further, on a trailer of less than 80" in width NO clearance lamp is required but the possibility of failure of the tail lamp filament is just as great. What then is supposed to serve as "back up" lamp for it? It is our observation that someone was just not thinking when he made the statement that a clearance lamp is really only there to serve as a "back up" lamp for the tail light.

In summary we ask for your specific answers to the following:

1. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the words "combined optically" as they appear in paragraph S4.4.1 of DOT 108?

2. Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?

3. Does the DOT have no objection to a flashing red signal issuing from the side (at right angles to the fore-aft center line of the trailer) of the clearance lamp?

4. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the term "clearance lamp" as it is used in DOT 108?

5. Does the "clearance lamp" as the words are used in DOT 108 indicate a lamp intended to serve as its major function, a back up lamp in the event of failure of the tail light filament in the combination tail, turn and stop light bulb.

6. If DOT approves the combination of a clearance lamp and tail lamp in the same compartment, would it also approve for a boat trailer, moving the tail light outboard to show the extreme width of an over 80" vehicle and eliminate the need for a clearance lamp under those circumstances.

On September 29, 1976 there will be a meeting of the Trailer Manufacturers Association. In attendance will be representatives of all major manufacturers of boat trailers. We would appreciate your expediting your replies to the six questions posed above in order that we may give a copy of them to the group attending that meeting.

Since your interpretation of the questions given in this letter are of such vital importance to the boat trailer manufacturer, dealer and consumer, we would be most grateful for your clear, concise answers.

For your ready reference we attach copies of our previous correspondence and the reply we received. We also submit for your study, photos of a typical lamp where tail lamp and clearance lamp are combined in one compartment.

Looking forward to receiving your prompt response, we remain.

B. R. Weber Executive Vice President

cc: SEN. WILLIAM PROXMIRE; SEN. GAYLORD NELSON; REP. WILLIAM A. STEIGER