ID: aiam5206

FAX 602-258-5193 Dear Mr. Beidleman: We have received your FAX of Jul 2, 1993, to the attention of Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to the location of rear identification lamps. The rear configuration of l0 dump trucks that are being constructed for the Arizona DOT is such that you would like to raise the center lamp of the three- lamp identification lamp cluster approximately 1 1/2 inches, the two outer lamps of the array cannot be raised due to the positioning of the underbody tailgate release mechanism. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that the identification lamps be mounted 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, at the same height, and as close as practicable to the vertical centerline.' In our opinion, the lamps in an identification lamp cluster must be equally spaced laterally and mounted at the same height in order for the identification lamp system to perform its intended purpose. Therefore, I am afraid the agency cannot accept a lamp display that differs. Although the lamps could be mounted on the rear of the cab, we understand that in that position they could be obscured by the top lip of the dump body. We realize that the contractor has pre-punched holes for the lamps, which would be flush-mounted in the rear cross sill of the truck body. If a way were found to cover the holes, there are surface-mounted lamps available which could be mounted at the same height (your desired height for the center lamp) in a manner than should not affect the positioning of the underbody tailgate release mechanism. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5207

FAX 602-258-5193 Dear Mr. Beidleman: We have received your FAX of Jul 2, 1993, to the attention of Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to the location of rear identification lamps. The rear configuration of l0 dump trucks that are being constructed for the Arizona DOT is such that you would like to raise the center lamp of the three- lamp identification lamp cluster approximately 1 1/2 inches, the two outer lamps of the array cannot be raised due to the positioning of the underbody tailgate release mechanism. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that the identification lamps be mounted 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, at the same height, and as close as practicable to the vertical centerline.' In our opinion, the lamps in an identification lamp cluster must be equally spaced laterally and mounted at the same height in order for the identification lamp system to perform its intended purpose. Therefore, I am afraid the agency cannot accept a lamp display that differs. Although the lamps could be mounted on the rear of the cab, we understand that in that position they could be obscured by the top lip of the dump body. We realize that the contractor has pre-punched holes for the lamps, which would be flush-mounted in the rear cross sill of the truck body. If a way were found to cover the holes, there are surface-mounted lamps available which could be mounted at the same height (your desired height for the center lamp) in a manner than should not affect the positioning of the underbody tailgate release mechanism. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5205

FAX 602-258-5193 Dear Mr. Beidleman: We have received your FAX of Jul 2, 1993, to the attention of Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to the location of rear identification lamps. The rear configuration of l0 dump trucks that are being constructed for the Arizona DOT is such that you would like to raise the center lamp of the three- lamp identification lamp cluster approximately 1 1/2 inches, the two outer lamps of the array cannot be raised due to the positioning of the underbody tailgate release mechanism. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that the identification lamps be mounted 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, at the same height, and as close as practicable to the vertical centerline.' In our opinion, the lamps in an identification lamp cluster must be equally spaced laterally and mounted at the same height in order for the identification lamp system to perform its intended purpose. Therefore, I am afraid the agency cannot accept a lamp display that differs. Although the lamps could be mounted on the rear of the cab, we understand that in that position they could be obscured by the top lip of the dump body. We realize that the contractor has pre-punched holes for the lamps, which would be flush-mounted in the rear cross sill of the truck body. If a way were found to cover the holes, there are surface-mounted lamps available which could be mounted at the same height (your desired height for the center lamp) in a manner than should not affect the positioning of the underbody tailgate release mechanism. Sincerely, John Womack Acting 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: aiam3972

Dear Mr. Giberson: Thank you for your letter of May 17, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staf concerning the decorative etching of glazing in vehicles and how it may be affected by our regulations. You explained that the etching is apparently being done by using either vibrator tools with carbide tips, ultra high speed grinders, or sandblasters. You expressed concern that the integrity of the glass may be affected and in some cases the etching is in a position that obstructs the vision of the driver.; You further explained that glazing with etching that obstructs th driver's vision is rejected by your inspectors during New Jersey's annual motor vehicle inspection, but that glazing in areas not used for driving vision cannot be rejected for the same reason. You asked for our comments on this issue.; I hope that the following discussion of how our regulations coul affect the practice of etching glass is of assistance. As you know, our agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new vehicles or sold as items of replacement equipment, a copy of Standard No. 205 is enclosed. If the windows are etched before the vehicle or the piece of replacement glazing is sold, then the person doing the etching would have to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the light transmittance requirement for glazing in areas requisite for driving visibility. We would be particularly concerned whether the etched items of glazing would continue to comply with the impact resistance requirements of the standard. Please note that impact tests have to be met by items of AS1, AS2, AS3, AS4, AS5, AS8, AS9, AS10, AS11A, AS11B and AS14 glazing regardless of whether the glazing is used in an area requisite for driving visibility. Purchasers of a new vehicle or glazing may themselves alter the vehicle or glazing as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.; If the etching is done in used vehicles, then Section 108(a)(2)(A) o the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may apply, a copy of that section of the Act is enclosed. That section provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may etch a vehicle's glazing if by so doing they would knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2817

Dear Mr. Sornson: This is in reply to your letter of May 4, 1978, to Howard Dugof requesting confirmation of two interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have cited our letter of December 29, 1976, to your Mr. Weil as support for your views.; With respect to your first concern, you have stated your understandin that in a multiple compartment taillamp the manufacturer has the option of using one or more compartments to meet the minimum photometric requirements specified for taillamps, but when the intensity ratio of the turn signal lamp to the taillamp is computed, the ratio must be determined with all taillamp compartments lighted.; As we interpret Standard No. 108's requirements for taillamps (SA Standard J585d, *Tail Lamps (Rear Position Light)*, August 1970), a single compartment lamp may be used as a taillamp, but if a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements, S3.1 of J585d requires that the combination of the compartments or lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding numbers of lighted sections (Table 1, J585d) in those instances where the distances between filament centers do not exceed 22 inches for two- compartment or lamp arrangements, and 16 inches for three compartment or lamp arrangements. If these distances are exceeded, each compartment or lamp must comply with the photometric requirements for one lighted section. Therefore your interpretation is incorrect that a manufacturer may use only one compartment of a multi-compartment lamp when considering compliance with the photometric requirement for taillamps.; Your second concern is the requirement for multiple lamps in excess o three. You have noted that Table 1 of SAE J585 makes no provision for candlepower requirements where there are more than three lighted sections. Noting that the maximum candlepower permissible rises in increments of 5 per section (15 for one section, 20 for two sections, 25 for three sections) you have asked for confirmation of your opinion that 'it appears logical that the allowable candle-power for a four compartment system should be 30 candlepower.'; Standard No. 108 does not specify requirements for compartments o lamps in excess of three. If you wish to use a four compartment or lamp system you are legally free to distribute the candlepower as you deem appropriate. Accordingly we have no objection to your belief that 30 candlepower is allowable provided that the multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamp arrangement meets all other requirements of J585d.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-4.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RICHARD R. LENDER -- PRESIDENT COACHLAND, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/10/88, FROM RICHARD R. LENDER, TO NHTSA, OCC 2790

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lender:

This responds to your November 10, 1988 letter concerning the importation of windshields for vintage buses produced from 1955 through 1962. You indicated that these windshields are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), but asserted that the windshields "do meet all other regulations." You suggested that you ought to be permitted to import these windshields even though they are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205, because the windshields wil l only fit buses manufactured between 1955 and 1962, whereas Standard No. 205 did not become effective until January 1, 1968. This suggestion is incorrect. Your company is prohibited by Federal law from importing or selling windshields that are not cer tified as complying with Standard No. 205 if the windshields were manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

I have recently discussed this topic at length in a September 12, 1988 letter to Mr. Steve Zlotkin (copy enclosed). To briefly repeat, Standard No. 205 requires all items of glazing material for use in motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of the standard) to comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. It is the date of manufacture of the glazing material itself, not the date of manufacture of the vehicle in which the glazing material will be inst alled, that determines whether the glazing material must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205.

Your letter indicated that your company conferred with Mr. Francis Armstrong, formerly the director of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, and that you "were given permission" to import similar windshields in 1985. I regret any misunderstanding you may have had of the long-established agency position on this question as a result of this conference. The agency's interpretation that it is the date of manufacture of the glazing that determines whether it is subject to Standard No. 205, not the date of manufacture of the vehicle in which the glazing is to be installed, was first announced in a May 8, 1967 letter to Mr. Earl Kintner (copy enclosed). Every time the agency has been

asked this question for the past 21 years, it has repeated the position originally taken in the letter to Mr. Kintner. If anyone in this agency has ever given you or your company a different response to this question, the response did not reflect the ag ency's position.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: 3260o

Mr. Richard R. Lender
President
Coachland, inc.
3361 Lansing Road, Rt. 7
Charlotte, MI 48813

Dear Mr. Lender:

This responds to your November 10, 1988 letter concerning the importation of windshields for vintage buses produced from 1955 through 1962. You indicated that these windshields are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), but asserted that the windshields "do meet all other regulations." You suggested that you ought to be permitted to import these windshields even though they are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205, because the windshields will only fit buses manufactured between 1955 and 1962, whereas Standard No. 205 did not become effective until January 1, 1968. This suggestion is incorrect. Your company is prohibited by Federal law from importing or selling windshields that are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205 if the windshields were manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

I have recently discussed this topic at length in a September 12, 1988 letter to Mr. Steve Zlotkin (copy enclosed). To briefly repeat, Standard No. 205 requires all items of glazing material for use in motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of the standard) to comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. It is the date of manufacture of the glazing material itself, not the date of manufacture of the vehicle in which the glazing material will be installed, that determines whether the glazing material must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205.

Your letter indicated that your company conferred with Mr. Francis Armstrong, formerly the director of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, and that you "were given permission" to import similar windshields in 1985. I regret any misunderstanding you may have had of the long-established agency position on this question as a result of this conference. The agency's interpretation that it is the date of manufacture of the glazing that determines whether it is subject to Standard No. 205, not the date of manufacture of the vehicle in which the glazing is to be installed, was first announced in a May 8, 1967 letter to Mr. Earl Kintner (copy enclosed). Every time the agency has been asked this question for the past 21 years, it has repeated the position originally taken in the letter to Mr. Kintner. If anyone in this agency has ever given you or your company a different response to this question, the response did not reflect the agency's position.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:205 d:l2/9/88

ID: 3314o

Mr. Richard R. Lender
President
Coachland, inc.
3361 Lansing Road, Rt. 7
Charlotte, MI 48813

Dear Mr. Lender:

This responds to your November 10, 1988 letter concerning the importation of windshields for vintage buses produced from 1955 through 1962. You indicated that these windshields are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), but asserted that the windshields "do meet all other regulations." You suggested that you ought to be permitted to import these windshields even though they are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205, because the windshields will only fit buses manufactured between 1955 and 1962, whereas Standard No. 205 did not become effective until January 1, 1968. This suggestion is incorrect. Your company is prohibited by Federal law from importing or selling windshields that are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205 if the windshields were manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

I have recently discussed this topic at length in a September 12, 1988 letter to Mr. Steve Zlotkin (copy enclosed). To briefly repeat, Standard No. 205 requires all items of glazing material for use in motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of the standard) to comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. It is the date of manufacture of the glazing material itself, not the date of manufacture of the vehicle in which the glazing material will be installed, that determines whether the glazing material must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205.

Your letter indicated that your company conferred with Mr. Francis Armstrong, formerly the director of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, and that you "were given permission" to import similar windshields in 1985. I regret any misunderstanding you may have had of the long-established agency position on this question as a result of this conference. The agency's interpretation that it is the date of manufacture of the glazing that determines whether it is subject to Standard No. 205, not the date of manufacture of the vehicle in which the glazing is to be installed, was first announced in a May 8, 1967 letter to Mr. Earl Kintner (copy enclosed). Every time the agency has been asked this question for the past 21 years, it has repeated the position originally taken in the letter to Mr. Kintner. If anyone in this agency has ever given you or your company a different response to this question, the response did not reflect the agency's position.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:205 d:l2/9/88

ID: nht92-6.49

DATE: May 19, 1992

FROM: Walter T. Jakobowski -- President, Signal Dynamics Corporation

TO: Jamie McLaughlin Fish -- Director, Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to Walter T. Jakobowski (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Last October I met with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your staff, and several other staff members of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce my company's collision avoidance system to your Agency, and to discuss the proper course of action to legally use our safety device for automotive and motorcycle safety.

By way of background, Signal Dynamics has developed and patented a Safety System designed to help prevent rear end collisions. We have demonstrated this Safety System to many of the automotive, insurance, safety institutes, congressional representatives, police and local agencies. Without exception this safety item has been well received, and they are sincerely interested in seeing further development of this system.

Our corporation research shows that this Safety System can help prevent rear-end accidents. However, we have solicited independent research firms that will conduct unbias effectiveness tests to determine the value of this Safety System. It is our intention at the conclusion of these tests to present the findings to N.H.T.S.A. for consideration an to petition for a change to the Federal Code, based on the submitted Data.

In the October meeting, Mr. Vinson's position was that we could conduct testing with fleet and privately owned vehicles, because "fleet owners" are considered as individuals and therefore have the right to modify their vehicle as desired after manufacturing. Accordingly, this then does provide relief from the Federal law, so that we may proceed with the testing.

At this time we have independent research firms that are ready to proceed with testing of our Safety System. However their legal council has requested that we obtain a written legal position from your agency, with the opinion as stated by Mr. Taylor, prior to commencement of testing.

Therefore Mr. Fish, on behalf of Signal Dynamics Corporation, I am requesting N.H.T.S.A. legal position/opinion on the after market installation of safety device on privately owned, and fleet operated vehicles, so that we may begin the immediate testing of this Safety System.

I sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your early response.